Privacy group demands Supreme Court halts NSA surveillance programs




A privacy watchdog group on Thursday announced that it will file a petition asking the Supreme Court to vacate the ruling that allows the National Security Agency to gather domestic surveillance data.

At a Restore the Fourth rally in Washington, D.C. on Thursday,  the Domestic Surveillance Project division of the Electronic  Privacy Information Center (EPIC) announced plans to once again  urge the high court to revoke authorization of the NSA spy   programs.  The rally was one of many public events held in  the US to protest the NSA surveillance programs first leaked by  whistleblower Edward Snowden last month.

We believe that the NSA’s collection of domestic  communications contravenes the First and Fourth Amendments to the  United States Constitution, and violates several federal privacy  laws, including the Privacy Act of 1974, and the Foreign  Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 as amended,” the  petition reads.

We ask the NSA to immediately suspend collection of solely  domestic communications pending the competition of a public  rulemaking as required by law. We intend to renew our request  each week until we receive your response,” the petition  continues.

Nearly 2,000 US residents have signed the EPIC petition, which is  addressed to NSA Director General Keith B. Alexander and Defense  Secretary Chuck Hagel. A previous petition filed on June 17  received no response from the government.

As the privacy group announced its plans, crowds across the US  gathered on the July 4 holiday to protest the NSA surveillance  programs. More than 400 people gathered at Restore the Fourth  events in New York and Washington, and about 300 gathered in San  Francisco. Americans gathered in about 100 other cities, holding  signs and chanting in opposition of domestic spying. Organizers  of the rallies told Reuters that about 10,000 people were  expected to rally for their cause on Thursday.

Happy Fourth of July! Immediately stop your unconstitutional  spying on the world’s Internet users – The People,” read a  statement on the Restore the Fourth website.

The NSA’s programs have also sparked outrage and generated  lawsuits and petitions from a number of other Americans and  privacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union. The  ACLU’s lawsuit differs from EPIC’s petition by claiming that the  agency’s programs violate the First Amendment, with no mention of  the Fourth Amendment.

But with multiple documents filed against the agency and EPIC  pledging to file new documents every week, it may become more  difficult for the NSA to ignore the complaints.

EPIC truly believes that this Foreign Intelligence  Surveillance Court exceeded its authority, is not acting in  accordance with the law and needs to be overturned — and cannot  be allowed to continue conducting this surveillance,” Amie  Stepanovich, director of EPIC’s Domestic Surveillance Project,  told ThinkProgress.

The privacy group plans to file its petition on Monday.


The American Civil Liberties Union sued the US Government, after it became known that the National Security Agency has routinely received phone call data pertaining to millions of customers subscribed to the telecom company Verizon.

The Guardian newspaper revealed a Foreign Intelligence  Surveillance Court document compelling Verizon to provide the NSA  with metadata on the phone calls of subscribers on a daily basis.  Journalist Glenn Greenwald has since published more details about  the NSA’s doings, and last week a 29-year-old former CIA  contractor named Edward Snowden took credit for the leaks. He has  since gone into hiding and is the target of a Department of  Justice investigation.
Critics are calling the NSA’s practice an example of blanketing,  dragnet surveillance that has the potential to freeze First and  Fourth Amendment rights, while others are coming forward with  their own lawsuits.
Larry Klayman, the founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch,  filed a lawsuit together with Charles and Mary Ann Strange, the  parents of Navy SEAL Michael Strange, who was killed in  Afghanistan in 2011.
According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege they were  denied “reasonable expectation of privacy, free speech and  association, right to be free of unreasonable searches and  seizures, and due process rights.” The complaint goes on to  say their phone records were accessed in particular because of  their “criticism of the Obama administration.”  
Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Justin Amash have indicated that they  want class action lawsuits against the NSA to reach the Supreme  Court.
Meanwhile, 85 groups — including Reddit, the Mozilla Foundation,  and the Electronic Frontier Foundation — formed Stop Watching Us,  which started a petition against PRISM, the NSA’s online  data-mining program. The petition reads: “The revelations  about the National Security Agency’s surveillance apparatus, if  true, represent a stunning abuse of our basic rights. We demand  the US Congress reveal the full extent of the NSA’s spying   programs.”  Now the ACLU wants the program stopped altogether, and is taking  their fight to federal court.

  The battle begins

ACLU, the non-profit organization, asked the United States  District Court for the Southern District of New York to examine  the NSA/Verizon scandal leaked by Snowden, condemning the  revelations as illegal, unconstitutional and alarming.
“Collecting those details — ‘metadata’ that reveals who people  talk to, for how long, how often and possibly from where — allows  the government to paint an alarmingly detailed picture of  Americans’ private lives,” ACLU legal fellow Brett Kaufman  wrote in a blog post that accompanied a copy of the complaint.
Kauffman said that the ACLU should have good standing to  challenge the collection of phone data because the group is a  customer of Verizon Business Network Services, suggesting the  government has been able to regularly see who staffers  communicate with other information that could be used to target  persons without demonstrating probable cause.
“As an organization that advocates for and litigates to defend  the civil liberties of society’s most vulnerable, the staff at  the ACLU naturally use the phone — a lot — to talk about  sensitive and confidential topics with clients, legislators,  whistleblowers and ACLU members,” Kauffman wrote. “And  since the ACLU is a VBNS customer, we were immediately confronted  with the harmful impact that such broad surveillance would have  on our legal and advocacy work.” 
Kaufmann went on to call the collection of photo data  demonstrates the government’s abuse of Section 215, a provision  in the post-9/11 Patriot Act that allows the Justice Department  to collect intelligence involving US citizens via a modification  to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The ACLU wants the  court to acknowledge that the mass call tracking program operated  by the NSA violates Section 215 and have the call records purged.
“The ACLU’s complaint filed today explains that the dragnet  surveillance the government is carrying out under Section 215  infringes upon the ACLU’s First Amendment rights, including the  twin liberties of free expression and free association. The  nature of the ACLU’s work — in areas like access to reproductive  services, racial discrimination, the rights of immigrants,  national security and more — means that many of the people who  call the ACLU wish to keep their contact with the organization  confidential. Yet if the government is collecting a vast trove of  ACLU phone records—and it has reportedly been doing so for as  long as seven years — many people may reasonably think twice  before communicating with us.”  
In the actual 11-page document, ACLU attorneys are much clearer  with how they believe the mass tracking of phone records hinders  them from doing their job in full.
In ongoing litigation, plaintiffs often communicate with  potential witnesses, informants or sources who regard the fact of  their association or affiliation with plaintiffs as confidential.  Particularly in their work relating to national security, access  to reproductive services, racial discrimination, the rights of  immigrants and discrimination based on sexual orientation and  gender identity, plaintiffs’ work often depends on their ability  to keep even the fact of their discussions with certain  individuals confidential.

Similarly, plaintiffs often communicate  with government and industry whistleblowers, lobbyists,  journalists and possible advocacy partners who consider the  confidentiality of their associations with plaintiffs essential  to their work.” 
Often, the mere fact that plaintiffs have communicated with  these individuals is sensitive or privileged,” the complaint  alleges.
President Barack Obama has defended the program since the leaks  emerged last week, both personally and through the White House  press secretary. The lawsuit lists FBI Director Robert Mueller,  Attorney General Eric Holder, Director of National Intelligence  James Clapper, NSA Director Keith Alexander and the Central  Intelligence Agency’s Chuck Hagel as defendants.
Hours before the lawsuit came out on Tuesday, White House press  secretary Jay Carney spoke highly of the NSA’s programs.
“As you heard the president say on Friday, he believes that we  must strike a balance between our security interests and our  desire for privacy,” said Carney.

He made clear that you  cannot have 100 percent security and 100 percent privacy, and  thus we need to find that balance.”  “He believes, as commander-in-chief, that the oversight  structures that are in place to ensure that there is the proper  review of the types of programs we have in place, authorized by  Congress through the PATRIOT Act and FISA, do strike that  balance,” he said.

17_si  Above is U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn (2nd R).

Obama administration bypasses CISPA by secretly allowing Internet surveillance

Scared that CISPA might pass? The federal government is already using a secretive cybersecurity program to monitor online traffic and enforce CISPA-like data sharing between Internet service providers and the Department of Defense.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center has obtained over 1,000 pages of documents pertaining to the United States government’s use of a cybersecurity program after filing a Freedom of Information Act request, and CNET reporter Declan McCullagh says those pages show how the Pentagon has secretly helped push for increased Internet surveillance.

“Senior Obama administration officials have secretly authorized the interception of communications carried on portions of networks operated by AT&T and other Internet service providers, a practice that might otherwise be illegal under federal wiretapping laws,” McCullagh writes.

That practice, McCullagh recalls, was first revealed when Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn disclosed the existence of the Defense Industrial Base (DIB) Cyber Pilot in June 2011. At the time, the Pentagon said the program would allow the government to help the defense industry safeguard the information on their computer systems by sharing classified threat information between the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security and the Internet service providers (ISP) that keep government contractors online.

“Our defense industrial base is critical to our military effectiveness. Their networks hold valuable information about our weapons systems and their capabilities,” Lynn said. “The theft of design data and engineering information from within these networks greatly undermines the technological edge we hold over potential adversaries.”

Just last week the US House of Representatives voted in favor of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, or CISPA — a legislation that, if signed into law, would allow ISPs and private Internet companies across the country like Facebook and Google to share similar threat data with the federal government without being held liable for violating their customers’ privacy. As it turns out, however, the DIB Cyber Pilot has expanded exponentially in recent months, suggesting that a significant chunk of Internet traffic is already subjected to governmental monitoring.

In May 2012, less than a year after the pilot was first unveiled, the Defense Department announced the expansion of the DIB program. Then this past January, McCullagh says it was renamed the Enhanced Cybersecurity Services (ECS) and opened up to a larger number of companies — not just DoD contractors. An executive order signed by US President Barack Obama earlier this year will let all critical infrastructure companies sign-on to ECS starting this June, likely in turn bringing on board entities in energy, healthcare, communication and finance.

Although the 1,000-plus pages obtained in the FOIA request haven’t been posted in full on the Web just yet, a sampling of that trove published by EPIC on Wednesday begins to show just exactly how severe the Pentagon’s efforts to eavesdrop on Web traffic have been.

In one document, a December 2011 slideshow on the legal policies and practices regarding the monitoring of Web traffic on DIB-linked systems, the Pentagon instructs the administrators of those third-party computer networks on how to implement the program and, as a result, erode their customers’ expectation of privacy.

In one slide, the Pentagon explains to ISPs and other system administrators how to be clear in letting their customers know that their traffic was being fed to the government. Key elements to keep in mind, wrote the Defense Department, was that DIB “expressly covers monitoring of data and communications in transit rather than just accessing data at rest.”

“[T]hat information transiting or stored on the system may be disclosed for any purpose, including to the government,” it continued. Companies participating in the pilot program were told to let users know that monitoring would exist “for any purpose,” and that users have no expectation of privacy regarding communications or data stored on the system.

According to the 2011 press release on the DIB Cyber Pilot, “the government will not monitor, intercept or store any private-sector communications through the program.” In a privacy impact assessment of the ECS program that was published in January by the DHS though, it’s revealed that not only is information monitored, but among the data collected by investigators could be personally identifiable information, including the header info from suspicious emails. That would mean the government sees and stores who you communicate with and what kind of subject lines are used during correspondence.

The DHS says that personally identifiable information could be retained if analytically relevant to understanding the cyber threat” in question.

Meanwhile, the lawmakers in Congress that overwhelmingly approved CISPA just last week could arguably use a refresher in what constitutes a cyberthreat. Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) told his colleagues on the Hill that “Recent events in Boston demonstrate that we have to come together as Republicans and Democrats to get this done,” and Rep. Dan Maffei (D-New York) made unfounded claims during Thursday’s debate that the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks is pursuing efforts to “hack into our nation’s power grid.”

Should CISPA be signed into law, telecommunication companies will be encouraged to share Internet data with the DHS and Department of Justice for so-called national security purposes. But even if the president pursues a veto as his advisers have suggested, McCullagh says few will be safe from this secretive cybersecurity operation already in place.

The tome of FOIA pages, McCullagh says, shows that the Justice Department has actively assisted telecoms as of late by letting them off the hook for Wiretap Act violations. Since the sharing of data between ISPs and the government under the DIB program and now ECS violates federal statute, the Justice Department has reportedly issued an undeterminable number of “2511 letters” to telecoms: essentially written approval to ignore provisions of the Wiretap Act in exchange for immunity.

“The Justice Department is helping private companies evade federal wiretap laws,” EPIC Executive Director Marc Rotenberg tells CNET. “Alarm bells should be going off.”

In an internal Justice Department email cited by McCullagh, Associate Deputy Attorney General James Baker is alleged to write that ISPs will likely request 2511 letters and the ECS-participating companies “would be required to change their banners to reference government monitoring.”

These agencies are clearly seeking authority to receive a large amount of information, including personal information, from private Internet networks,” EPIC staff attorney Amie Stepanovich adds to CNET. “If this program was broadly deployed, it would raise serious questions about government cybersecurity practices.”


FBI sued over secretive mass surveillance program

A privacy watchdog group is suing the FBI over the agency’s failure to fulfill Freedom of Information Act requests for documents involving a secretive and expansive database that could be used to track down anyone, anywhere and at any time.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed the complaint [PDF] (  ) in United States District Court for the District of Columbia on Monday, suing the Federal Bureau of Investigation for failing to comply with a pair of FOIA request placed more than six months ago.

Last September, EPIC asked the FBI to explain their Next Generation Identification,” or “NGI” program, a system that’s been building a database of biometric data such as DNA profiles, mug shots and iris scans in order to give law enforcement the ability to track down suspects without relying on more archaic methods. In 2012 the FBI said NGI is already more than 60 percent complete, and Assistant Director Tom Bush of the agency’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division said it will be “bigger, faster, and better” than the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) currently in place.

“Bigger,” the FBI wrote on their website in 2009, “because it will increase the capacity of our fingerprint storage plus house multimodal biometrics records like palm prints and iris scans,” all the while leaving room to accommodate for tracking methods that have yet to be perfected, such as voice analysis. Once the program is fully rolled out, the FBI says they should be able to narrow in on suspects in a matter of only 10 minutes.

The FBI doesn’t want NGI to pull data from just criminal databases, though. Because the agency wants NGI to work with public and private surveillance cameras around the country — of which EPIC estimates there are around 30 million in use at this time — the targets of investigation might not necessarily be the bad guys.

The Department of Homeland Security has expended hundreds of millions of dollars to establish state and local surveillance systems, including CCTV [closed-circuit television] cameras that record the routine activities of millions of individuals,” EPIC writes. The NGI system could be integrated with other surveillance technology, such as Trapwire, that would enable real-time image-matching of live feeds from CCTV surveillance cameras.”

Trapwire, a spy system uncovered by RT last year while analyzing emails hacked emails obtained from the Stratfor private intelligence firm, has already been sold to cities across the US including Washington, DC and New York, and lets customers scan the faces of people caught on surveillance cameras in only seconds. “TrapWire is a technology solution predicated upon behavior patterns in red zones to identify surveillance. It helps you connect the dots over time and distance,” the company said.

And although the FBI publically disclosed their NGI program for the first time nearly a decade ago, the agency has been unwilling this far to honor EPIC’s request for information. The NGI system will include facial recognition capabilities and will include photographs and biometric identified of millions of individuals who are neither criminals nor suspects, EPIC says, and the FBI has already been attempting to import human statistics pulled from the driver’s license profiles of residents in a number of states.

The NGI database will include photographic images of millions of individuals who are neither criminals nor suspects,” write the attorneys for EPIC.

When EPIC attorney Ginger McCall sat down with Thom Hartmann in 2011 to discuss the NGI program on RT’s The Big Picture, she warned of what could happen when the FBI accumulates vast troves of data on people who, in some cases, aren’t even considered suspects in crimes.



“The way that this new database will be set up, it will allow for information to be input from state and local law enforcement,” McCall said. “That information could be brought in from commercial services; it could be brought in from covert surveillance.”

“In the past,” added McCall, “the FBI has had a bit of a problem. They’ve been putting in peaceful protesters and classifying them — misclassifying them — as terrorists. So there’s a lot of problems with these sorts of databases.”

Now half a year since EPIC first filed FOIA requests for records relating to NFI as well as any contracts with commercial entities and technical specifications, they are suing the FBI in order to force them to follow through.

“Defendant has failed to comply with statutory deadlines, has failed to grant expedited review of EPIC’s FOIA Requests, and has failed to disclose a single record. EPIC asks the Court to order immediate disclosure of all responsive records and to provide other appropriate relief as it may determine,” EPIC attorneys McCall, Marc Rotenberg and David Brody write in the complaint, dated April 8, 2013.

“It’s very problematic from a privacy standpoint and a freedom of expression standpoint,” McCall told Hartmann in 2011. “There’s a real chilling effect on freedom of expression when you feel that you’re constantly being surveilled by the government.”


Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act






Spy Dish


Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 prescribes procedures for requesting judicial authorization for electronic surveillance and physical search of persons engaged in espionage or international terrorism against the United States on behalf of a foreign power.

