ePluribus Media Community || Homeland's "2SR" reorganization about domestic spying?

Homeland's "2SR" reorganization about domestic spying?

Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 03:56:05 PM EST

Chertoff's Second Stage Review of Homeland Security (2SR) is a plan for a major re-organization of the Bureaucracy of DHS. In trying to find out what might happen to FEMA, I stumbled across a chilling, if speculative, possibility: DHS could become home to domestic intelligence operations. (2SR appears to be based, in large part, on a December 2004 the Heritage Foundation in a document called DHS 2.0: Rethinking the Department of Homeland Security )

commentary :: :: :: buzz-it!

While trying to locate some Congressional Research Service documents, I ran across this quote in Remaking Domestic Intelligence, by Richard A. Posner, available from the Hoover Institution. It's available online entirely as PDFs.

The quotes below are from this pdf:
http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publications/books/fulltext/remaking/51.pdf

pp. 61 (11 in pdf)

The planned reorganization of DHS announced recently by Secretary Chertoff will, as we'll see, simplify the creation of a domestic intelligence agency within the department.

Holy crap.

page 70 (20 in pdf)

The system of domestic intelligence sketched above could be largely or perhaps even entirely created by Presidential executive order. The largest of the nation's intelligence agencies, the National Security Agency, was created by Presidential executive order rather than by an Act of Congress.24
Even an order by the Secretary of Homeland Security might suffice to transform the department's Office of Intelligence and Analysis (successor to the Information Analysis Division) into a full-fledged domestic intelligence agency, much as the Defense Intelligence Agency was created by order of the Secretary of Defense.

Now, this isn't a document that directly lead to policy, like the Heritage/CSIS document. But it's the first I've seen of the Domestic Intelligence angle to the 2SR.

Is this why Kerik, then Chertoff were chosen to lead Homeland Security? After all, the DHS 2.0 report by Heritage/CSIS that guided 2SR came before Chertoff was nominated.

Chertoff did help write the Patriot Act (USA Today, 1/11/05)

Chertoff was one of the architects of the USA Patriot Act, which provided law enforcement broader surveillance authority.

Chertoff's thought's on Domestic intelligence:

An Intelligence Giant in the Making WaPo, 11/4/01:

"We are going to have to get used to a new way of thinking," Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff, who is overseeing the investigation of the Sept. 11 attacks, said in an interview. "What we are going to have is a Federal Bureau of Investigation that combines intelligence with effective law enforcement."

Kerik's nomination (which came first) is less clearly intelligence related (in a couple of ways) - but he'd be scary as hell having any input on domestic intelligence.

From Media Matters:

An October 20, 2003, Newsday article quoted Kerik as saying to critics of the Iraq war: "Political criticism is our enemies' best friend."

Kerik's also signatory to a letter to congress in support of the Patriot Act by a group called "Americans for Victory over Terrorism":

Editors Note: What follows is a letter to Congress from the newly formed Coalition for Security, Liberty and the Law, representing dozens of leaders in law enforcement, the legal community, think tanks, and public opinion. The debate over the Patriot Act typically focuses on its opponents -- lead, most prominently, by the American Civil Liberties Union. This new coalition aims to change that -- so that people who appreciate the contribution the Patriot Act is making to American security are heard.

Homeland's "2SR" reorganization about domestic spying? | 21 comments (21 topical, 0 hidden)

Is this cross-posted anywhere? (5.00 / 3) (#1)

'Cause if it isn't, it needs to be.

I saw this promoted in Cho's comment in BenGoshi's "The Bastard's Scared" diary over at Daily Kos.

I posted a comment there, and I posted in my diary on the VIPR program, of the 12 current programs that each have one or more active projects being operated by the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
by wanderindiana on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 04:35:33 PM EST

: The two commentaries go together (none / 0) (#5)

Both of them expand and shed light on each other.
"Chilling" as Eric says.

by Cho on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 05:22:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

To Our Readers: An Action Request (5.00 / 2) (#2)

We've been working on the 2SR (Second Stage Review) plan in regards to FEMA for quite a while now, and discovered this portion of the plan in the course of that research.

Congress is moving on Chertoff's plan, and there is a bill, HR 4009, that is currently sitting in committee. Any and all legislation that further strengthens the DHS' domestic intelligence gathering capabilities must be stopped. Consider it an end-run around the USA-PATRIOT Act, as the Homeland Security Act of 2002 has given Chertoff power to do much--but there are some changes that still need Congressional approval.

Bill Summary and Status for HR 4009
Title: To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct comprehensive examinations of the human resource capabilities and needs, organizational structure, innovation and improvement plans, intelligence and information analysis capabilities and resources, infrastructure capabilities and resources, budget, and other elements of the homeland security program and policies of the United States.
Sponsor: Rep Thompson, Bennie G. [MS-2] (introduced 10/6/2005) Cosponsors (13)
Latest Major Action: 10/7/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines.