Requests are adjudicated by a special eleven member court called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Below just click on the URLS to get the Documents:

1:   ( FISA Annual Reports to Congress2012 Annual Report, April 30, 2013 )

2:   ( Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court — 2013 Membership )

3:   ( FISC Cites Obstacles to Summarizing Court Opinions, March 27, 2013 (in response to letter from Senate Intelligence Committee, February 13, 2013 )

4:   ( Reauthorization of the FISA Amendments Act, Congressional Research Service, April 8, 2013 )

5:   ( DNI Declassifies Three Statements About Collection under the FISA Amendments Act, letter to Sen. Wyden, July 20, 2012 (Wired story )

6:   ( DNI and Attorney General Urge Renewal of FISA Amendments Act Title VII with background paper, February 8, 2012 )

7:   ( FISA Amendments Act Implementation, documents obtained by ACLU under the Freedom of Information Act, December 2010 )

8:   ( Appeals Court Rejects Challenge to FISA, USA v. Hassan Abu-Jihaad, December 20, 2010 )

9:   ( Court Rejects Motion for Release of FISA Materials, USA v. Kashmiri, November 10, 2010 )

10:   ( FISA Court of Review Opinion upholding surveillance directives under the Protect America Act, August 22, 2008 (with Order to release the Opinion, January 12, 2009) (Secret Court Ruling Put Tech Companies in Data Bind, New York Times, June 13, 2013 )

11:   ( Selected Aspects of the Department of Energy’s Activities Involving the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, DOE Inspector General, May 6, 2009 )

12:   ( Amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Extended Until June 1, 2015, Congressional Research Service, June 16, 2011 )

13:   ( Retroactive Immunity Provided by the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, Congressional Research Service, July 25, 2008 )

14:   ( The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: A Brief Overview of Selected Issues, Congressional Research Service, July 7, 2008 )

15:   ( The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: Comparison of House-Passed H.R. 3773, S. 2248 as Reported By the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and S. 2248 as Reported Out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Congressional Research Service, February 8, 2008 )

16:    ( The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: An Overview of the Statutory Framework and U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review Decisions, Congressional Research Service, updated February 15, 2007 )

17:   ( The U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review: An Overview, Congressional Research Service, January 24, 2007 )

18:   ( Amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 1994-2006, Congressional Research Service, July 19, 2006 )

19:    ( Senate Approves Amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, July 9, 2008 )

20:    ( House Approves Amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, June 20, 2008 )

21:    ( The FISA as amended by the Patriot Act is Unconstitutional, court ruling in Mayfield v. United States, District of Oregon, September 26, 2007 (vacated on appeal, December 10, 2009 )

22:    (FISA Court Will Supervise Cases Formerly Conducted Under the Terrorist Surveillance Program, letter from Attorney General Gonzales to the Senate Judiciary Committee, January 17, 2007 )

ACLU Petitions FIS Court to for Leave to Participate in FISA Amendment Act Proceedings (2008)

A:   ( FIS Court Denies ACLU Motion, August 27, 2008 )

B:  ( ACLU Reply in Support of Motion for Leave to Participate, August 5, 2008 )

C:   ( Govt Opposition to ACLU Motion for Leave to Participate, July 29, 2008 )

D:   ( ACLU Motion for Leave to Participate in Proceedings Required by Sect. 702(i) of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, July 10, 2008 )

ACLU Petitions FIS Court to Release Records (2007)

A:   ( Court Denies ACLU Motion for Release of Records, December 11, 2007 )

B:   ( ACLU Reply in Support of Motion for Release of FIS Court Records, September 14, 2007 )

C:   ( Govt Opposition to ACLU Motion for Release of FIS Court Records, August 31, 2007 )

D:   ( FIS Court Orders Govt to Respond to ACLU Motion for Release, August 16, 2007 )

E:   ( ACLU Motion for Release of Certain FIS Court Records, August 8, 2007 )

1:    ( Modernization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, hearing before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, July 19, 2006 )

2:   ( DOJ/Attorney General Gonzales’ responses to the House Judiciary Committee’s oversight letters regarding the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program, March 24, 2006 )

FISA Court Rules and Procedures

A:    ( Amended Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Rules of Procedure, effective November 1, 2010 )

B:   ( Proposed Amended Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Rules of Procedure, for public comment, August 26, 2010 )

C:   ( Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Rules of Procedure, effective February 17, 2006 )

D:   ( Procedures for Review of Petitions Filed Pursuant to Section 501(f) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, as Amended, May 5, 2006 )

E:   ( Procedures for Review of Petitions Filed Under Section 105(b)(h) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, as Amended, draft (October 2007) )

1:   ( Sen. Pat Roberts on the Constitutionality of Warrantless Electronic Surveillance, letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, February 3, 2006 )

2:   ( Attorney General Gonzales Speech on NSA Surveillance Activity at Georgetown University, January 24, 2006 )

3:    ( Remarks of Gen. Michael V. Hayden, at the National Press Club, January 23, 2006 )

4:   ( Legal Authorities Supporting the Activities of the National Security Agency Described by the President, Department of Justice White Paper, January 19, 2006 )

5:   ( Presidential Authority to Conduct Warrantless Electronic Surveillance to Gather Foreign Intelligence Information, Congressional Research Service, January 5, 2006 )

6:    ( DoJ Letter on Legal Authority for NSA Surveillance from Asst. Attorney General William E. Moschella, December 22, 2005 )

7:   ( A Response to the Justice Department from Law Professors and Former Government Officials, January 9, 2006 )

8:    ( Justice Department Answers to Questions for the Record, transmitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee, October 20, 2005 )

9:    ( NSA Report on Congress on Legal Standards for the Intelligence Community in Conducting Electronic Surveillance, February 2000 )

10:    ( Oversight of NSA Electronic Surveillance Activities, statement of NSA Director Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, April 12, 2000 )

11:    ( Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004: “Lone Wolf” Amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, December 29, 2004 )

12:   ( Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: Selected Legislation from the 108th Congress, Congressional Research Service, 2005 )

13:   ( Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Procedures to Ensure Accuracy (“Woods Procedures”), by Michael J. Woods, FBI Office of General Counsel, April 5, 2001)

14:   ( FBI Director Mueller Explains the Significance of the Woods Procedures, in response to questions from Sen. Patrick Leahy, transmitted August 29, 2003 )

15:   ( US Navy Memo on Changes to FISA due to USA Patriot Act, September 2003 (MS Word version) )

16:    ( “So Judge, How Do I Get That FISA Warrant?”: The Policy and Procedure for Conducting Electronic Surveillance, The Army Lawyer, October 1997 )





Michael Hastings Assassinated for Work Uncovering Surveillance State



Above:  The login screen for Trapwire, software used for intelligence-gathering on U.S. and global citizens and made public in a Wikileaks data dump.

June 20, 2013

The journalist Michael Hastings, who died in what authorities have described as a high-speed car crash, was an active member of Project PM, a crowd-sourced research effort to expose government intelligence contractors.

“If you care that the surveillance state is expanding in capabilities and intent without being effectively opposed by the population of the West, you can assist in making this an actionable resource for journalists, activists, and other interested parties,” the Project PM wiki states. “Consider doing a bit of research on the companies and government agencies listed on this wiki, or even adding new topic for investigation by our participants.”

Barrett Brown, the founder of the initiative, was arrested by the FBI and faces up to 105 years in prison. Brown is described as the “brain trust” for the hacktivist group Anonymous.

Two indictments against Brown are for allegedly “threatening of an FBI officer in a YouTube video and the concealing of evidence,” writes Patrick McGuire for, and “do not seem worthy of such a harsh sentence, considering a man in Houston recieved only 42 months for threatening to blow up an FBI building, and a former dentist got 18 months for threatening to kill an FBI agent. The third, however, pertains to Barrett Brown’s pasting of a link in an Anonymous IRC chat room to a document full of credit card numbers and their authentication codes that was stolen from the security company Stratfor, in the midst of a hack that released over five million internal emails. Those emails were published to Wikileaks.”

Brown’s Stratfor hack revealed the inner workings of Trapwire software. It purportedly acquires video from far-flung surveillance cameras located in stores, casinos and other businesses around the country and uses sophisticated facial recognition software to identify people of interest captured by ubiquitous cameras numbering in the millions.

Trapwire software is a significant breakthrough for the surveillance state. It was uncovered by security researcher Justin Ferguson. He delved into the massive pile of emails hacked by Brown from Stratfor – the Austin-based firm regarded as a shadow CIA – on Christmas of 2011. In response to Ferguson’s discovery and the Trapwire revelation, Wikileaks was hit with a large scale distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack.

Brown discovered the software produced by Trapwire is owned by Cubic, a San Diego company acquired by Abraxas Corporation. Barrett also uncovered tax returns calling into question Cubic’s denial that it is not affiliated with Trapwire and the software.

Abraxas is run by a former CIA spook, Richard Helms (not to be confused with the CIA director under Nixon). He was also one of the original assignees to its Counter Terrorism Center in the mid-1980s.

Moreover, according to Florida State’s records of corporations, Helms is the director of Ntrepid, a company that won a $2.76 million dollar contract from Centcom, the U.S. Central Command. Ntrepid innovated a product called Tartan, a program that can “analyze illicit organizations and less structured social networks by identifying: Ranks of influence within human networks… [and can] end the use of [online] aliases.”

“Clearly they are looking to dismantle the smoke and mirrors that groups like Anonymous maintain, by hanging out in chat rooms where they do not need to identify themselves officially, with many private communications happening at once,” writes McGuire. “This creates a difficult-to-penetrate den, where people can easily hide online. Evidently, Ntrepid is seeking to pull all of that apart with Tartan.”

Michael Hastings’ association with Barrett Brown and his work on Project PM, in addition to his outing a top U.S. general responsible for conducting the war in Afghanistan – a key mantle piece in the manufactured war on terror – undoubtedly put him at risk and resulted in his assassination.

It can no longer be claimed that Hastings was merely the victim of a car accident. He was specifically targeted for his investigative journalism, most recently stories he was developing on the FBI and the CIA, as we noted earlier today.

Obviously, the intelligence and surveillance state is intimately involved in an effort to eliminate whistleblowers and journalists who get too close to the truth. The murder of Michael Hastings should send a chill down the spine of journalists everywhere, especially those in the alternative media.

NSA has massive database of Americans’ phone calls



National Security Agency seal

Below was a pending Lawsuit:

NSA has massive database of Americans’ phone calls

Updated 5/11/2006 10:38 AM ET


From the White House: 

The White House defended its overall eavesdropping program and said no domestic     surveillance is conducted without court approval.

”The intelligence activities undertaken by the United States government are lawful, necessary and required to protect Americans from terrorist attacks,” said Dana Perino, the deputy White House press secretary, who added that appropriate members of Congress have been briefed on intelligence activities.

From Capitol Hill:

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he would call the phone companies to appear before the panel ”to find out exactly what is going on.”     

Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the panel, sounded     incredulous about the latest report and railed against what he called a lack of congressional oversight. He argued that the media was doing the job of  Congress.

”Are you telling me that tens of millions of Americans are involved with al Qaeda?” Leahy asked. ”These are tens of millions of Americans who are not suspected of anything … Where does it stop?”     

The Democrat, who at one point held up a copy of the newspaper, added: ”Shame on us for being so far behind and being so willing to rubber stamp anything this administration does. We ought to fold our tents.”     

The report came as the former NSA director, Gen. Michael Hayden – Bush’s choice to take over leadership of the CIA – had been scheduled to visit lawmakers on Capitol Hill Thursday. However, the meetings with Republican Sens. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska were postponed at the request of the White House, said congressional aides in the two Senate offices.

Source: The Associated Press     



Bush administration officials have said repeatedly that the warrantless surveillance program authorized by President Bush after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks is carefully targeted to include only international calls and e-mails into or out of the USA, and only those that involve at least one party suspected of being a member or ally of al-Qaeda or a related terror group.

Some comments related to what the administration calls the “Terrorist Surveillance Program,” and surveillance in general:

Gen. Michael Hayden, principal deputy director of national intelligence, and now Bush’s nominee to head the CIA, at the National Press Club, Jan. 23, 2006:

“The program … is not a drift net over (U.S. cities such as) Dearborn or Lackawanna or Fremont, grabbing conversations that we then sort out by these  alleged keyword searches or data-mining tools or other devices that so-called experts keep talking about.”     

“This is targeted and focused. This is not about intercepting conversations between people in the United States. This is hot pursuit of communications entering or leaving America involving someone we believe is associated with al-Qaeda. … This is focused. It’s targeted. It’s very carefully done. You shouldn’t worry.”     

Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Feb. 6, 2006:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales: “Only international communications are     authorized for interception under this program. That is, communications between a foreign country and this country. …”  “To protect the privacy of Americans still further, the NSA employs safeguards to minimize the unnecessary collection and dissemination of information about U.S. persons.”     

Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del.: “I don’t understand why you would limit your     eavesdropping only to foreign conversations. …”     

Gonzales: “I believe it’s because of trying to balance concerns that might arise that, in fact, the NSA was engaged in electronic surveillance with respect to domestic calls.”

By Leslie Cauley, USA TODAY

The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T,  Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.

The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren’t     suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: The NSA record collection program     

“It’s the largest database ever assembled in the world,” said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA’s activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency’s goal is “to create a database of every call ever made” within the nation’s borders, this person  added.

For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed     records of calls they made — across town or across the country —  to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others.

The three telecommunications companies are working under contract with the NSA, which launched the program in 2001 shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the sources said. The program is aimed at identifying and tracking suspected terrorists, they said.

The sources would talk only under a guarantee of anonymity because the NSA     program is secret.

Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, nominated Monday by President Bush to become     the director of the CIA, headed the NSA from March 1999 to April 2005. In that post, Hayden would have overseen the agency’s domestic call-tracking program. Hayden declined to comment about the program.

The NSA’s domestic program, as described by sources, is far more expansive than what the White House has acknowledged. Last year, Bush said he had authorized the NSA to eavesdrop — without warrants — on international calls and international e-mails of people suspected of having links to terrorists when one party to the communication is in the USA. Warrants have also not been used in the NSA’s efforts to create a national call database.

In defending the previously disclosed program, Bush insisted that the NSA was focused exclusively on international calls. “In other words,” Bush explained, “one end of the communication must be outside the United States.”     

As a result, domestic call records — those of calls that originate and terminate within U.S. borders — were believed to be private.

Sources, however, say that is not the case. With access to records of billions of domestic calls, the NSA has gained a secret window into the communications habits of millions of Americans. Customers’ names, street addresses and other personal information are not being handed over as part of NSA’s domestic program, the sources said. But the phone numbers the NSA collects can easily be cross-checked with other databases to obtain that information.

Don Weber, a senior spokesman for the NSA, declined to discuss the agency’s     operations. “Given the nature of the work we do, it would be irresponsible to comment on actual or alleged operational issues; therefore, we have no information to provide,” he said. “However, it is important to note that NSA takes its legal responsibilities seriously and operates within the law.”     

The White House would not discuss the domestic call-tracking program. “There is no domestic surveillance without court approval,” said Dana Perino, deputy press secretary, referring to actual eavesdropping.

She added that all national intelligence activities undertaken by the federal     government “are lawful, necessary and required for the pursuit of al-Qaeda and affiliated terrorists.” All government-sponsored intelligence activities “are carefully reviewed and monitored,” Perino said. She also noted that “all appropriate members of Congress have been briefed on the intelligence efforts of the United States.”     

The government is collecting “external” data on domestic phone calls but is not intercepting “internals,” a term for the actual content of the communication, according to a U.S. intelligence official familiar with the program. This kind of data collection from phone companies is not uncommon; it’s been done before, though never on this large a scale, the official said. The data are used for “social network analysis,” the official said, meaning to study how terrorist networks contact each other and how they are tied together.

News Articles:




Carriers uniquely positioned

AT&T recently merged with SBC and kept the AT&T name. Verizon, BellSouth and AT&T are the nation’s three biggest telecommunications companies; they provide local and wireless phone service to more than 200 million customers.

The three carriers control vast networks with the latest communications technologies. They provide an array of services: local and long-distance calling, wireless and high-speed broadband, including video. Their direct access to millions of homes and businesses has them uniquely positioned to help the government keep tabs on the calling habits of Americans.

Among the big telecommunications companies, only Qwest has refused to help the NSA, the sources said. According to multiple sources, Qwest declined to participate because it was uneasy about the legal implications of handing over customer information to the government without warrants.

Qwest’s refusal to participate has left the NSA with a hole in its database. Based in Denver, Qwest provides local phone service to 14 million customers in 14 states in the West and Northwest. But AT&T and Verizon also provide some services — primarily long-distance and wireless — to people who live in Qwest’s region. Therefore, they can provide the NSA with at least some access in that area.

Created by President Truman in 1952, during the Korean War, the NSA is charged     with protecting the United States from foreign security threats. The agency was considered so secret that for years the government refused to even confirm its existence. Government insiders used to joke that NSA stood for “No Such Agency.”     

In 1975, a congressional investigation revealed that the NSA had been intercepting, without warrants, international communications for more than 20 years at the behest of the CIA and other agencies. The spy campaign, code-named “Shamrock,” led to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was designed to protect Americans from illegal eavesdropping.

Enacted in 1978, FISA lays out procedures that the U.S. government must follow to conduct electronic surveillance and physical searches of people believed to be engaged in espionage or international terrorism against the United States. A special court, which has 11 members, is responsible for adjudicating requests under FISA.

Over the years, NSA code-cracking techniques have continued to improve along with technology. The agency today is considered expert in the practice of  “data mining” — sifting through reams of information in search of patterns. Data mining is just one of many tools NSA analysts and mathematicians use to crack codes and track international communications.

Paul Butler, a former U.S. prosecutor who specialized in terrorism crimes, said FISA approval generally isn’t necessary for government data-mining operations. “FISA does not prohibit the government from doing data mining,” said Butler, now a partner with the law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in Washington, D.C.

The caveat, he said, is that “personal identifiers” — such as names, Social Security numbers and street addresses — can’t be included as part of the search. “That requires an additional level of probable cause,” he said.