No companion bill in the Senate as far as I can tell.

Please call your Representatives and ask them to stop Chertoff's 2SR plan and reject HR 4009.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
by wanderindiana on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 04:51:58 PM EST

: Re: HR 4009 (none / 0) (#18)

I've found a document that suggests HR 4009 is meant to stop some of Chertoff's 2SR "reforms".
http://www.govexec.com/pdfs/DHSReformAct.doc
Please do not ask your Representatives to reject HR 4009; rather, ask them if they support it or the 2SR plans, and give your opinion accordingly.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
by wanderindiana on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 06:34:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

More Required Reading on 2SR (5.00 / 1) (#3)

Another Congressional Research Service report, RL33042, released in August 2005, turns the 2SR plan inside-out.

Our Congress has had the research done on Chertoff's 2SR, and they should be well aware of the DHS' domestic intelligence programs -- don't let them support spying on our own citizens!
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
by wanderindiana on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 05:01:23 PM EST

congratulations (5.00 / 1) (#4)

This is a real contribution to the ongoing revelations. More evidence that this is a defining moment: if Bush gets support for his announcement Saturday that he authorized domestic spying, and those who oppose him are endangering Americans, then this wide ranging reorganization of government and corporate power into a totalitarian state will go unchecked.

by Captain Future on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 05:11:47 PM EST

Just hope people see this. (5.00 / 1) (#6)

Eric and luaptifer have done a great deal of work on 2SR, with myself and a few others contributing.

What we need right now is for people to learn about this effort . Any support you can provide in spreading the word would be greatly appreciated.

Portions of RL32863 (the recent Congressional Research Service report on DHS funding) referring to domestic intelligence operations:

The conferees, pursuant to the Secretary Chertoff's organizational restructuring program that was provided to the Congress on July 13, 2005, propose to disband the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection (IAIP) Directorate. The conferees propose transferring the functions that existed within the erstwhile IAIP Directorate to, among other entities, the newly established Preparedness Directorate within Title III and two new Offices within Title I -- the Office of Intelligence and Analysis and the Office of Operations Coordination. As such, the activities of Information Analysis (IA) and Infrastructure Protection (IP), formerly under Title IV, Research and Development, Training, Assessments and Services of the DHS appropriations bills, would be separated. The information analysis and operations coordination activities would be funded through a new Analysis and Operations bureau under which the new Operating Expenses account appears in the Conference agreement.
Within the H.R. 2360, as approved by conferees, the information analysis functions would fall within Title I - Departmental Management Operations. Organizationally, under Secretary Chertoff's restructuring plan, DHS proposed that the former Assistant Secretary for Intelligence Analysis position be replaced with a Chief Intelligence Officer position, which would report directly to the Secretary. The proposed Office of Intelligence and Analysis will be "...comprised of analysts within the former Information Analysis Directorate and draw upon the expertise of other DHS components with intelligence collection and analysis operations."

And the following:

Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection (IAIP)
The historical mission of the DHS IAIP, in short, was to

integrate and analyze terrorist threat information;

map threat information against physical and cyber vulnerabilities of the Nation's critical infrastructure and key assets; and

implement and/or recommend actions that protect the lives of the American people and ensure the national and economic security of the United States.
The IAIP appropriation was divided into two primary accounts: Management and Administration, and Assessments and Evaluations. Management and Administration includes budgets for the Office of the Under Secretary and Other Salaries and Expenses. The latter (Other Salaries and Expenses) includes all the personnel costs of the Directorate. The Assessment and Evaluations budget supports the directorate's activities. These activities have been divided into 12 programs. Each program contains one or more projects. Projects are defined with varying degrees of specificity. The Directorate's budget justification document breaks funding down to the program level. It is beyond the scope of this report to discuss in much detail the specific activities associated with each of these programs.
The President's FY2006 IAIP request was $873 million, a decrease of 2.3% from the amounted enacted for FY2005. The House approved $853 million for IAIP, about $20 million below what the Administration requested. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $871 million for IAIP. Table 11 summarizes the President's request and congressional action for each account and program.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
by wanderindiana on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 05:26:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

: Two More Programs to Watch (none / 0) (#8)

I also found interesting references to the "Homeland Secure Data Network" and the "National Control Systems Test Center," among others related to cyber security, in the CRS report linked upthread.
The Homeland Secure Data Network was announced in April 2004:

The Homeland Security Department has awarded Northrop Grumman a $350 million contract to design, build and maintain a secret communications network for classified information, reports Federal Computer Weekly. The new Homeland Secure Data Network (HSDN) will allow the agency to rely less on external networks, with the first phase of construction completed by the end of this year. Unfortunately for the HSN, country wide interest in the MATRIX (Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange) continues to wane because of privacy concerns. The Matrix is a national database accessible only to law enforcement via secure fiber, which would allow law enforcement quick access to records from all participating states.
However, Google only displays 2 of 10 hits on "National Control Systems Test Center". Both of the hits that are displayed are related to the above CRS report. People need to dig on this new program--ask your Representatives and Senators for more information.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
by wanderindiana on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 07:13:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Another of Eric's findings (5.00 / 1) (#7)

I hope Eric won't mind my posting this other excerpt from the Hoover Document about 2SR and Domestic intelligence (pp. 64-65):

Two disadvantages of the DHS siting option should be noted. The first is that the department is still suffering from acute growing pains; working for DHS is not considered a good way of polishing one's re´sume´ .
[...]
A related disadvantage concerns the bureaucratic structure of DHS. There is an Undersecretary for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection but also an Assistant Secretary for Information Analysis, and it is the latter whom the Intelligence Reform Act designates as the head of DHS intelligence. To place the new agency under that assistant secretary, who in turn reports to the undersecretary, would unduly complicate the command/control structure (for remember that all federal intelligence agencies now also report to the DNI).
This problem, however, will be solved by the reorganization announced by Secretary Chertoff.
[snip Chertoff quote]
Thus, under the reorganization the Assistant Secretary for Information Analysis--who would be the logical person to head up a domestic intelligence agency within the Department--will be reporting directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security, a welcome simplification of the command structure.

Welcome, that is, if you want to increase and strengthen the domestic spying capabilities of the Department of Homeland Security.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
by wanderindiana on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 05:33:17 PM EST

Sorry, but this doesn't hold water for me (1.00 / 1) (#9)

The key argument in this thread is by and large not credible. A domestic intelligence agency in DHS? That's not news. It's what was written into law in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and led to the formation of the "Intelligence Analysis" (IA) office in the IAIP directorate. This has been a weak group since 2003 - trumped by both the CIA with the creation of TTIC and the FBI with the creation of the Terrorist Screening Center - but it's been there in plain sight, consistent with existing law.

With the second-stage review, Chertoff wasn't planning to create a new domestic intelligence agency. He was planning on reorganizing the boxes in the org chart to create a Chief Intelligence Officer as a way to strengthen the existing IA office, but not giving it any new powers - only still the powers that are already written into law in the Homeland Security Act, and using the office primarily as a way to make sure that all of the Department's existing intelligence assets - in legacy Customs, the Coast Guard, TSA, etc. - were actually talking to each other. He has named Charlie Allen, a very credible and nonpartisan 45-year veteran of the intelligence to take this position. A recent article about him is here, which describes the entire context of what I'm talking about:

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1205/121405mm.htm

There are plenty of things to be concerned about these days, but I personally don't think this is one of them.

Homeland Security Watch: http://www.hlswatch.com/

by hlswatch on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 11:18:49 AM EST

Also, your connection with CSIS (5.00 / 1) (#12)

Hlswatch, 2SR came from recommendations and reports done primarily by the Heritage Foundation and CSIS. On your website you disclose that you worked for CSIS. I think readers should be aware of this as they are reading your comment, don't you?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
by wanderindiana on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 12:45:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Fair enough (4.00 / 1) (#13)

Now you have disclosed it. But since my first comment did not discuss the DHS 2.0 report, instead focusing on activities inside DHS and the 2SR, I did not think it was relevant. And I think the fact that I linked to my blog, which openly identifies who I am, is more transparent than 99% of people who post comments on any given blog.

by hlswatch on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 01:04:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

: Flattered to have attracted your attention. (none / 0) (#16)

We must have struck a nerve.
It reminds me of when Mike Krempasky started hanging around Daily Kos at the beginning of the Jeff Gannon investigation. You guys only show up when we're onto something.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
by wanderindiana on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 01:08:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

hlswatch... thanks for the link (none / 0) (#10)

and the thoughtful observations.

Welcome to the discussion, appreciate your insights.

by Cho on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 12:22:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

More "disclosure". (5.00 / 1) (#17)

This guy is no small potatoes.

Google him and you will find that also among his credits is "Senior Advisor to Civitas Group llc", "a 'new consulting firm that will offer a full range of advisory services to private sector and government clients in the homeland security field.'"