The usefulness of the NSA’s domestic phone-call database as a counterterrorism tool is unclear. Also unclear is whether the database has been used for other purposes.

The NSA’s domestic program raises legal questions. Historically, AT&T and the regional phone companies have required law enforcement agencies to present a court order before they would even consider turning over a customer’s calling data. Part of that owed to the personality of the old Bell Telephone System, out of which those companies grew.

Ma Bell’s bedrock principle — protection of the customer — guided the company for decades, said Gene Kimmelman, senior public policy director of Consumers Union. “No court order, no customer information — period. That’s how it was for decades,” he said.

The concern for the customer was also based on law: Under Section 222 of the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, telephone companies are prohibited from giving out information regarding their customers’ calling habits: whom a person calls, how often and what routes those calls take to reach their final destination. Inbound calls, as well as wireless calls, also are covered.

The financial penalties for violating Section 222, one of many privacy reinforcements that have been added to the law over the years, can be stiff. The Federal Communications Commission, the nation’s top telecommunications regulatory agency, can levy fines of up to $130,000 per day per violation, with a cap of $1.325 million per violation. The FCC has no hard definition of “violation.” In practice, that means a single “violation” could cover one customer or 1 million.

In the case of the NSA’s international call-tracking program, Bush signed an executive order allowing the NSA to engage in eavesdropping without a warrant. The president and his representatives have since argued that an executive order was sufficient for the agency to proceed. Some civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, disagree.

Companies approached

The NSA’s domestic program began soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, according to the sources. Right around that time, they said, NSA representatives approached the nation’s biggest telecommunications companies. The agency made an urgent pitch: National security is at risk, and we need your help to protect the country from attacks.

The agency told the companies that it wanted them to turn over their “call-detail     records,” a complete listing of the calling histories of their millions of customers. In addition, the NSA wanted the carriers to provide updates, which would enable the agency to keep tabs on the nation’s calling habits.


The sources said the NSA made clear that it was willing to pay for the cooperation. AT&T, which at the time was headed by C. Michael Armstrong, agreed to help the NSA. So did BellSouth, headed by F. Duane Ackerman; SBC, headed by Ed Whitacre; and Verizon, headed by Ivan Seidenberg.

With that, the NSA’s domestic program began in earnest.

AT&T, when asked about the program, replied with a comment prepared for USA TODAY: “We do not comment on matters of national security, except to say that we only assist law enforcement and government agencies charged with protecting national security in strict accordance with the law.”     

In another prepared comment, BellSouth said: “BellSouth does not provide any confidential customer information to the NSA or any governmental agency without proper legal authority.”     

Verizon, the USA’s No. 2 telecommunications company behind AT&T, gave this statement: “We do not comment on national security matters, we act in full compliance with the law and we are committed to safeguarding our customers’ privacy.”     

Qwest spokesman Robert Charlton said: “We can’t talk about this. It’s a classified situation.”     

In December, The New York Times revealed that Bush had authorized the NSA to wiretap, without warrants, international phone calls and e-mails that travel to or from the USA. The following month, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group, filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T. The lawsuit accuses the company of helping the NSA spy on U.S. phone customers.


By Wayne Madsen

In the past year, I have been threatened with a libel suit in London from a rich Saudi billionaire whose Washington-based law firm just so happens to have a former Bush-Cheney campaign finance chairman and one of George W. Bush’s closest Texas pals as two of its major partners. I have earned the attention of an Orwellian Ministry of Truth-like “counter-propaganda”  office at the U.S. Department of State, which maintains a web site that criticizes my articles. It is against U.S. law for the International Public Diplomacy unit to directly respond to my counter-arguments, they can only legally respond to foreign queries and not from U.S. citizen journalists who they cavalierly attack. Apparently, the White House and some officials in the U.S. intelligence community have found it necessary to suppress from publication  my book on corruption in the oil industry and defense contracting community. I have now been threatened by the company CACI International, which, according to the Taguba Report, was involved in the prison torture at Abu Ghraib. The threat was based on a very and important story concerning contract fraud and corruption at the super secret National Security Agency (NSA) — America’s premier electronic surveillance body.

Unlike Newsweek, CBS News and 60 Minutes, and the Public Broadcasting System and National Public Radio, I do not intend to allow the friends of Bush and the globally-despised U.S. military intelligence complex to stymie my right to report on the graft and corruption and the steady move toward fascism from my vantage point inside the Washington Beltway. To George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, CACI (and its law firm Steptoe & Johnson), and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld and its Bush buddies and Saudi paymasters, I have one simple admonition: “Go to Hell.”     

And to show that I mean business, I will soon establish a web site called the Wayne Madsen Report that will expose the bottom dwelling vermin now infesting our body politic. In the finest tradition of H. L. Mencken, Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson, Edward R. Murrow and other hard hitting members of the Fourth Estate, I have a simple warning: if you hold political office or another responsible position in this three degrees of separation town called Washington and you steal taxpayer’s money, hypocritically proclaim born-again Christianity and then go out and beat up a female prostitute or call a gay male prostitute hot line, get busted for public urination on Capitol Hill, or engage in disloyal behavior against the United States, you can be sure your name and your activities will be featured on the web site. You will be held accountable — it’s as simple as that. You may not have to worry about The Washington Post or CNN, but you will have to contend with me.

And for Federal law enforcement officials who find it proper or exciting to subpoena journalists’ notebooks and require testimony before grand juries, forget about me. I won’t play your political games. I’ll gladly go to prison rather than subject myself and my sources to interrogations from a neocon fascist regime.


Now more on what is happening at NSA and how it is adversely affecting U.S.     national security. On August 1, 2001, just five and a half weeks before the 911 attacks, NSA awarded Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) a more than $2 billion, ten-year contract known as GROUNDBREAKER. The contract was never popular with NSA’s career professionals. Although GROUNDBREAKER was limited to outsourcing NSA’s administrative support functions such as telephones, data networks, distributed computing, and enterprise architecture design, the contract soon expanded into the operational areas — a sphere that had always been carefully restricted to contractors. NSA was once worried about buying commercial-off-the-shelf computer components such as semiconductors because they might contain foreign bugs. NSA manufactured its own computer chips at its own semiconductor factory at Fort Meade. Currently, NSA personnel are concerned that outsourcing mania at Fort Meade will soon involve foreign help desk technical maintenance provided from off-shore locations like India.

CSC had originally gained access to NSA through a “buy in” project called     BREAKTHROUGH, a mere $20 million contract awarded in 1998 that permitted CSC to operate and maintain NSA computer systems. When General Michael V. Hayden took over as NSA Director in 1999, the floodgates for outside contractors were opened and a resulting deluge saw most of NSA’s support personnel being converted to contractors working for GROUNDBREAKER’s Eagle Alliance (nicknamed the “Evil Alliance” by NSA government personnel), a consortium led by CSC. NSA personnel rosters of support personnel, considered protected information, were turned over to Eagle, which then made offers of employment to the affected NSA workers. The Eagle Alliance consists of CSC, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, CACI, Omen, Inc., Keane Federal Systems, ACS Defense, BTG, Compaq, Fiber Plus, Superior Communications, TRW (Raytheon), Verizon, and Windemere.

In October 2002, Hayden, who has now been promoted by Bush to be Deputy Director of National Intelligence under John Negroponte, opened NSA up further to     contractors. A Digital Network Enterprise (DNE) team led by SAIC won a $280     million, 26 month contract called TRAILBLAZER to develop a demonstration test bed for a new signals intelligence processing and analysis system. SAIC’s team members included Booz Allen Hamilton, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Eagle Alliance team leader CSC. TRAILBLAZER, according to Hayden’s own testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, is now behind schedule and over budget to the tune of over $600 million.

But that is not the only consequence of these two mega-contracts for NSA’s ability to monitor global communications for the next 911, which could be a terrorist nuclear strike on the United States.

NSA insiders report that both contract teams have melded into one and that NSA’s operations are being adversely impacted. From simple tasks like phones being fixed to computers being updated with new software, the Eagle Alliance has been a disaster. The Eagle Alliance and DNE team members are rife with former NSA top officials who are reaping handsome bonuses from the contracts — and that has many NSA career employees crying conflict of interest and contract fraud.

CACI, called “Colonels and Captains, Inc.” by critics who cite the revolving door from the Pentagon to its corporate office suites, counts former NSA Deputy Director Barbara McNamara as a member of its board of directors. CACI alumni include Thomas McDermott, a former NSA Deputy Director for Information Systems Security. Former NSA Director Adm. Mike McConnell is a Senior Vice President of Booz Allen. Former NSA Director General Ken Minihan is President of the Security Affairs Support Association (SASA), an intelligence business development association that includes Boeing, Booz Allen, CACI, CSC, the Eagle Alliance, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, SAIC, and Windemere, all GROUNDBREAKER and TRAILBLAZER contractors, among its membership. SASA’s board of directors (surprise, surprise) includes CACI’s Barbara McNamara. One of SASA’s distinguished advisers is none other than General Hayden.

Although contractors are required to have the same high level security clearances     as government personnel at NSA, there are close connections between some NSA contractors and countries with hostile intelligence services. For example, CACI’s president and CEO visited Israel in early 2004 and received the Albert Einstein Technology Award at ceremony in Jerusalem attended by Likud Party Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz. The special ceremony honoring CACI’s president was sponsored by the Aish HaTorah Yeshiva Fund. The ultra-Orthodox United Torah Judaism Party’s Jerusalem Mayor, Uri Lupolianski, was also in attendance. According to Lebanon’s Daily Star, CACI’s president also met with notorious racist Israeli retired General Effie Eitam who advocates expelling Palestinians from their lands. The U.S. delegation also included a number of homeland security officials, politicians, and businessmen. CACI has also received research grants from U.S.-Israeli bi-national foundations. A few months after the award ceremony for CACI’s president, the Taguba Report cited two CACI employees as being involved in the prison torture at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The U.S. military commander for the Iraqi prisons, General Janis Karpinski, reported that she witnessed Israeli interrogators working alongside those from CACI and another contractor, Titan.

When the Taguba Report was leaked, the office of Deputy Defense Secretary for Policy Douglas Feith issued an order to Pentagon employees not to download the report from the Internet. Feith is a well-known hard line supporter of Israel’s Likud Party and, according to U.S. government insiders, his name has come up in FBI wiretaps of individuals involved in the proliferation of nuclear weapons material to Israel via Turkish (including Turkish Jewish) intermediaries. These wiretaps are the subject of a Federal probe of who compromised a sensitive CIA counter-proliferation global operation that used a carve out company called Brewster Jennings & Associates to penetrate nuclear weapons smuggling networks with tentacles extending from Secaucus, New Jersey to South Africa and Pakistan and Turkey to Israel.

According to the Jewish Telegraph Agency, some six months before the Abu Ghraib torture scandal was first uncovered, one of Feith’s assistants, Larry Franklin, met with two officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) at the Tivoli Restaurant in Arlington, Virginia. According to FBI surveillance tapes, Franklin relayed top secret information to Steve Rosen, AIPAC’s then policy director, and Keith Weissman, a senior Iran analyst with AIPAC. Franklin has been indicted for passing classified information to AIPAC. In addition, three Israeli citizens have been identified as possible participants in the spy scandal. They are Naor Gilon, the political officer at the Israeli  embassy in Washington; Uzi Arad, an analyst with the Institute for Policy and Strategy in Herzliya (the northern Tel Aviv suburb where the headquarters of Mossad is located); and Eran Lerman, a former Mossad official who is now with the American Jewish Committee.

What has some NSA officials worried is that with pro-Israeli neocons now engrained within the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), State Department, and National Security Council, NSA is ripe for penetration by Israeli intelligence. NSA has a troubled past with Israel. In 1967, Israeli warplanes launched a premeditated attack on the NSA surveillance ship, the USS Liberty, killing and wounding a number of U.S. sailors and NSA civilian personnel. Convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard compromised a number of  NSA sensitive sources and methods when he provided a garage full of classified documents to Israel. But NSA is also aware of an incident where Israelis used a contractor, RCA, to gain access to yet additional NSA sources and methods. In the 1980s, against the wishes of NSA, the Reagan administration forced NSA to permit RCA, one of its major contractors, to develop a tethered aerostat (balloon) signals intelligence and direction finding system for the Israeli Defense Force. According to NSA officials, the Israeli-NSA joint project, codenamed DINDI, was established at a separate facility in Mount Laurel, New Jersey and apart from the main NSA developmental center at RCA’s facility in Camden, New Jersey. Although NSA and RCA set up a strict firewall between the contractor’s national intelligence contract work and the separate DINDI contract, Israeli engineers, who were working for Mossad, soon broke down the security firewall with the assistance of a few American Jewish engineers assigned to the DINDI project. The security breach resulted in a number of national intelligence developmental systems being compromised to the Israelis, including those code named PIEREX, MAROON ARCHER, and MAROON SHIELD. DINDI was quickly cancelled but due to the sensitivity surrounding the American Jewish engineers, the Reagan Justice Department avoided bringing espionage charges. There were some forced retirements and transfers, but little more. But for NSA, the duplicity of the Israelis added to the enmity between Fort Meade and Israeli intelligence.

With outside contractors now permeating NSA and a major Israeli espionage     operation being discovered inside the Pentagon, once again there is a fear within NSA that foreign intelligence services such as the Mossad could make another attempt to penetrate America’s virtual “Fort Knox” of intelligence treasures and secrets.

Thanks to some very patriotic and loyal Americans inside NSA, this author is now in possession of an internal NSA contract document from November 2002 that shows how GROUNDBREAKER  and TRAILBLAZER  have allowed the Eagle Alliance and other contractors to gain access to and even virtual control over some of the most sensitive systems within the U.S. intelligence community. One suspect in this unchecked outsourcing is the person Hayden hired from the outside to act as Special Adviser to his Executive Leadership Team, Beverly Wright, who had been the Chief Financial Officer for Legg Mason Wood Walker in Baltimore. Before that, Wright had been the Chief Financial Officer for Alex Brown, the investment firm at which George W. Bush’s grandfather, Prescott Bush, once served as a board member. As one senior NSA official sarcastically put it, “She’s highly qualified to work in intelligence!”  

According to the document, the future of some 10,000 Windows NT and UNIX     workstations and servers that handle some of NSA’s most sensitive signals     intelligence (SIGINT) (the Signals Intelligence Directorate workstation upgrade is code named BEANSTALK) and electronics intelligence (ELINT) applications, including databases that contain communications intercepts, are now firmly in the grasp of the Eagle Alliance. Operational workstations are being migrated to a less-than-reliable Windows/Intel or “WINTEL” environment. The document boldly calls for the Eagle Alliance to establish a SIGINT Service Applications Office (SASO) to “provide and     maintain Information Technology services, tools, and capabilities for all  [emphasis added] SIGINT mission applications at the NSA.” This is a far cry from the non-operational administrative support functions originally specified in the GROUNDBREAKER contract.

The document also calls for NSA to provide extremely sensitive information  on SIGINT users to the contractors: “Identification of target sets of users in order to successfully coordinate with the Eagle Alliance modernization  program.” The Eagle Alliance is involved in a number of systems that impact on other members of the U.S. intelligence community, foreign SIGINT partners, and national command authorities. These systems include INTELINK, Common Remoted Systems, National SIGINT Requirements Process, Overhead Tasking Distribution, RSOC (Regional SIGINT Operations Center) Monitoring Tool, RSOC Modeling Tool, Speech Activity Detection, Network Analysis Tools, Network Reconstruction Tools, Advanced Speech Processing Services, Automatic Message Handling System, CRITIC Alert, Cross Agency Multimedia Database Querying, Message Format Converter, Central Strategic Processing and Reporting, Collection Knowledge Base, Language Knowledge Base and Capabilities, K2000 Advanced ELINT Signals, Speech Content Services, Speech Information Extraction, Dominant Facsimile Processing System and DEFSMAC Support, Data Delivery (TINMAN), High Frequency Direction Finding (HFDF) Database, Satellite database, Protocol Analysis Terminal, Global Numbering Database, Intercept Tasking Databases, DEFSMAC Space Systems Utilities, Message Server, Extended Tether Program, Language Knowledge Services, Trend Analysis in Data Streams, Signal Related Database, SANDKEY Support (SIGINT Analysis and Reporting), and the SIGINT interception database ANCHORY and the ELINT database WRANGLER. In fact, the document states that the contractors’ plans foresee the inclusion of NSA’s intelligence community partners (foreign and domestic) in the contractors’ revamping of NSA’s operational systems.

The servers include those that support mission-critical National Time Sensitive     Systems (NTSS). These National Time Sensitive System servers have been assigned various cover terms:


A number of SIGINT applications are also impacted by the outsourcing mania. They are also assigned cover terms:     


In fact, the document indicates that literally hundreds of NSA intelligence applications are now subject to the whims of outside contractors.

These systems include 























From Justice Department hardcopy by FAS

No. 02-001



IN RE [deleted]







JOHN ASHCROFT Attorney General

LARRY D. THOMPSON Deputy Attorney General

THEODORE B. OLSON Solicitor General

DAVID S. KRIS Associate Deputy Attorney General

JAMES A. BAKER Counsel for Intelligence Policy

JONATHAN L. MARCUS Attorney Advisor Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C.  20530 (202)514-2882






      A.    Electronic Surveillance Prior to FISA

B.    Electronic Surveillance After FISA

      1.   The Decision   in Truong 2.   Thhe Department’s Response to Truong 3.   Developments From 1984 to 1993 4.   The Julv 1995 Procedures



      A.     The Patriot Act Amendments Were Designed to Override Prior Adoptions of the (False) Dichotomy

B.    Each of the Patriot Act Amendments Has Independent Meaning When Read Together

C.     The Two Patriot Act Amendments Eliminate the Wall Restricting Coordination Between Intelligence and Law Enforcement Personnel



      A.     The President Has Inherent Authority to Conduct Warrantless Electronic Surveillance to Protect National Security from Foreign Threats

B.   The “Significant Purpose” Test for FISA Surveillance Satisfies the Constitution

C.   The FISC’s Decision Improperly Micromanages the Executive Branch in Violation of Article II and III of the Constitution

D.   The Doctrine of Constitutional Avoidance Supports the Government’s Interpretation of FISA





No. 02-001

IN RE [deleted]








In response to the Court’s invitation at the hearing in this matter on September 9, 2002, the Department of Justice submits the following supplemental brief. Part I of the brief explains the origins of the (false) dichotomy that arose between law enforcement and non-law enforcement methods of protecting against the foreign threats to national security specified in 50 U.S.C.� 1801(e)(1). It traces the history of Executive and Judicial Branch interpretations of FISA from 1979 to 1995.

Part II demonstrates how the USA Patriot Act’s “significant purpose” and “coordination” amendments were together designed to overcome prior judicial interpretations of FISA. It argues that the “significant purpose” amendment does not affirmatively codify or inscribe into FISA the (false) dichotomy between foreign intelligence and law enforcement.

Part III responds to the Court’s question concerning the continuing applicability of United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980), which adopted a “primary purpose” test for electronic surveillance conducted without prior judicial authorization. It argues that Truong does not govern electronic surveillance conducted under FISA, and that the “significant purpose” test is constitutional.

An appendix to the brief presents a detailed comparison of FISA and Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. �� 2510-2522, particularly as applied to U.S. persons who are “agents of a foreign power” under the rubric of international terrorism, 50 U.S.C. � 1801(b)(2)(C) and (E). The appendix also discusses the constitutional significance of the differences between the two statutes as applied in such cases.


At the hearing on September 9, the Court asked why the government historically had not argued, and the courts generally had not held, that “foreign intelligence information” includes information sought for a prosecution designed to protect against the threats specified in 50 U.S.C. S 1801(e)(1), such as espionage and international terrorism. The discussion below reports the history of Executive and Judicial interpretations in this area, both before and after FISA.


Electronic Surveillance Prior to FISA


From the beginning of the 20th Century, the United States conducted warrantless electronic surveillance for the purpose of protecting national security from foreign threats. H.R. Rep. No. 95-1283, Part I, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 15-22 (1978) [hereinafter House Report). Although the Supreme Court never addressed the legality of such surveillance, "virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment." United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59, 72 (2d Cir. 1984) (citing cases). Four courts of appeals - the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits - upheld warrantless electronic surveillance conducted for a foreign intelligence purpose. See ibid. The D.C. Circuit suggested in dictum in a plurality opinion that a warrant would be required, but did not decide the issue, and no court ever held that a warrant was required. See Zweibon v. Mitchell, 516 F.2d 594, 633-651 (D.C. Cir. 1975).

Prior to FISA, the law did not precisely define the permissible scope of such surveillance. Courts sometimes suggested that the warrant exception depended on the existence of a foreign threat to national security, such as espionage or international terrorism, rather than an ordinary criminal threat to domestic order, such as rape or homicide. Under this approach, the government could use warrantless electronic surveillance to investigate or protect against a national security threat using any lawful means at its disposal, apparently including criminal prosecution. On other occasions, however, courts suggested that the exception also depended on the type of response or effort used to address the national security threat - i.e., that it required a traditional counterintelligence response, such as efforts to recruit a foreign spy as a double agent, rather than a law enforcement response, such as efforts to prosecute a spy for espionage. Under that approach, the government could not conduct warrantless electronic surveillance for the purpose of gathering evidence to prosecute a spy, although it could use as evidence any information that had been gathered for a non-law enforcement purpose.

In United States v. Clay, 480 F.2d 165 (5th Cir. 1970), the first court of appeals decision significantly addressing the issue, electronic surveillance of the defendant was initially revealed after his conviction for refusing induction into the armed forces had been affirmed on appeal. The district court concluded that the warrantless "surveillance was lawful, having been authorized by the Attorney General, for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence information," and the court of appeals affirmed because the surveillance was conducted "in connection with obtaining foreign intelligence information." Id. at 170. The court did not elaborate on the precise purpose of the surveillance, or distinguish between law enforcement and non-law enforcement efforts to protect national security. Nor did it attempt precisely to define the term "foreign intelligence information." That may be because the defendant in Clay was incidentally intercepted during electronic surveillance of other targets, suggesting that the purpose of the surveillance had nothing to do with his prosecution. Ibid. In any event, the court also found that "in no way has this wiretap prejudiced defendant, helped build a case against him, or assisted in bringing about his conviction." Ibid. The Fifth Circuit followed Clay in United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418, 426, 427(1973), upholding warrantless surveillance where it was conducted "in connection with obtaining foreign intelligence information," the defendant was not the target, and "the information disclosed by the wiretaps had no relevancy whatever to the crime here in question, either directly or indirectly."

In United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3d Cir. 1974) (en banc), the warrantless electronic surveillance was "designed to impair the escape to foreign powers of sensitive information concerning the foreign policy and military posture of the United States" - i.e., to prevent espionage. Id. at 605 n.l. The court saw "no reason to distinguish this activity from the foreign intelligence gathering activity that may be conducted through warrantless electronic surveillance, observing that "[a]s Commander-in-Chief, the President must guard the country from foreign aggression, sabotage, and espionage.” Id. at 605 n.1, 608. Thus, the court recognized that protecting the United States against espionage is a “foreign intelligence purpose,” and that warrantless electronic surveillance may be used in furtherance of that purpose.

The Butenko court did not, however, clearly resolve whether such surveillance may be conducted in support of law enforcement efforts to protect national security, such as a prosecution for espionage. The court’s only extended discussion of the matter was ambiguous (494 F.2d at 606):

      Since the primary purpose of these searches is to secure foreign intelligence information, a judge, when reviewing a particular search must, above all, be assured that this was in fact its primary purpose

and that the accumulation of evidence of criminal activity was incidental

      . If the court, for example, finds that members of a domestic political organization were the subjects of wiretaps

or that the agents were looking for evidence of criminal conduct unrelated to the foreign affairs needs of a President

      , then he would undoubtedly hold the surveillances to be illegal and take appropriate measures.


The first underlined passage above suggests that warrantless surveillance may not be conducted for the purpose of supporting any prosecution. The second underlined passage, however, suggests that the prohibition applies only when the prosecution is “unrelated to the foreign affairs” – i.e., when it is not intended to protect national security. The court in Butenko did not have to resolve the issue because the defendant agreed that the surveillance was conducted “solely for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence information,” and that “he was [not] the object of surveillance because of domestic political activity or because of conduct unrelated to his own espionage concerns.” Id. at 607.

Finally, in United States v. Buck, 548 F.2d 871  (9th Cir.1977), a firearms prosecution, the court relied on Clay and Butenko for the proposition that “[f]oreign security wiretaps are a recognized exception to the general warrant requirement.” Id. at 875. The court did not discuss the precise purpose of the surveillance, or any distinction between law enforcement and non-law enforcement efforts to protect national security. The court also noted that there was “no discernible nexus between the alleged illegal surveillance and the matters to be proved at trial.” Id. at 874. Thus, no court of appeals decision issued prior to FISA squarely determined whether warrantless electronic surveillance could be used to support law enforcement efforts to protect national security – e.g., the prosecution of a spy or international terrorist.


Electronic Surveillance After FISA


When Congress enacted FISA in 1978, it was aware of the decisions cited above, and of lingering questions concerning the validity and permissible scope or purpose of foreign intelligence electronic surveillance. See House Report at 19-20. In enacting FISA, with the support of the Executive Branch, Congress sought to answer those questions, setting forth in the statute “the circumstances which ultimately determine the reasonableness of a search,” including “the nature, circumstances, and purpose of the search, the threat it is intended to address, and the technology involved.” Id. at 20. Of particular relevance here, Congress concluded that “the purpose” of FISA surveillance must be to obtain “foreign intelligence information,” 50 U.S.C. � 1804(a)(7)(B), but it defined the latter term in a way that does not discriminate between law enforcement and other methods of protecting against espionage, international terrorism, and the remaining threats specified in 50 U.S.C. � 1801(e)(1). As detailed below, neither the Executive Branch nor the courts fully implemented the original meaning of the statute.


The Decision in Truong


The first significant judicial decision issued after FISA, United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980), actually applied pre-FISA standards to review warrantless electronic surveillance conducted before the statute’s enactment. See id. at 914 n.4, 915. The court in Truong upheld the use of warrantless electronic surveillance, concluding that “the needs of the executive are so compelling in the area of foreign intelligence * * * that a uniform warrant requirement would unduly frustrate the President  in carrying out his foreign affairs responsibilities.” Id. at 913. The court identified three reasons for that conclusion: “the need of the executive branch for flexibility, its practical experience, and its constitutional competence” as the “pre-eminent authority in foreign affairs.” id. at 914.

The court in Truong held that “the executive branch should be excused from securing a warrant only when the surveillance is conducted ‘primarily’ for foreign intelligence reasons.” 629 F.2d at 915. By “foreign intelligence reasons,” the court meant reasons other than conducting a criminal investigation or prosecution. Thus, the court upheld the electronic surveillance in question because its purpose “was to determine Truong’s source or sources for government documents” so that the U.S. government could stanch the flow of classified information to the government of Vietnam. Id. at 916. The court held, however, that warrantless surveillance was not permitted “once surveillance becomes primarily a criminal investigation,” or “when the government is primarily attempting to form the basis for a criminal prosecution.” Id. at 915.1


          The court in


        did not distinguish between ordinary prosecutions (e.g., of an ordinary American citizen for homicide) and prosecutions of an agent of a foreign power to protect against espionage or terrorism. See 629 F.2d at 916. However, the court also did not explicitly reject such a distinction. On the contrary, although


        involved a prosecution for espionage, the court never discussed the government’s motives for the prosecution, and from all that appears the government never advanced the idea that a purpose to obtain evidence for an espionage prosecution can itself be a “foreign intelligence” purpose. Attorney General Griffin Bell, who testified at the suppression hearing in the district court, described prosecution only as an “incidental” by product of a non-criminal counterintelligence investigation: “Let me say that every one of these counterintelligence investigations involved, nearly all of them that I have seen, involves crime in an incidental way. You never know when you might turn up with something you might want to prosecute.” Id. at 916 n.5.



The Department’s Resvonse to Truong


In the wake of Truong, the Department of Justice took the position that electronic surveillance under FISA required only a “significant” foreign intelligence purpose. In September 1983, the Department advised Congress that “the logic of [Truong] has little vitality after the enactment of” FISA. Implementation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, H.R. Rep. No. 98-738, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. 14 (1984) [hereinafter House Five Year Report]. Instead, the Department argued that FISA may be used for a “significant” foreign intelligence purpose, and that such a purpose may not be undermined even if the government is contemplating a criminal prosecution (ibid.):

      even where the government may be considering prosecuting the target for criminal violations discovered during the counterintelligence investigation, the government may continue to employ FISA rather than Title III where significant foreign intelligence information is still being sought. Where no significant foreign intelligence interest remains in an investigation, FISA should no longer be used.


Similarly, in 1984, Department advised Congress that FISA should be available “so long as [the surveillance] is in furtherance of a legitimate and reasonable intelligence purpose,” although it acknowledged that “[w]hether it makes any difference if criminal prosecution is contemplated when a FISA surveillance is authorized is an unresolved legal issue.” The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978: The First Five Years, S.Rep. No. 98-660, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. 20, 12 (1984) [hereinafter Senate Five Year Report].

The Department’s first set of FISA minimization procedures defined “foreign intelligence information” to include evidence of crimes such as espionage and international terrorism. Those procedures, which were provided to the Congressional Intelligence Committees, noted that “foreign intelligence information” may “also [be] evidence of a crime,” and distinguished such information from “evidence of a crime        which is not otherwise foreign intelligence information.” House Five Year Report at 18. (The current procedures, which are being lodged with the Court, are similar.) This distinction, which is reflected in FISA itself, 50 U.S.C. � 1801(h), underlies the argument in our principal brief that the prosecution of a foreign spy or terrorist is a “foreign intelligence” purpose. See Gov’t Br. 41-45.

The issue of whether prosecution may be a “foreign intelligence” purpose was also discussed by the Senate Intelligence Committee in a report issued in 1984 pursuant to 50 U.S.C. � 1808(b). Reviewing FISA’s legislative history, the Committee stated:

      FISA does indeed contemplate the possible use in criminal proceedings of information derived from electronic surveillances. The Committee’s 1978 report accompanying FISA recognized, moreover, that

FISA surveillance would be * * * “part of an investigative process often designed to protect against the commission of serious crimes such as espionage, sabotage, assassination, kidnaping, and terrorist acts committed by or on behalf of a foreign power. Intelligence and law enforcement tend to merge in this area.”

      The [1978] report made a particularly strong case in the counterintelligence area, noting that “foreign counterintelligence surveillance frequently seeks information needed to detect or anticipate the commission of crimes.” In a later passage, however, the report states that “the primary purpose of electronic surveillance conducted pursuant to this chapter will not be the gathering of criminal evidence.” Variations in judicial interpretations are thus not surprising.


Senate Five Year Report at 14 (citations omitted, emphasis added).

This statement, quoting legislative history that is also quoted in our principal brief (page 40), reflects an understanding that there is no dichotomy between intelligence and law enforcement efforts to protect against terrorism and espionage. Other statements in the Five Year Report, however, seem to assume or adopt the dichotomy. For example, the Report notes that “[o]ne question is to what extent the FBI can use FISA surveillance to obtain both foreign intelligence information and criminal evidence for prosecution purposes.” Senate Five Year Report at 14. It also states that “it is left largely to the Executive branch to determine, in individual cases, when its purpose is to obtain foreign intelligence information and when it is to prosecute criminals.” Id. at 14.

As a policy matter, rather han a legal one, the Intelligence Committees opined that the Department of Justice should not use FISA primarily for  law enforcement, at least against certain targets. Based on concerns that FISA’s definition of “international terrorism” could reach “persons whose activities are essentially a domestic law enforcement problem,” the Senate Intelligence Committee recommended that “the Justice Department should use Title III when it is clear that the main concern with respect to a terrorist group is domestic law enforcement and criminal prosecution, even if the surveillance will also produce some foreign intelligence information.” Senate Five Year Report at 15 (emphasis added); see also id. at 20, 25. But the Committee recognized that the issue was “left largely to the Executive branch,” and that FISA “leaves the FBI and Justice Department with difficult choices and responsibilities.” id. at14.  The House Intelligence Committee took a similar position:

      While expressing no opinion at this time as to the legal correctness of the Department’s [position that FISA "may be employed, even when prosecution is contemplated, as long as significant foreign intelligence information is sought"], the Committee is of the view that, even if the Department’s position is arguably supported by the relevant legislative history, the wiser course is to utilize Title III, rather than FISA, once prosecution is contemplated, unless articulable reasons of national security dictate otherwise.


House Five Year Report at 6.2


      These oversight reports, which are not directly associated with any new legislation, are subsequent history, and therefore not relevant, to the interpretation of FISA as enacted in 1978. See, e.g.,

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. LTV Corp.

      , 496 U.S.633, 650 (1990). As Justice Scalia put the matter in his concurring opinion in

Sullivan v. Finkelstein

      , 496 U.S. 617, 632(1990), “the views of a legislator concerning a statute already enacted are entitled to no more weight than the views of a judge concerning a statute not yet passed. * * * * Arguments based on subsequent legislative history, like arguments based on antecedent futurity, should not be taken seriously, not even in a footnote.”


In practice, the Department apparently allowed fairly extensive coordination between intelligence and law enforcement officials during this period. The Department’s first Counsel for Intelligence Policy, Kenneth Bass, recently advised Congress that he would not “have authorized a FISA application that had its origin entirely within the law enforcement community with no prior involvement of an official in the intelligence community, had such a case ever arisen.” Statement of Kenneth C. Bass, III, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, September 10, 2002, at 7 (copy of statement and transcript of hearing attached). However, Bass also stated that in his view “the purpose” to obtain foreign intelligence information would have “remained the same throughout the course of surveillance, even if there was a decision to undertake a criminal prosecution instead of a non-prosecutorial solution such as a false-flag or turning, operation.” Id. at 9. Bass testified that he was “confident” that the Department’s July 1995 Intelligence Sharing Procedures were “not consistent with the view we held in the beginning.” Id. at 6.


Developments From 1984 to 1993


Between 1984 and 1993, the courts generally applied the “primary purpose” test, and either assumed or adopted the dichotomy between intelligence and law enforcement under FISA. In United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59, 78 (2d Cir. 1984), the court affirmed a conviction because “the purpose of the surveillance in this case, both initially and throughout, was to secure foreign intelligence information and was not, as [the] defendants assert, directed towards criminal investigation or the institution of a criminal prosecution.” In United States v. Radia, 827 F.2d 1458, 1464  (llth Cir. 1987), the court relied on a finding that the surveillance “did not have as its purpose the primary objective of investigating a criminal act. Rather, surveillance was sought for the valid purpose of acquiring foreign intelligence information, as defined by � 1801(e)(1).” Similarly, in United States v. Pelton, 835 F.2d 1067, 1075 (4thCir. 1987), the court “rejected Pelton’s claim that the 1985 FISA surveillance was conducted primarily for the purpose of his criminal prosecution, and not primarily ‘for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence information’ as required by” FISA. And in United States v. Johnson, 952 F.2d 565, 572 (1st Cir. 1992), the court relied on its conclusion that the “primary purpose” of the surveillance, “from the first authorization in July 1988, to July 1989, when appellants were arrested, was to obtain foreign intelligence information, not to collect evidence for any criminal prosecution of appellants.”