Here we are, a bunch of regular Joes, and we get the attention of a K Street bigshot. Think about that when you are reading what we are reporting. Who's watching who?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
by wanderindiana on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 01:24:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Be careful. (none / 0) (#14)

This guy has a history of working for the people who helped come up with 2SR. He might have even been directly involved--I'm checking into that. His posts are going to be an attempt to dissuade people from taking action, and he has already taken an argument tactic that attempts to discredit Eric but, in fact, he is making unsupported statements in direct opposition to a Hoover Institution analysis of 2SR.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
by wanderindiana on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 01:06:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

: He WAS directly involved. (none / 0) (#19)

Link

The think tank community has supported this idea in publications such as the CSIS/Heritage DHS 2.0 report. (Full disclosure: I participated in the task force that developed that report).
When directly challenged on this two months ago, Christian Beckner (or someone doing a good imitation) did not respond to my challenge that he might have been directly involved in the Heritage Foundation/CSIS "DHS 2.0" report.
And while I didn't find this until the end of February, on January 9, 2006, Beckner admitted his involvement on his own blog (perhaps out of guilt from failing to do so here?).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
by wanderindiana on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 01:42:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What else can you tell us about IAIP? (none / 0) (#11)

I've made the point in the comment just above yours that this is about increasing and strengthening DHS' domestic intelligence capabilities, and in others that IAIP is an ongoing concern with 12 distinct programs, each with one or more active projects.

What is striking and what I think most people don't understand:

for one, that these programs exist;

that the Secretary of Homeland Security, by way of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, was granted broad reorganizational powers;

that despite the Secretary's powers under HSA of 2002, some changes must be done through Congressional action.

Chertoff has never released a complete hard copy of his 2SR plan--he has only announced the goals of it.

At a time when we are learning more and more each day about the domestic intelligence activities of multiple agencies and departments against innocent citizens, we must give more scrutiny to Chertoff's actions.

Perhaps the statement "new agency" is misleading, but with Chertoff's powers, it is within the realm of possibility after any 2SR reorganizational changes go into effect.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
by wanderindiana on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 12:41:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

: Not much (none / 0) (#15)

If you want to learn more about IAIP, this somewhat dated DHS OIG report on the directorate is a good place to start:
http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interweb/assetlibrary/OIG_SurveyIAIP_0204.pdf

by hlswatch on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 01:08:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

USA Today article 3.15.07 (Ides of March) (none / 0) (#20)

This was buried deep in section A of USA Today (3/15/07)

Homeland Security team to focus on U.S. terrorists

WASHINGTON -- The Homeland Security Department said Wednesday it has created a unit to combat the threat posed by "homegrown terrorists" -- citizens or legal residents who plot attacks from inside the nation's borders.
"This phenomenon presents a real and serious challenge to our nation," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told a Senate panel.

...

Homeland's Chief Intelligence Officer Charles Allen's new unit will address all forms of extremist activity but will focus mainly on the threat from radicalized Muslims.

Classic magician's misdirection. Fired Prosecutors? Look at the Muslims!
Moseys with scissors
by HeyThereItsEric on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 05:21:39 PM EST

: More on Chief Intelligence Officer Charles Allen: (none / 0) (#21)

If DHS turns to domestic spying (as opposed to threat analysis), this guy seems like he's got the skills.
Reputations Are Mostly at Stake as Talk on C.I.A. Report Turns to How Much to Reveal
New York Times, The (NY)
August 27, 2005
Author: SCOTT SHANE

Mr. Tenet's supporters say the inspector general report is seriously flawed because his investigators never talked to policy makers to get their views on the C.I.A.'s performance. Even some key people inside the agency were not interviewed, they say, including Charles E. Allen, whose title in 2001 was assistant director of central intelligence for collection.
In 1998, after Al Qaeda's bombing of two American embassies in East Africa, it was Mr. Allen whom Mr. Tenet assigned to organize the agency's efforts against the terrorist network, according to testimony Mr. Tenet gave last year. He said that at the advice of Mr. Allen, he created a special unit with officers from the C.I.A., the eavesdropping National Security Agency and the satellite photo agency to meet daily and focus on Al Qaeda's leaders and headquarters in Afghanistan.
The big question: is this going to be an analysis shop or will it gather its own intelligence? Does this have to do with new definitions of terrorism that seem to include regular domestic dissent? (sorry, I don't have a source on that). Note this quote from the USA today article mentioned above:
Allen said members have found that:
....
*Extremists "manipulate social situations to create perceptions of victimization" and then provoke police or political responses that can be used as propaganda.

This "finding" gives me chills. "Political responses" are not stimulus-response things that can be provoked like provoking a rattlesnake will get one's leg bit. "Political responses that can be used as propaganda" are bad decisions by politicians. Sometimes victims are victims. This "finding" sets up a very creepy mindset. Assuming that any US Citizen or legally resident Muslim whose pain embarrasses the Administration is a terrorist is sick, sick, sick. [Remember, this team "will focus mainly on the threat from radicalized Muslims." (USA Today article)]
Moseys with scissors
by HeyThereItsEric on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 11:19:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]