Coordination between intelligence and law enforcement officials continued during this period, though perhaps not to the extent originally permitted. From 1984 to 1993, while Mary Lawton was Counsel for Intelligence Policy, the Criminal Division was regularly briefed by the FBI about ongoing intelligence investigations concerning espionage, but prosecutors “knew we were not to ‘direct’ the [intelligence] investigation or to suggest the use of FISA for criminal investigative purposes.” IV Final Report of the Attorney General’s Review Team on the Handling of the Los Alamos National Laboratory Investigation, Chapter 20, at 711 (May 2000) [hereinafter AGRT Report]. The briefings allowed the Criminal Division to assert that a case should be prosecuted. The FBI and the Criminal Division were permitted to consult without informing OIPR, and without OIPR being present. id. at 712.


The July 1995 Procedures


In 1993 and early 1994, during the investigation of Aldrich Ames, coordination between intelligence and law enforcement officials apparently again became quite robust. As explained in the AGRT Report, the Counsel for Intelligence Policy at that time, Richard Scruggs, “went to the Attorney General and ‘ginned her up’ about contacts that the FBI had been having with prosecutors” in the Ames case. AGRT Report at 713. Scruggs “raised concerns with the Attorney General that the FISA statute had been violated by these contacts and that her certifications [i.e., her approval of FISA applications for filing with the FISC] had been inaccurate. Scruggs believed that the relationship between the FBI and [the Criminal Division's Internal Security Section] during the Ames investigation could be used by defense counsel to cast doubt upon the ‘primary purpose’ of the FISA surveillance and thereby jeopardize the prosecution.” Ibid. Thereafter, according to the AGRT Report, the “‘backdoor’ channel between the FBI and [the Criminal Division] was closed.” Id. at 714.

The July 1995 Intelligence Sharing Procedures had their origins in a June 1994 memorandum written by Allan Kornblum, then the Deputy Counsel in OIPR. AGRT Report at 714 & n.949.3    This proposal “touched off considerable controversy and led to a series of meetings among the principals in the Criminal Division, OIPR, the FBI * * * and [a component of the Office of the Deputy Attorney General].” Id. at 715. On February 14, 1995, as part of the deliberative process, the Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) prepared a memorandum on the “primary purpose” standard. Id. at 720. In light of Truong, Duggan, Radia, Pelton, and Johnson, the OLC memorandum predicted that “courts are more likely to adopt the ‘primary purpose’ test than any less stringent formulation.” OLC memo at 1. The memorandum also recognized the dichotomy between intelligence and law enforcement that had been assumed in those cases, noting that “the greater the involvement of prosecutors in the planning and execution of FISA searches, the greater is the chance that the government could not assert in good faith that the ‘primary purpose’ was the collection of foreign intelligence.” Ibid.; see id. at 2, 5 & n.7. As discussed in the AGRT report, the OLC memorandum influenced the standards adopted in the July 1995 Procedures. AGRT Report 720.


      The original proposal was to modify the Attorney General’s Guidelines for FBI Foreign Intelligence Collection and Foreign Counterintelligence Investigations. AGRT Report 714. Those classified Guidelines govern the conduct of investigations generally, and do not pertain exclusively to the use of FISA. Those Guidelines are to be distinguished from the FBI’s classified Standard Minimization Procedures, which deal exclusively with minimization under FISA, and from the unclassified July 1995 and March 2002 Intelligence Sharing Procedures, which (in the Department’s view, at least)  deal not with minimization but with coordination between intelligence and law enforcement officials. With this brief, we are also lodging with the Court copies of the current versions of the Attorney General’s classified Guidelines for FBI Foreign Intelligence Collection and Foreign Counterintelligence Investigations, and the classified Standard minimization Procedures.


The July 1995 Procedures limited the nature and extent of consultations between the Criminal Division and the FBI, and also required careful documentation and reporting to the FISC of such consultations. Where FISA was being used in a foreign intelligence (FI) or foreign counterintelligence (FCI) investigation, the Criminal Division was allowed to give “guidance to the FBI aimed at preserving the option of a criminal prosecution,” but was not expressly authorized to give advice aimed at “enhancing” the possibility of a criminal prosecution. The July 1995 Procedures cautioned the Criminal Division and the FBI to “ensure” that any advice given did “not inadvertently result in either the fact or the appearance of the Criminal Division’s directing or controlling the FI or FCI investigation toward law enforcement objectives.” July 1995 Procedures, Part A, P. 6. The procedures also required the FBI to maintain “a log of all contacts with the Criminal Division,” and required all FISA renewal applications to “apprise the FISC of the existence of, and basis for, any contacts among the FBI, the Criminal Division, and a U.S. Attorney’s Office, in order to keep the FISC informed of the criminal justice aspects of the ongoing investigation.” Id. Part A, PP 4, 7.

With some notable exceptions, the July 1995 Procedures significantly limited consultations between law enforcement and intelligence officers where the Department wanted to preserve its ability to use FISA. Amendments to the procedures adopted in August 2001 ensured that the Criminal Division was entitled to all relevant information obtained from FISA searches or surveillance, but contacts between the FBI and the Division were required to be coordinated with OIPR. Moreover, although the July 1995 Procedures permitted advice designed to “preserve” the possibility of a prosecution, the procedures were understood to ban advice designed to “enhance” the possibility of a prosecution, and the line between “preserving” and “enhancing” advice is so murky that advice-giving was substantially curtailed. See AGRT Report at 721-734; General Accounting Office, FBI Intelligence Investigations: Coordination within Justice on Counterintelligence Criminal Matters is Limited (July 2001) (GAO-01-780) (hereinafter GAO Report).


It is against the foregoing historical background, particularly as recounted in the AGRT and GAO Reports, that the USA Patriot Act was passed by Congress and should be interpreted by this Court. Both the “coordination” amendment (50 U.S.C. � 1806(k)) and the “significant purpose” amendment (50 U.S.C. � 1804(a)(7)(B)) were designed to facilitate greater coordination between intelligence and law enforcement officials, and to overturn prior standards restricting that coordination. As explained in the government’s principal brief, however, each amendment attacks the problem differently. The coordination amendment rejects the dichotomy between law enforcement and non-law enforcement methods, and reaffirms the original statutory definition of “foreign intelligence information” to include information sought for use in a law enforcement effort to protect against espionage or international terrorism (e.g., the prosecution of Robert Hanssen or Ahmed Ressam). See Gov’t Br.30-41. The significant purpose amendment, by contrast, does not address the scope or definition of foreign intelligence information or a foreign intelligence purpose; it merely reduces the degree of foreign intelligence purpose required to use the statute, and makes clear that the inquiry into the government’s purpose is not comparative. See id. at 49-56.


The Patriot Act Amendments Were Designed to Override Prior Adoptions of the (False) Dichotomy


The significant purpose and coordination amendments together restore FISA to its original meaning and function. Especially given the context surrounding their enactment, the two amendments represent a sensible response to the situation Congress confronted in September 2001: A statute whose plain language rejects the dichotomy between foreign intelligence and law enforcement, but a FISC (and other courts) that had ignored that language and adopted the dichotomy. Faced with that gap between FISA’s original meaning and its judicial interpretation, Congress was not required to adopt one approach or the other – i.e., it was not required to choose between (1) abandoning its original intent in enacting FISA, or (2) proceeding as if the intervening cases were never decided. Instead, Congress wisely pursued both approaches to the problem, reaffirming the original intent of the statute but also dealing pragmatically with the reality that the courts had misinterpreted it.

By enacting both amendments Congress doubled the chances that its intent would be carried out. See 50 U.S.C. �� 1804(a)(7)(B), 1806(k). Thus,  the coordination amendment was designed to force the courts to abandon the false dichotomy between foreign intelligence and law enforcement. But even if that effort failed, and courts maintained the false dichotomy, the significant purpose amendment would still grant the government substantial relief by increasing the allowable amount of law enforcement purpose. Moreover, enacting two amendments also provided insurance against any constitutional problems that courts might find with either amendment. In the face of a national crisis of the first order, and an extremely compressed legislative schedule, Congress chose an eminently reasonable approach.

Although the significant purpose amendment does not challenge the dichotomy between foreign intelligence and law enforcement, neither does it affirmatively adopt or codify that dichotomy. To be sure, while “CoDngress is presumed to be aware of an administrative or judicial interpretation of a statute and to adopt that interpretation when it re-enacts a statute without change,” Lorillard v. Pons, 434  U.S. 575, 580 (1978) (emphasis added), such presumptions cannot hold where Congress amends a statute specifically to deal with prior administrative or judicial interpretations. This conclusion is especially strong where, as here, the agency and judicial interpretations are fundamentally at odds with the plain language of the original statute. See, e.g., Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. 115, 121 (1994); Demarest v. Manspeaker, 498 U.S. 184 (1991). As the Supreme Court has long recognized, “[w]here the law is plain the subsequent reenactment of a statute does not constitute adoption of its administrative construction.” Biddle v. Commissioner, 302U.S. 573, 582 (1938).

Nor does the fact that Congress chose not to amend the definition of “foreign intelligence information” signify acquiescence in prior interpretations adopting the false dichotomy between intelligence and law enforcement. Congress did not rely on the Administration’s or the courts’ prior position to pass the Patriot Act, a crucial consideration for acquiescence. See F.D.A. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 156 (2000). On the contrary, Congress sought to help the Administration overcome both the crabbed construction of “foreign intelligence information” and the wall of separation between intelligence and law enforcement, a fact that the President clearly understood when he signed the legislation:

      For example, this legislation gives law enforcement officials better tools to put an end to financial counterfeiting, smuggling and money-laundering. Secondly, it gives intelligence operations and criminal operations the chance to operate not on separate tracks, but to share vital information so necessary to disrupt a terrorist attack before it occurs.

As of today, we’re changing the laws governing information-sharing. And as importantly, we’re changing the culture of our various agencies that fight terrorism. Countering and investigating terrorist activity is the number one priority for both law enforcement and intelligence agencies.


President’s Remarks on Signing the USA Patriot Act of 2001, 37 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 1550 (Oct.  29, 2001). As this statement recognizes, both intelligence and law enforcement can (and must) work together to protect against international terrorism. It follows a fortiori that this is not a case with “overwhelming evidence of acquiescence,” as thd Supreme Court generally requires. See Solid Waste Agency of N. Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs, 531 U.S. 159, 169-170 & n.5 (2001). While the “significant purpose” amendment recognizes the existence of the dichotomy between foreign intelligence and law enforcement, it cannot be said to recognize (or approve) its legitimacy.

Indeed, it would be particularly anomalous to read the significant purpose amendment as an affirmative enactment of the false dichotomy. As noted above, Congress did not adopt the significant purpose amendment because it was in agreement with prior judicial decisions adopting the false dichotomy. On the contrary, the amendment represents a clear disagreement with the result reached in those decisions. Thus, it is only by negative implication from Congress, rejection of the judicial primary purpose standard that it is possible to read the amendment as an affirmation of the judicially-adopted dichotomy between law enforcement and non-law enforcement efforts to protect national security.

Such a reading of the USA Patriot Act would amount to an inversion of Congress’ fundamental intent in passing the law. It is one thing to conclude that reenactment of a statute without addressing prior judicial constructions amounts to a tacit adoption of those constructions – i.e., that Congressional “silence is acceptance.” It would be quite another thing, however, to conclude that amending a statute to change prior judicial constructions amounts to adoption of other aspects of those  constructions – i.e., that “rejection is acceptance.” While the significant purpose amendment did not specifically reject the false dichotomy, it also did  not ratify or adopt that dichotomy. The most that can be said is that the amendment is silent or agnostic on the issue.

Given that  silence, the plain language of the 1978 version of FISA continues to govern. See United States v. Vonn, 122 S.Ct. 1013, 1050 (2002) (adoption of harmless error standard for guilty pleas in Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(h) does not implicitly repeal plain error standard in Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b)). Indeed, the significant purpose amendment cannot implicitly repeal the definition of “foreign intelligece information” because Congress simultaneously and expressly reaffirmed that definition (and repeated its operative language verbatim) by enacting the coordination amendment. Any attempt to read the “significant purpose” amendment as an implicit repeal of FISA’s original meaning therefore runs headlong into the unambiguous intent of Congress to perpetuate that meaning through the coordination amendment. As Senator Leahy stated in explaining the coordination amendment, “[p]rotection against these foreign-based threats by any lawful means is within the scope of the definition of foreign intelligence information,’ and the use of FISA to gather evidence for the enforcement of these laws was contemplated in the enactment of FISA.” 147 Cong. Rec. S10990-02, at S11004 (October 25, 2001). In short, as the D.C. Circuit has observed in a similar context:

      Were we to infer congressional approval of [the Department of] Interior’s rules because it did not amend the statute to explicitly repudiate them, we would in effect be insisting that a Congress legislatively reiterate an already clear statutory command in order to fend off an impermissible interpretation. As we all know, many statutes are on the books for which no congressional majority could presently be garnered


      to reenact


      to repeal, yet those acts continue as valid law; indeed, a canon of equal worth with the acquiescence-by-reenactment rule is the one disfavoring repeal by implication. We conclude that the acquiescence-by-reenactment rule is not applicable to a situation where the regulations violate the original statutory language and where Congress’ decision not to amend the relevant statutory provisions evidently stems from a belief that the provisions have been clear all along.


State of Ohio v. Department of the Interior, 880 F.2d 432, 458-459 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (emphasis in original).


Each of the Patriot Act Amendments Has Independent Meaning When Read Together


Each of the Patriot Act amendments has an effect when read as the government proposes. The coordination amendment, of course, reaffirms that information sought for certain prosecutions is “foreign intelligence information.” See Gov’t Br. 30 49. It therefore allows unfettered coordination between intelligence and law enforcement officials in furtherance of efforts to protect against espionage and international terrorism. It also ensures that such coordination cannot preclude a certification or finding of the required significant foreign intelligence purpose.

For its part, the significant purpose amendment makes clear that judicial review of the government’s purpose is not comparative. See Gov’t Br. 51-54. Thus, it reduces the need for judicial inquiry into any purpose other than a purpose to obtain “foreign intelligence information.” In theory, of course, many such (non-foreign intelligence) purposes are possible — e.g., surveillance for the purpose of domestic political harassment, or even for sheer voyeurism. In practice, however, the only “other” purpose likely to arise is an “ordinary” law enforcement purpose- i.e., a purpose to obtain evidence for a prosecution that is not intended to protect against the foreign threats to national security specified in 50 U.S.C. �� 1801(e)(1) and 1806(k)(1).

Obviously, some federal prosecutions are intended to protect against those threats, and some are not. In many cases, the purpose of the prosecution will be evident from the nature of the defendant and the charges. Thus, where an agent of a foreign power is prosecuted for espionage or terrorism, or offenses directly related to espionage or terrorism (e.g., providing material support to terrorists, 18 U.S.C. � 2339A), the inference is all but unavoidable that the prosecution represents a “foreign intelligence purpose under FISA. Correspondingly, where the prosecution concerns someone who is not an agent of a foreign power for an offense that is no related to those threats – e.g., the prosecution of Bonnie and Clyde for bank robbery – the opposite is true.

Between those extremes, the purpose of the prosecution may vary with the particular case. For example, where the government has inescapable evidence that a FISA target is engaged in espionage, but the evidence cannot be authenticated or introduced at a public trial without compromising a valuable intelligence source or method, there may be no alternative but to prosecute the spy for another offense, such as mail fraud. In such a case, the mail fraud prosecution would be a “foreign intelligence” purpose under FISA because it would be intended to protect against espionage. Mail fraud prosecutions conducted to deter financial crime or to reassure investors concerning the integrity of the financial system, however  would not constitute a “foreign intelligence” purpose, even if the defendant also happened to be an agent of a foreign power.

Under the significant purpose amendment, where the Director of the FBI certifies the government’s foreign intelligence purpose, courts generally should not require the government to provide detailed information about the conduct of its investigation. The significant purpose amendment thus recognizes the Executive Branch’s expertise in identifying the information needed to protect national security from foreign threats, and the most appropriate ways of using that information. In that respect, it too is a reaffirmation of Congress’ original intent.

FISA was always intended to require deference to the Executive’s expertise. As enacted in 1978, FISA did not contemplate that “judges will somehow become involved * * * in making foreign policy [or] foreign intelligence policy,” or that they would “make substantive judgments as to the propriety of or need for a particular surveillance.” House Report at 25. Despite this original intent, however, the AGRT and GAO reports show that in the intervening years the FISC and other courts went too far in second-guessing the government’s judgments, and in regulating its investigations, particularly in the area where intelligence and law enforcement interests overlap, and where the fluid nature of investigations calls for the utmost in Executive Branch authority. The significant purpose amendment responds to these judicial excesses.4


      The USA Patriot Act was not the first time that the possibility of excessive judicial interference with the President’s authority over national security matters had been raised. That issue was of concern even when FISA was first enacted. As one witness testified in 1978,
      the judiciary is neither theoretically nor actually more neutral than the executive, or, for that matter, the Congress, in reaching answers to the difficult questions which national security electronic surveillance presents. It can as easily be argued that the judiciary will overweigh the interests of individual privacy claims because it is, after all, the protection of those claims on which judicial authorityis based * * * And since judges are not politically responsible, there is no self-correcting mechanism to remedy their abuses of power.


Foreign intelligence Electronic Surveillance: Hearings on H.R.5794, 9745, 7308, and 5632 Before the Subcomm. On Legislation of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 95th Cong. 2d Sess. 22l (1978) (statement of Laurence Silberman).


In short, the significant purpose amendment does not incorporate the false dichotomy between intelligence and law enforcement methods of protecting against foreign spies and terrorists.  The amendment does not, even implicitly, adopt that dichotomy. Statutory reenactments do not incorporate intervening case law where, as here, the cases conflict with the plain language of the original statute. Still less would it be appropriate to find such incorporation in an amendment designed to overrule the case law, albeit on other grounds, especially where a companion amendment repeats verbatim and clearly reaffirms the original statutory language. Congress had ample reason to enact both the significant purpose and coordination amendments, and each amendment may be read to serve an independent purpose and perform an independent function.


The Two Patriot Act Amondments Eliminate the Wall Restricting Coordination Between Intelligence and Law Enforcement Personnel

At a minimum, even if this  Court rejects the foregoing argument, the USA Patriot Act nonetheless clearly changes prior practice in several important respects. First, it eliminates the “primary purpose” standard. Indeed, the “significant purpose” amendment makes clear that law enforcement may be the primary purpose behind a FISA surveillance. As explained in our principal brief (pages 51-52), that is unavoidably the case in light of the plain meaning of the word “significant.” The Patriot Act’s legislative history supports that view. Members of Congress who voted for and against the USA Patriot Act understood that the “significant purpose” amendment would have that effect. For example, Senator Feingold made the following statement concerning the amendment:

      The bill changes [the "primary purpose"] requirement. The Government now will only have to show that intelligence is a “significant purpose” of the investigation. So even if the primary purpose is a criminal investigation, the heightened protections of the fourth amendment will not apply.


147 Cong. Rec. S11021 (Oct. 25, 2001). To the same effect is Senator Wellstone’s statement:

      The bill broadens the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, by extending FISA surveillance authority to criminal investigations, even when the primary purpose is not intelligence gathering.


147 Cong. Rec. S11025 (Oct. 25, 2001).

Perhaps most directly on point is the following colloquy between Senators Leahy and Cantwell concerning the “significant purpose” amendment:

      [Senator Cantwell:] Although the language has been improved from the administration’s original proposal and now would require that  ‘a significant,’ rather than simply ‘a’ purpose for the wiretap must be the gathering of foreign intelligence, the possibility remains that the primary purpose of the wiretap would be a criminal investigation without the safeguards of the title III wiretap law and the protections under the fourth amendment that those fulfill. I would like to ask the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee whether he interprets this language in this same way.

[Senator Leahy:] Yes, the Senator from Washington is correct. While improved, the USA Act would make it easier for the FBI to use a FISA wiretap to obtain information where the Government’s most important motivation for the wiretap is for use in a criminal prosecution.


147 Cong. Rec. S10593 (Oct. 11, 2001).

Other historical evidence also supports the conclusion. A letter sent to Congress from the Department of Justice in support of the significant purpose amendment stated that the amendment would recognize that “the courts should not deny [the President] the authority to conduct intelligence searches even when the national security purpose is secondary to criminal prosecution.” App. 1:3 (attachment) at page 13.  Indeed, even contemporaneous media reports evinced an understanding of the meaning of the “significant purpose” amendment. See Congressional Quarterly, House Action Reports, Fact Sheet No. 107-33 (Oct. 9, 2001), at page 3 (“Under the measure, for example, law enforcement could carry out a FISA operation even if the primary purpose was a criminal investigation.”); see also Congressional Quarterly, House Action Reports, Legislative Week (Oct. 23, 2001), at page3; Congressional Quarterly, House Action Reports, Legislative Week (Oct. 8, 2001), at page 13.

Accordingly, the significant purpose amendment, standing alone, substantially corrects the prior constriction of the range of permissible uses of FISA. Indeed, relaxing the purpose standard has a similar effect as restoring the original meaning of “foreign intelligence information.” Consider a hypothetical surveillance designed primarily to gather evidence to convict a target of espionage, and secondarily (but significantly) to support non-law enforcement efforts to neutralize the spy. Under the original definition of “foreign intelligence information,” which rejects the dichotomy between intelligence and law enforcement, the sole purpose of this surveillance would be to obtain foreign intelligence information. However, even if the significant purpose amendment were thought to ratify the dichotomy, it would still permit this surveillance, because a significant purpose of the surveillance is non-law enforcement. As noted in our principal brief (pages 55-56), even where the governmont’s law enforcement purpose is at its zenith, there will always (or almost always) also exist a significant non-law enforcement purpose for FISA surveillance.

Accordingly, the significant purpose amendment in large measure dismantles the wall of separation between intelligence and law enforcement. But Congress did not stop there. Instead, it spoke directly to that issue, expressly authorizing intelligence agents who are conducting FISA searches or surveillance to “consult” and “coordinate” with law enforcement officers to protect against foreign threats to national security. 50 U.S.C. �� 1806(k), 1825(k). Thus, not only did Congress provide that FISA may be used primarily for a law enforcement purpose, it also encouraged coordination between intelligence and law enforcement personnel, providing that such coordination cannot undermine the required “significant” foreign intelligence purpose. Indeed, Congress also spoke directly to the Judicial Branch, instructing the FISC that such coordination “shall not preclude  * * * the entry of an order” authorizing a search or surveillance. In other words, Congress directly and unambiguously tore down the wall.

In light of Congress’ intent to eliminate the wall at the center of the false dichotomy between intelligence and law enforcement purposes, it would be counterintuitive to interpret those same amendments as reaffirming the wall. Finding that Congress adopted a judicial misinterpretation sub silentio is a troublesome enterprise even when there is extrinsic evidence that Congress intended to affirm the judicial decisions, but when the entire thrust of congressional action is to remove judicial impediments to an effective response to terrorist threats, it makes no sense to read those amendments as reaffirming the theoretical basis of the precise judicial decisions that the amendments attempted to overturn as a practical matter.


The government’s principal brief on appeal defended the constitutionality of the Patriot Act’s “coordination” amendment by arguing that the Fourth Amendment does not discriminate between law enforcement efforts and other efforts to protect against the foreign threats specified in 50 U.S.C. �� 1801(e)(1)and 1806(k)(1). The brief maintained that it is the nature of the threat – e.g., espionage or international terrorism – rather than the nature of the response that dictates the constitutional analysis. See Gov’t Br. 67-74. The brief also argued that the “significant purpose” amendment is constitutional by referring to (and submitting) a letter sent to Congress in support of the amendment during the debates over the Patriot Act. Id. at 74-77.

At the hearing on September 9, this Court asked for additional briefing on whether the “primary purpose” standard is constitutionally required for FISA surveillance. In particular, the Court inquired whether the Fourth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980), governs here, and whether FISA establishes a “warrant” procedure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Although the law is not entirely settled, there is support for the proposition that a FISA order is a Fourth Amendment “warrant” in the technical sense, because it is a judicial order authorizing a search based on a finding of probable cause. Whether or not such an order is a “warrant,” however, it is one of many procedures that makes FISA surveillance more reasonable than unilateral Executive Branch surveillance, and therefore an important reason that the “significant purpose” standard is constitutional.


The President Has Inherent Authoritv to Conduct Warrantless Electronic Surveillance to Protect National Security from Foreign Threats


In considering the constitutionality of the amended FISA, it is important to understand that FISA is not required by the Constitution. Rather, the Constitution vests in the President inherent authority to conduct warrantless intelligence surveillance (electronic or otherwise) of foreign powers or their agents, and Congress cannot by statute extinguish that constitutional authority. Both before and after the enactment of FISA, courts have recognized the President’s inherent authority to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance. See, e.g., Butenko, 494 F.2d at 608 (grounding exception to warrant requirement in the President’s Commander-in-chief and foreign-affairs powers; noting that the country’s self-defense needs weigh on the side of reasonableness); Truong, 629 F.2d at 914 (citing the President’s foreign affairs power as justifying an exception to the warrant requirement); cf. United States v. United States District Court (Keith), 407 U.S. 297, 308 (1972)(reserving the question whether the President’s foreign-affairs powers justify exception from warrant requirement). In general, these courts have arrived at the “primary purpose” test as a result of balancing the President’s inherent authority against the privacy interests that are affected by warrantless searches. See, e.g., Truong, 629 F.2d at 913-915.

Given the enormous – and unique – importance of the President’s constitutional obligation to protect national security from foreign threats, there is a strong argument that the “primary purpose” test is too strict even for electronic surveillance conducted without prior judicial approval. The government in Truong argued that such surveillance is constitutional whenever there is “any degree” of foreign intelligence purpose, while the defendants supported a “sole” purpose standard. 629 F.2d at 915-916. The court of appeals adopted a compromise, settling on the “primary purpose” test,  and explaining that “[w]e think that the unique role of the executive in foreign affairs and the separation of powers will not permit this court to allow the executive less on the facts of this case, but we also are convinced that the Fourth Amendment will not permit us to grant the executive branch more.” Id. at 916.  Nonetheless, the court did not expressly consider or reject the “significant” purpose standard as an alternative to the “primary” purpose standard.

The factors favoring warrantless foreign intelligence searches have become substantially more compelling in the wake of the attacks of September 11.  The government’s interest has shifted to defense of the Nation from violent attack.  “It is more obvious and unarguable that no governmental interest is more compelling than the security of the Nation.” Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 307 (1981) (citation and quotations omitted).  While the magnitude of the current threat alone justifies expanding the warrant exception to searches with a significant foreign intelligence purpose, the nature of the threat is also an important consideration.  Combating international terrorism is inescapably both a foreign affairs and a law enforcement function.  In this context, separation-of-powers concerns require a relaxation of that standard.


The “Significant Purpose” Test for FISA Surveillance Satisfies the Constitution


This Court need not decide whether the “primary purpose” test would govern unilateral Executive Branch surveillance conducted today, because the surveillance at issue here is governed by FISA’s extensive procedural protections.  As mentioned above, FISA orders are issued pursuant to individualized suspicion by an Article III judge.  The statute requires certifications from high-ranking Executive Branch officials. It provides for intricate minimization procedures and extensive congressional oversight. And it requires a finding of probable cause – albeit not always the same probable cause that is required in ordinary criminal cases.

To the extent that FISA does not require ordinary probable cause, there is support for the proposition that a FISA order is a “warrant” in the constitutional sense. See, e.g., Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 877 n.4 (1987); Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 534 (1967); Keith, 407 U.S. at 322-23. The courts of appeals have referred to FISA orders as “warrants” in the constitutional sense. See, e.g., Pelton, 835 F.2d at 1075; United States v. Cavanagh, 807 F.2d 787, 790 (9th Cir. 1987)(Kennedy, J.). The Court in Keith did not suggest that electronic surveillance conducted under standards different from those in Title III would fall outside the Warrant Clause. See 407 U.S. at 323.

But even if FISA orders are not warrants in the constitutional sense, the pivotal question for Fourth Amendment purposes is whether FISA-authorized surveillance is reasonable. The Supreme Court has upheld the use of administrative search warrants issued without a traditional showing of probable cause. In Camara, for example, the Court held that routine inspections for violations of a city’s housing code required a “warrant procedure.” 387 U.S. at 534. However, the Court went on to hold, in this “administrative warrant” context, that the probable cause standard should be “reasonableness.” See id. at 537, 539. The Court specifically rejected the contention that such “warrants should issue only when the inspector possesses probable cause to believe that a particular dwelling” was in violation of the code, let alone when there is probable cause of a crime. 534; cf. Keith, 407 U.S. at 322-23 (noting that a lower probable cause standard may satisfy the Fourth Amendment in domestic security cases).

Indeed, the Supreme Court has also upheld warrantless and suspicionless searches undertaken for reasons other than ordinary, general law enforcement. See, e.g., Vernonia, 515 652-653. The Court has recognized that special law enforcement needs – in particular, needs related to foreign affairs and national security – can justify such warrantless and suspicionless searches. See, e.g., United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 552 (1976) (upholding permanent immigration checkpoints, in part, due to the “formidable law enforcement problems” inherent in stemming the flow of illegal immigration); City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 38 (2000)(characterizing Martinez-Fuerte as reflecting the “longstanding concern for the protection of the integrity of the border”); see also Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U6S. 326, 330 (2001) (“When faced with special law enforcement needs, diminished expectations of privacy, minimal intrusions, or the like, the Court has found that certain general, or individual, circumstances may render a warrantless search or seizure reasonable” (emphasis added)(citations omitted)).

Whether or not FISA establishes a “warrant” procedure, it clearly imposes procedural protections far beyond those associated with unilateral Executive Branch surveillance of the sort at issue in Truong. Thus, FISA surveillance is distinguishable from unilateral surveillance, if not under the Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment, then at least under the Reasonableness Clause. As the Supreme Court recognized in the Keith case, “security surveillance may involve different policy and practical considerations from the surveillance of ‘ordinary crime,’” and may therefore support standards “which differ from those already prescribed for specified crimes in Title III.” 407 U.S. at 322-323. These different standards, the Court explained in Keith, are “compatible with the Fourth Amendment if they are reasonable both in relation to the legitimate need of Government for intelligence information and the protected rights of our citizens.” Id. at 323.  At issue in Keith was protection against domestic threats to national security. This case, of course, involves protection of the country from foreign threats, and therefore implicates even more important government interests, and the core of the President’s Article II powers. See Haig v. Agee,  53 U.S. 280, 307 (1981) (“no government interest is more compelling than the security of the Nation”).


The FISC’s Decision Improperly Micromanages the Executive Branch in Violation of Articles II and III of the Constitution


Apart from any constitutional defense of the Patriot Act as interpreted by the government, there are significant constitutional questions raised by the FISC’s May 17 order – particularly the “chaperone” requirement and the reporting requirements of its new Rule 11. No Supreme Court opinion has ever recognized the authority of a federal court to impose such structural requirements on the Executive, let alone with respect to such core executive functions. The reasons for this are clear: Article III simply does not grant federal courts any power to order the internal workings of the Executive Branch, particularly in the area of foreign intelligence. But even if federal courts had some power to micromanage the Executive Branch, separation of powers prohibits the use of that power to the extent it interferes with core functions of the Executive.

First, nothing in the text of Article III even hints that federal courts have authority to micromanage the Executive Branch. By its plain terms, Article III makes clear that the judicial power is limited to cases and controversies. See U.S.Const. Art. III, 5 2. This limitation “defines the role of the judiciary in a tripartite allocation of power to assure that the federal courts will not intrude into areas committed to other branches of government.” United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 396 (1980) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Federal courts must “carefully abstain from exercising any power that is not strictly judicial in its character, and which is not clearly confided in [them] by the Constitution.” Muskrat v. Brown, 219 U.S. 346, 355 (1911)(internal quotation omitted). Here, the FISC went beyond the mere decision of an Article III case or controversy by attempting to impose rules for the operation of the Executive Branch and structure the functions of different units with the Executive Branch.

Even if Article III provided some justification for the FISC’s actions, separation of powers required the FISC not to interfere with the Executive’s core functions. The Supreme Court has long recognized that the core powers conferred on each branch cannot be shared with the other branches. See, e.g., United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 704 (1974). Even in Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 695 (1988), in which the Court upheld the role of the Special Division Court to appoint independent counsels under the Ethics in Government Act, the Court explained that the Act did not “work[] any judicial usurpation of properly executive functions.” The powers conferred upon the Special Division were “not supervisory or administrative, nor [were] they functions that the Constitution requires be performed within the Executive Branch.” Ibid.5 it seems clear that if a federal court had assumed supervisory or administrative functions over Executive Branch officers, the Supreme Court would have found it to be a violation of the separation of powers.


        Additionally, the Court construed the Special Division’s power to terminate the office of the independent counsel as ministerial, in order to avoid the constitutional  problem of usurping Executive authority. See 487 U.S. at 682-83.


Concern about the appropriate role of the Article III judiciary is especially pronounced where, as here, the case involves the functions of the Executive Branch in the area of national security. The Supreme Court has explained that “no government interest is more compelling than the security of the Nation.” Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 307 (1981). The text, structure, and history of the Constitution demonstrate that the primary responsibility to protect this interest is vested in the President. Article II, section 2 states that he “shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.”  The Constitution also vests in the President all of the executive power and imposes on him a duty to execute the laws. These powers give the President broad constitutional authority to respond to threats to the national security. See, e.g., Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 789 (1950); Loving v. United States, 517 U.S. 748, 776 (1996) (Scalia, J., concurring) (noting that the “inherent powers” of the Commander in Chief “are clearly extensive”). Further, as the courts have repeatedly recognized, the President possesses exclusive power over the conduct of foreign affairs. See, e.g., United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 320 (1936); see also Department ofthe Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 529 (1988). The conduct of foreign counterintelligence investigations is a necessary correlate to these executive powers.6   In order to successfully defend the Nation from threats to its security, the President must have the ability to gather and disseminate foreign intelligence information that will allow him and his assistants to develop and execute the most appropriate policies. This is an area where Article III intervention is particularly unsuited, in light of the structural advantages of the Executive to act with speed, secrecy, and unity of energy, see, e.g., The Federalist No. 70, at 424 (Alexander Hamilton) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961) (“Decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man in a much more eminent degree than the proceedings of any greater number”); see also The Federalist No. 74 (Alexander Hamilton), and the relative incompetence of the federal judiciary in such matters, see, e.g., Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. at 319 (“In this vast external realm [of federal power over foreign affairs], with its important, complicated, delicate and manifold problems, the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation”); id. at 320 (describing the President “as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations”).


        Indeed, as discussed above, Article II of the Constitution grants the President authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance when he deems it necessary to protect the Nation against foreign attack.


Prior to the USA Patriot Act, the judicial “primary purpose” standard (and the Department’s internal procedures to ensure compliance with that standard) hampered the President’s ability to discharge his core national security and foreign relations functions. As a result, the Department revised its procedures, pursuant to the Executive Branch’s constitutionally designated powers and an explicit act of Coogress (the USA Patriot Act). The FISC, rendering its own policy judgments on how foreign counterintelligence investigations should be conducted, rejected in part and rewrote in part the Department’s procedures.

To be sure, the FISC has an obligation to uphold the Constituition and, in particular, the Fourth Amendment. If the FISC determines that a particular surveillance, if authorized, would violate FISA or the Fourth Amendment, it should deny the application. The order issued by the FISC in this case, however, wholly exceeded that court’s authority because it directly exercised the Executive Branch’s core national security and foreign policy functions. Regardless of Article III, the FISC acted impermissibly by exercising and undermining these uniquely Executive powers.


The Doctrine of Constitutional Avoidance Supports the Government’s Interpretation of FISA


In light of the foregoing, the doctrine of constitutional doubt supports, and certainly does not undermine, the government’s interpretation of the Patriot Act. See generally Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288, 348 (1936) (Brandeis, J.,concurring). As noted above, and in our principal brief, that interpretation is the correct one and flows from the plain language of the provisions and the legislative history. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 238 (1998)(doctrine applies only where the statute is “genuinely susceptible to two constructions after, and not before, its complexities are unraveled”). Moreover, Congress enacted this legislation aware of the constitutional issues it raised and set forth a strong case for its constitutionality. The 1978 Senate Intelligence Report expressly contemplated that FISA would be used for law enforcement purposes, and understood that “[t]he targeting of U.S. persons [in foreign counterintelligence and counterterrorism investigations] and the overlap with criminal law enforcement require close attention to traditional fourth amendment principles.” S. Rep. No. 95-701, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 11 (1978) [hereinafter Senate Intelligence Report]. But Congress concluded that such use of FISA would in fact be constitutional. See id. at 11-16.

Members of Congress understood that the USA Patriot Act could also raise constitutional questions, but intended for the courts to resolve the meaning of the statute as written. See 147 Cong. Rec. S10589 (Oct. 11, 2001) (statement of Senator Edwards); id. at S10593 (statement of Senator Cantwell). Indeed, Senator Leahy discussed the constitutional questions raised by the two USA Patriot Act amendments together. He observed that under the coordination amendment, “[p]rotection against these foreign-based threats [terrorism and espionage] by any lawful means is within the scope of the definition of ‘foreign intelligence information,’ and the use of FISA to gather evidence for the enforcement of these laws” has always been permitted. He also noted that the USA Patriot Act “adopts ‘significant purpose,’ and it will be up to the courts to determine how far law enforcement agencies may use FISA for criminal investigation and prosecution beyond the scope of the statutory definition of ‘foreign intelligence information.‘” 147 Cong. Rec. S11004 (Oct. 25, 2001) (emphasis added). This reflects an understanding that (1) the coordination amendment reaffirmed the broad definition of “foreign intelligence information” to include evidence sought for certain prosecutions; (2) the significant purpose amendment allowed FISA to be used primarily for a purpose other than collection of foreign intelligence information as so defined; (3) the two amendments would be applied together; and (4) whatever constitutional questions the amendments raised would have to be resolved by the courts.7


        In a hearing on September 10, 2002 (copy of transcript attached), Senator Leahy stated:
      I was surprised to learn that as, quote “The drafter of the coordination amendment” close quote, of the USA Patriot Act, the [Department of Justice] cites my statement – cites a Leahy statement to support its argument that there is no longer a distinction between using FISA for a criminal prosecution and using it to collect foreign intelligence. Had the Department of Justice taken the time to pick up a phone and call me, and incidentally I have a listed phone number, both home and at the office, I would have told them that was not, and is not, my belief.


On September 24, 2002, Senators Hatch, Thurmond, Kyl, DeWine, Sessions, and McConnell inserted into the Congressional record a statement that the Patriot Act was designed to allow “‘our law enforcement and intelligence communities * * * to cooperate fully in protecting our Nation against terrorist attacks,’” and asserting that “[i]t was our intent * * * to change FISA to allow a foreign intelligence surveillance warrant to be obtained even when the primary purpose of the surveillance was the gathering of criminal evidence.” See footnote 2, supra.


Indeed, because the President has the inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless intelligence surveillance based on a significant foreign intelligence purpose, this Court must interpret FISA to avoid infringement of this presidential power, if possible. Thus, it is the FISC’s interpretation of FISA and the USA Patriot Act, not the government’s, that raises the more severe constitutional questions. To the extent that avoidance doctrine governs here, it Compels the Court to read the statute to support, rather than infringe, the President’s constitutional power and responsibility to keep the country safe.

It is respectfully submitted that the judgment of the FISC in this case, including its adoption of the opinion and order of May 17, 2002, and its new Rule 11, should be vacated, and the case remanded with directions to the FISC to grant the FISA application as submitted.

      [signed: John Ashcroft] JOHN ASHCROFT Attorney General

LARRY D. THOMPSON Deputy Attorney General

THEODORE B. OLSON Solicitor General

DAVID S. KRIS Associate Deputy Attorney General

JAMES A. BAKER Counsel for Intelligence Policy

JONATHAN L. MARCUS Attorney Advisor Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C.  20530 (202)514-2882


Dated: September 25, 2002

At the hearing on September 9, this Court inquired into the differences between FISA and Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. �� 2510-2522. Set forth below is a detailed comparison between the two statutes in the following areas: (1) review by a neutral and detached magistrate, (2) probable cause, (3) particularity, (4) necessity, (5) duration of surveillance, (6) minimization, (7) sealing, (8) notice to the target, (9) suppression, and (10) other matters.  As the discussion demonstrates, FISA is more flexible than Title III in some, but not all, of these areas. Moreover, the differences between the two statutes are not always of constitutional significance – particularly where, as in this case, FISA is applied to U.S. persons who are “agents of a foreign power” under the rubric of international terrorism, 50 U.S.C. � 1801(b)(2)(C) and (E).1


      Based in part on

Berger v. New York

      , 388 U.S. 41 (1967), the courts of appeals have generally held that the Constitution governs the first six of the 10 areas listed above. See

United States v. Williams

      , 124 F.3d 411, 416 n.5 (3d Cir. 1997);

United States v. Falls,

      34 F. 3d 674 (8th Cir. 1994);

United States v. Koyomejian

      , 970 F.2d 536 (9th Cir. 1992) (en banc);

United States v. Mesa-Rincon

      , 911 F.2d 1433 (10th Cir. 1990 ;

United States v. Biasucci

      , 786 F.12d 504 (2d Cir. 1986);

United States v. Cuevas-Sanchez

      , 821 F.2d 248 (5th Cir. 1987);

United States v. Torres

      , 751 F. 20 875 (7th Cir. 1984). We do not necessarily agree with all aspects of those decisions. We do agree, however, with cases holding that other areas of difference between FISA and Title III  are not constitutionally significant. See

United States v. Ianiello

      ,  621 F. Supp. 1455, 1468-1469 (S.D.N.Y. 1985).


It is important to note that the discussion below compares the statutory language of FISA and Title III. As applied in particular cases, similar language may produce different results. For example, as explained in Section (5), infra, both FISA and Title III give the supervising court discretion to require periodic reports on the progress of electronic surveillance. Compare 50 U.S.C. � 1805(e)(3), with 18 U.S.C. � 2518(6). As a practical matter, many Title III courts require 10-day progress reports; the same is not true of the FISC. See Senate Five Year Report at 11; see also footnote 6, infra. The argument here is not that FISA’s discretionary provisions are (or should be) applied in accord with Title III, or that such application is necessary to avoid constitutional questions. On the contrary, FISA should be interpreted and applied in keeping with its purpose requirements, which also support its constitutionality. Particularly in a case like the present one, however, the differences between FISA and Title III are not as significant as they might appear to be.


Review By A Neutral and Detached Magistrate


With limited exceptions, both FISA and Title III require the government to file an application for a court order authorizing electronic surveillance. 50 U.S.C. � 1804; 18 U.S.C. � 2518. Both statutes thus satisfy the constitutional requirement that warrants must be issued by neutral, disinterested magistrates.” Dalia v. United States, 441 U.S. 238, 255 (1979); see House Report 23 (noting the three exceptions in FISA to the requirementof a “prior judicial warrant”); United States v. Cavanagh, 807 F.2d 787, 790 (9th Cir. 1987) (Kennedy, J.) (holding that the FISC is a “neutral and detached” court).


Probable Cause


Both Title III and FISA require the government to establish, and the court to find, probable cause justifying the use of electronic surveillance. Under title III, the court must find “on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant that * * * there is probable cause for belief that an individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a particular offense enumerated in section 2516 of thie chapter.” 18 U.S.C. � 2518(3)(a). For wire and oral communications (e.g., telephone and microphone interception), Section 2516 enumerates a long list of predicate offenses, ranging from bank fraud (18 U.S.C. � 1344)to unlawful possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. S 922(g)), and including espionage (e.g., 18 U.8.C. � 794), assassination (e.g.,18 U.S.C. �� 351, 1751), sabotage (e.g., 18 U.S.C. � 2155), terrorism (e.g., 18 U.S.C. � 2332), and aircraft piracy (49 U.S.C. � 46502). For electronic communications (e.g., electronic mail or facsimile messages under Title III), any federal felony may serve as a predicate. 18 U.S.C.  � 2516(3). Title III requires probable cause only that “an individual” is committing a predicate offense, and the court may grant a Title III application even if the government is unable to identify the individual whose communications are to be intercepted or who is committing the predicate offense. See United States v. Kahn, 415 U.S. 143, 157 (1974) (“when there is probable cause to believe that a particular telephone is being used to commit an offense but no particular person is identifiable, a wire interception order may, nevertheless, properly issue under the statute”).2


        Section 2518(l)(b)(iv) requires every Title III application to include “a full a complete statement * * * including * * * the identity of the person, if known, committing the offense and whose communications are to be intercepted.”   Every Title III order must specify “the identity of the person, if known, whose communications are to be intercepted.” 18 U.S.C.2518(4)(a).


In contrast, FISA requires the court to find, “on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant,” that “there is probable cause to believe that * * * the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power: Provided, That no United States person may be considered a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.” 50 U.S.C. � 1805(a)(3).3


      A FISA application must include “the identity, if known, or a description of the target of the electronic surveillance.” 50 U.S.C. � 1804(a)(3). Orders authorizing electronic surveillance must specify “the identity, if known, or a description of the target of the electronic surveillance.” 50 U.S.C. � 1805(c)(1)(A). Cf. House Report 73.


The terms “foreign power” and “agent of a foreign power” are defined by FISA in ways that sometimes, but not always, require a showing of criminal conduct.

Under FISA, a “foreign power” is defined to be any of the following (50 U.S.C. � 1801(a)):

      (1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States;

(2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons;

(3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments;

(4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor;

(5) a foreign-based politica1 organization, not substantially composed of United States persons; or

(6) an entity that is directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments.


Five of these six definitions can be satisfied without any showing of criminal activity. For example, a foreign government, whether friendly or hostile to the United States, is a “foreign power” under Section 1801(a)(1). See House Report 29.

The fourth definition, which refers to “international terrorism” and which is applicable to this case, does require criminal conduct. See House Report 30 (“The term ‘international terrorism’ is a defined term * * * and includes within it a criminal standard”). FISA defines “international terrorism” to require, among other things, “activities that  * * * involve ‘violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any State.” 50 U.S.C. � 1801(c). Thus, while the definition extends to terrorist acts abroad, those acts must be of a sort that would be criminal if committed in the United States – e.g., bombing the Eiffel Tower instead of the World Trade Center. See House Report at 42, 45.

A group may also be a “foreign power” under the fourth definition if it engages in “activities in preparation” for international terrorism. The “preparation therefor” standard may or may not be more expansive than the criminal “attempt” standard, which is generally understood to require a “substantial step” towards completion of an offense, see Braxton v. United States, 500 U.S. 344, 351 (1991); House Report 43, but it is surely no broader than the “overt act” requirement of some criminal conspiracy statutes, such as 18 U.S.C. � 371, see United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10, 14 (1994). A “group” engaged in preparatory activities for international terrorism would, of course, satisfy criminal conspiracy standards. See ibid.

The term “agent of a foreign power” is defined by FISA as follows (50 U.S.C. � 1801(b)):

      (1) any person other than a United States person, who
      (A) acts in the United States as an officer or employee of a foreign power, or as a member of a foreign power as defined in subsection (a)(4) of this section;

(B) acts for or on behalf of a foreign power which engages in clandestine intelligence activities in the United States contrary to the interests of the United States, when the circumstances of such person’s presence in the United States indicate that such person may engage in such activities in the United States, or when such person knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of such activities or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in such activities; or


any person who

      (A) knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power, which activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;

(B) pursuant to the direction of an intelligence service or network of a foreign power, knowingly engages in any other clandestine intelligence activities for or on behalf of such foreign power, which activities involve or are about to involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;

(C) knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power;

(D) knowingly enters the United States under a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power or, while in the United States, knowingly assumes a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power; or

(E) knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).


This definition distinguishes between “United States persons” and other persons. A “United States person” is defined by FISA to be “a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 1101(a)(20) of Title 8), an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section.” In practical terms, therefore, a “U.S. person” under FISA is a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident alien (green card holder); visiting foreigners and illegal aliens are not “U.S. persons.” See House Report 32.

A U.S. person can be an “agent of a foreign power” only if he engages in some level of criminal activity. There are two main categories of U.S. person agents of foreign powers:  The first category includes persons engaged in espionage and clandestine intelligence activities; the second category includes persons engaged in sabotage and international terrorism. A third category, that is not as significant as the first two, includes persons who enter the United States under a false identity. Eachcategory is discussed below.

A U.S. person who is engaged in “clandestine intelligence gathering activities” or “other clandestine intelligence activities” for or on behalf of a foreign power may be an agent of that foreign power only if those activities either “involve,” “may involve,” or “are about to involve” a “violation of the criminal statutes of the United States.” 50 U.S.C. � 1801(b)(2)(A)-(B); see House Report 39. By setting a “may involve” standard, Congress intended to require less than the showing of probable cause applicable in ordinary criminal cases. See House Report 39-40, 79.

To be an “agent of a foreign power” under the   rubric of international terrorism or sabotage, a U.S. person  must “knowingly engage[]” in “sabotage or international  terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power.” 50 U.S.C. 5 1801(b)(2)(C). The term “sabotage” is defined to mean “activities that involve a violation of chapter 105 of Title 18, or that would involve such a violation if committed against the United States.” 50 U.S.C. � 1801(4). Thus, like international terrorism, sabotage is defined to require activity that is criminal or would be criminal if the United States were directly involved. The U.S. person must actually be “engage[d] in” sabotage or international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor – i.e., committing or preparing to commit the specified acts.

A U.S. person may also be an “agent of a foreign power” if he knowingly aids and abets or conspires with others engaged in clandestine intelligence activities or sabotage/international terrorism. 50 U.S.C. � 1801(b)(2)(E). These are criminal law standards. Compare 18 U.S.C. �� 2, 371. As the House Report explains (at page 44), “[t]his standard requires the Government to establish probable cause that the prospective target knows both that the person with whom he is conspiring or whom he is aiding and abetting is engaged in the described activities as an agent of a foreign power and that his own conduct is assisting or furthering such activities. The innocent dupe who unwittingly aids a foreign intelligence officer cannot be targeted under this provision.”

Finally, a U.S. person may also be an “agent of a foreignpower” if he “knowingly enters the United States under a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power or, while in the United States, knowingly assumes a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power.” 50 U.S.C. � 1801(b)(2)(D). This provision requires knowingly false or fraudulent conduct, and will almost always involve a crime, because – apart from the specific requirements of the customs and immigration laws – it is not possible legally to enter this country without providing proof of identity to a federal official. See 18 U.S.C. � 1001 (making it a crime to provide a false statement to a federal official); United States v. Popow, 821 F.24 483, 485 (8th Cir. 1987)  (“We hold that the giving of a false identification at the United States border is punishable under � 1001 because it is both material and within the jurisdiction of a federal agency”). Similarly, assuming a false identity in the United States for or on behalf of a foreign power will almost inevitably result in a fraud offense of one sort or another. For example, the provision would not include a person who assumes a false identity to escape an abusive spouse, or even to evade a creditor.

Thus, a U.S. person may not be an “agent of a foreign power” unless he engages in activity that either is, may be, or would be a crime if committed against the United States or within U.S. jurisdiction. Although FISA does not always require a showing of an imminent crime or “that the elements of a specific offense exist,” Senate Intelligence Report at 13, it does require the government to establish probable cause to believe that an identifiable target is knowingly engaged in terrorism, espionage, or clandestine intelligence activities or is knowingly entering the country with a false identity or assuming one once inside the country on behalf of a foreign power. Thus, while FISA imposes a more relaxed criminal probable cause standard than Title III, those differences are not extensive as applied to U.S. persons.

Of particular relevance in this case, the differences in the area of international terrorism are slight to the point of vanishing – the only significant variance being that FISA extends to terrorist activity overseas (and outside U.S. jurisdiction) as well as within the United States. For obvious reasons, there is little case law concerning the application of the Fourth Amendment to international terrorism outside U.S. criminal law jurisdiction. However, virtually any U.S. person located in this country who is an “agent of a foreign power” under the rubric of international terrorism would likely be violating a U.S. law, even if he planned to commit terrorist acts outside U.S. jurisdiction. For example, under 18 U.S.C. � 956(a), it is a crime for any person

      within the jurisdiction of the United States, [to] conspire[] with one or more other persons, regardless of where such other person or persons are located, to commit at any place outside the United States an act that would constitute the offense of murder, kidnapping, or maiming if committed in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States * * * if any of the conspirators commits an act within the jurisdiction of the United States to effect any object of the conspiracy.


Section 956(b) applies the same standards to conspiracies to “damage or destroy specific property situated within a foreign country and belonging to a foreign government or to any political subdivision thereof with which the United States is at peace, or any railroad, canal, bridge, airport, airfield, or other public utility, public conveyance, or public structure, or any religious, educational, or cultural property so situated.”  Because a U.S. person terrorist Under FISA must be working “for or on behalf” of an international terrorist group, he would appear to satisfy the conspiracy elements of Section 956.4


         In addition, Section 2331 of Title 18 defines “international terrorism” almost exactly as FISA does, and numerous provisions of Title 18 make criminal various activities in connection with terrorist acts that occur outside the UnitedStates. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. �� 2332d (engaging in a financial transaction with a country designated as a supporter of international terrorism); 2332f (delivering or detonating an explosive or other lethal device in, into, or against a place of public use); 2339A (providing material support or resources knowing that they are to be used in preparing for or carrying out, inter alia, destruction of aircraft; violent acts at international airports; possession of biological weapons; possession of chemical weapons; possession of nuclear material without lawful authority; or conspiracy to injure persons or damage property in a foreign country); 2339B (providing material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization); 2339C (willfully providing or collecting funds with knowledge or intention that funds are to be used to carry out, inter alia, any act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian when the purpose of such act is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act).

Moreover, under 28 U.S.C. � 1782 and various Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs), the United States has authority to conduct searches and/or subpoena information on behalf of foreign governments based on suspected violations of foreign laws. Cf., e.g., In re Request from Canada Pursuant to Treaty Between the U.S. and Canada on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, 155 F. Supp.2d 515 (M.D.N.C. 2001); Treaty with the United Kingdom on Mutual Legal Assistance on Criminal Matters, Jan. 6, 1994, S. Treaty Doc. No. 104-2, 1994 WL 855115.


On the other side of the balance, FISA’s terrorism standards require more than Title III in several respects. First, of course, the probable cause that is required is probable cause to believe not merely that a simple violation of law has been committed, see Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 815 (1996), but probable cause to believe that the target has engaged in particularly serious crimes – i.e., those that involve “violent acts or acts dangerous to human life.” Cf., Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 182-183 (1949) (Jackson, J., dissenting). FISA applies to a far narrower range of criminal conduct than Title III. Compare 50 U.S.C. � 1801 with 18 U.S.C. � 2516.

Second, not only must the government satisfy the criminal elements of international terrorism, it must also show that the terrorism offense is being committed “for or on behalf of” an international terrorist group. That provision requires “the Government to show a nexus between the individual and the foreign power that suggests that the person is likely to do the bidding of the foreign power.” House Report at 35 (discussing the identical phrase in the context of clandestine intelligence activities). The government must show that the terrorist activity is transnational in some way – e.g., because the “perpetrators operate or [plan to] seek asylum” abroad.

Third, under FISA’s definition of international terrorism, the government must also show that the violent acts appear to be intended either to “intimidate or coerce” a government or a civilian population, or to affect government conduct “by assassination or kidnapping.” As the House Report explains (at page 45):

      Examples of activities which in and of themselves would meet these requirements would be: the detonation of bombs in a metropolitan area, the kidnapping of a high-ranking government official, the hijacking of an airplane in a deliberate and articulated effort to force the government to release a certain class of prisoners or to suspend aid to a particular country, the deliberate assassination of persons to strike fear into other to deter them from exercising their rights of the destruction of vital government facilities. Of course, other violent acts might also satisfy these requirements if the requisite purpose is demonstrated.


In sum, as applied to U.S. person terrorists, FISA requires more than mere probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. It applies only to a small set of extremely serious crimes, and only when those crimes are committed on behalf of a foreign power and involve international activity. FISA cannot be used to monitor a U.S. person merely because he works as in-house counsellor as a registered lobbyist for a foreign government, see House Report 30, 32, and it cannot be used to monitor the vast majority of criminals, from corrupt business executives (e.g., Enron management), to members of organized crime families (e.g., John Gotti), to domestic terrorists (e.g., Timothy McVeigh). See id. at 30 (where necessary, “groups engaged in terrorism of a purely domestic nature * * * should be subjected to surveillance under” Title III, not FISA). Thus, in its probable cause provisions, FISA is more demanding than Title III when applied to U.S. person terrorists.


Particularity (Nexus to Surveilled Facility)



Title III and FISA impose different requirements concerning the nexus between the target’s activity and the scope of the surveillance. There are two main differences. First, under Title III, the government must establish, and the court must find, that “there is probable cause for belief that particular communications concerning [the specified predicate] offense will be obtained through [the] interception.” 18 U.S.C. � 2518(3)(b). The closest analog in FISA is the requirement that a high-ranking Executive Branch official designate the type of foreign intelligence information being sought (e.g., information “necessary to[] the ability of the United States to protect against * * * actual or potential attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power,” 50 U.S.C. � 1801(e)(1)(A)), and certify “that the certifying official deems the information sought to be foreign intelligence information.” 50 U.S.C. � 1804(a)(7)(A). This certification is reviewed for clear error when the target of the surveillance is a United States person. (No review is conducted in other cases.) 50 U.S.C. � 1805(a)(5); House Report at 80-81.5


        The House Report states that “[t]he ‘clearly erroneous’ standard of review is not, of course, comparable to a probable cause finding by the judge. Nevertheless, this bill does provide a workable procedure for judicial review (and possible rejection) of executive branch certifications for surveillances of U.S. persons.” House Report at 80.


Second, absent authorization for so-called “roving” surveillance, see 18 U.S.C. � 2518(11), Title III requires “probable cause for belief that the facilities from which, or the place where, the wire, oral, or electronic communications are to be intercepted are being used, or are about to be used, in connection with the commission of the [specified predicate] offense, or are leased to, listed in the name of, or commonly used by such person.” 18 U.S.C. � 2518(3)(d). By contrast, FISA requires only that the court find probable cause that “each of the facilities or places at which the electronic surveillance is directed is being used, or is about to be used, by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.” 50 U.S.C.� 1805(a)(3)(B).

These different legal standards are insignificant in practical terms. As to the first requirement, the Executive Branch must certify under FISA that it is seeking pertinent information (foreign intelligence information), and whether or not there is judicial review of that certification, the government is not permitted to submit a false certification. The certification typically comes from the Director of the FBI, and every FISA application is approved by the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General. See 50 U.S.C. �� 1804(a), 1804(a)(7); see also United States v. Bianco; 998 F.2d 1112, 1124 (2d Cir. 1993) (requiring high-ranking official to authorize surveillance is “protection[] against arbitrary surveillance”). Thus, in practical effect, FISA’s standards are not very different from Title III’s requirement that the government show, and the court find, probable cause that pertinent communications will be obtained by the surveillance.

As to the second requirement, most facilities subjected to electronic surveillance under Title III and FISA alike are in fact “leased to, listed in the name of, or commonly used by” the target. 18 U.S.C. � 2518(3)(d). In such cases, Title III is no more difficult to satisfy than FISA. In the unusual case where they are not so leased, listed, or commonly used, Title III requires the government to show a nexus between the facilities and communications regarding the criminal offense, a standard that may delay the onset of surveillance for additional investigation, but which will not often prevent it.6


        For prudential reasons, the Department in practice is often cautious about using the “listed, leased, or commonly used” provision of Title III absent evidence that the facility is in fact being used in connection with the predicate offense.


In any event, Title III’s more rigorous nexus requirements are counterbalanced by its more relaxed requirements concerning the identity of the surveillance target. As noted above, Title III does not require the government to show, or the court to find, anything about the target of the surveillance; it is enough that “an individual” is committing a predicate offense. 18 U.S.C. � 2518(3)(a); see Kahn, supra. Given that expansive approach, rigorous nexus requirements are understandable. By contrast, FISA requires probable cause to believe the target is an agent of a foreign power who uses or is about to use the targeted facility. Thus, while FISA requires less of a nexus between the facility and pertinent communications, its requires more of  a nexus between the target and pertinent communications. See House Report at 73. In the end, therefore, both FISA and Title III provide reasonable assurance that the surveillance will be directed at pertinent communications. Cf. Dalia, 441 U.S. at 255-256 (Fourth Amendment particularity standard requires that warrant describe the things to be seized and the place to be searched  but does not require specification of the means by which search will be executed).





Title III and FISA contain similar “necessity” requirements. Every Title III application must provide “a full and complete statement as to whether or not other investigative procedures have been tried and failed or why they reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous.”   18 U.S.C. � 2518(l)(c). Correspondingly, the issuing court under Title III must find that “normal investigative procedures have been tried and have failed or reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous.” 18 U.S.C. � 2518(3)(c).

FISA’s “necessity” provision requires a high-ranking Executive Branch official to certify that the information sought by electronic surveillance “cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques.” 50 U.S.C. � 1804(a)(7)(B)(ii). This certification is reviewed for clear error when the target of the surveillance is a United States person. (No review is conducted in other cases.) 50 U.S.C. � 1805(a)(5); House Report at 80-81. Neither FISA nor Title III requires “probable cause” of necessity; instead, both contemplate judicial review of a statement of necessity from the government. Under FISA, that statement is reviewed for clear error, while under Title III it is reviewed without deference. In that respect, FISA is more favorable to the government. However, while the statement of necessity in a Title III application comes from the applicant – typically a line agent or attorney – the certification of necessity in a FISA application comes from the Director of the FBI or a similar official. The deferential standard of review is appropriate in light of the stature of such an official.


Period of Surveillance Order


Title III provides for shorter periods of surveillance than FISA. Under Title III, authorization orders are issued for periods of up to 30 days. 18 U.S.C. 2518(5). Under FISA, authorization orders are issued for periods of up to 90 days for U.S. persons.  50 U.S. C. � 1805 (e)(1).7


      For non-U.S. persons who are “agents or employees” of a foreign power or “members” of an international terrorist group, initial surveillance orders may be for up to 120 days, and renewal orders for up to one year.  50 U.S.C. � 1805(e)(l)-(2). Certain foreign powers themselves, as opposed to their agents, are also subject to longer periods of surveillance. Ibid.


Thus, in cases involving a U.S. person, the government must obtain three Title III orders for every one FISA order. But that is primarily an administrative burden rather than a legal one. Although shorter maximum time periods ensure regular judicial review of the progress of Title III surveillance, FISA does not require the FISC in every case to allow surveillance for the full 90 days, and the statute allows the FISC to “assess compliance with the minimization procedures” either “[a]t or before the end of the period of time for which electronic surveillance is approved by an order or an extension.”  50 U.S.C. � 1805(e)(3); cf. 18 U.S.C.� 2518(6) (authorizing the Title III judge to require the filing of regular progress reports). In our view, there is no constitutional significance to the difference in the allowable duration of orders under FISA and Title III in cases involving U.S. persons.




FISA and Title III have different minimization regimes. The minimization provisions in FISA are “meant generally to parallel the minimization provision in [Title III],” but are not “as strict” as those in Title III with respect to the acquisition of information. S. Rep. No. 95-604, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 37 (1977) [hereinafter Senate Judiciary Report], House Report at 56. In particular, FISA allows greater flexibility, not only in respect to what may be acquired but also in the means used to acquire it. FISA only requires the minimization of information concerning U.S. persons. See 50 U.S.C. � l801(h)(1). Moreover, under FISA,the recording devices are normally (but not always) left on, and minimization occurs in the process of indexing and logging the pertinent communications. See FISC May 17, 2002 Order at 11. (We are lodging with the Court the FBI’s classified Standard Minimization Procedures.) Under Title III, such an approach is used only when the communications are in code or a foreign language for which there is no contemporaneously available translator (which often is the case with respect to FISA targets), and even then minimization must take place as soon as practicable. 18 U.S.C. � 2518(5). FISA’s more flexible procedures nevertheless ensure that information about a U.S. person is neither retained nor disseminated unless it is foreign intelligence or evidence of an ordinary crime. Given that FISA targets hostile activities by foreign powers and their agents that by their very nature will often involve multiple actors and complex plots, as well as foreign languages and codes, less minimization in the acquisition stage is justified.  See Scott v. United States, 436 U.S. 128, 140 (1978) (“when the investigation is focusing on what is thought to be a widespread conspiracy, more extensive surveillance may be justified in an attempt to determine the precise scope of the enterprise.”).8


          Moreover, as explained in the discussion of “sealing,” infra, FISA’s minimization provisions are stricter than those in Title III because they regulate not only the acquisition, but also the retention and dissemination of information. See House Report 56.





Unlike FISA, Title III contains a sealing requirement. Under 18 U.S.C. � 2518(8)(a), the tape recordings of intercepted communications are to be sealed “[i]mmediately upon the expiration of the period of the order, or extensions thereof.” The purpose of the sealing requirement is to preserve the integrity of the electronic surveillance evidence. See United States v. Ojeda-Rios, 495 U.S. 257 (1990). Section 2518(8)(a) contains an explicit exclusionary remedy for failure to comply with the sealing requirement or to provide a “satisfactory explanation for the absence” of a seal.

By contrast, FISA contains no analogous sealing requirement, although it does require the government to retain FISA applications and orders for 10 years. 50 U.S.C. � 1805(h). In part because Congress (correctly) predicted that FISA information would rarely be used in a criminal prosecution, it concluded that ordering the government to retain all information acquired would not be the best way to protect privacy. On the contrary, Congress concluded that privacy would be best protected by requiring the governing in certain cases not to retain information, but to destroy it. House Report 56. Accordingly, as the House Report explains, “while (Title III] does not require minimizing retention and dissemination, this bill does,” and may in certain instances require “destruction of unnecessary information acquired.” ibid. The Constitution does not require sealing of intercepted communications. See United States v. Ianiello, 621 F. Supp. 1455, 1468-1469 (S.D.N.Y. 1985).


Notice to the Target


Under Title III, the target of electronic surveillance (and other persons within the discretion of the district judge) must be notified of surveillance when it expires. 18 U.S.C. � 2518(o)(d). The court has discretion to provide to the target or his counsel “portions of the intercepted communications, applications and orders.” Ibid. Upon an ex parte showing of good cause by the government the notice may be postponed, but it must eventually be provided. Ibid. By contrast, FISA requires notice to a person whose communications were intercepted if and only if the government “intends to enter into evidence or otherwise use or disclose [the communications, or information derived from the communications] in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, or other authority of the United States.” 50 U.S.C.� 1806(c). That is a significant difference because many FISA surveillances do not result in the use of communications in any proceeding. However, to the extent that courts are concerned about increased use of FISA for law enforcement purposes, notice to the target is required before FISA-derived information is used in court. And to the extent FISA is not used for law enforcement, the justification for not notifying the target – to maintain the secrecy of the intelligence investigation – is compelling. See Senate Intelligence Report at 12 (“The need to preserve secrecy for sensitive counterintelligence sources and methods justifies elimination of the notice requirement”).


Suppression Remedy


Under 18 U.S.C. � 2518(9) (governing admission of Title III evidence in any trial or proceeding), and standard criminal discovery rules, a defendant moving to suppress information obtained or derived from Title III is entitled to see the Title III applications and orders, although in rare cases some redactions may be ordered. See, e.g., United States v. Danovaro, 877 F.2d 583 (7th Cir. 1989). Under FISA, by contrast, the defendant normally does not see the FISA application or orders. Under FISA, “notwithstanding any other law, if the Attorney General files an affidavit under oath that disclosure or an adversary hearing would harm the national security of the United States,” the district court must “review in camera and ex parte the application, order, and such other materials relating to the surveillance as may be necessary to determine whether the surveillance of the aggrieved person was lawfully authorized and conducted.” 50 U.S.C. � 1806(f). The court is authorized to disclose the FISA application to the defendant “only where such disclosure is necessary to make an accurate determination of the legality of the surveillance” or when otherwise required by due process. Ibid.; 50 U.S.C. � 1806(g).

FISA nevertheless provides for a case-by-case evaluation of whether disclosure might be required, and the Supreme Court has never held that disclosure of surveillance materials is mandatory, even with respect to ordinary law enforcement, in order for the district court to determine the legality of the surveillance. See Giordano v. United States, 394 U.S. 310, 313 (1969) (per curiam) (“Of course, a finding by the District Court that the surveillance was lawful would make disclosure and further proceedings unnecessary.”); United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593, 607 (3d Cir. 1974) (“Since the question confronting the district court * * * was the legality of the taps, not the existence of tainted evidence, it was within his discretion to grant or to deny Ivanov’s request for disclosure and a hearing.”); cf. Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 180-186 (1969)  (disclosure of surveillance materials required when and if court finds surveillance violated defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights, so that defendant may argue for exclusion of evidence tainted by illegal surveillance). Thus, FISA’s flexible discovery standards satisfy the Constitution; their application in any particular case would, of course, depend on the facts.


FISA’s Unique Safeguards


There are at least two ways in which Congress made FISA more demanding than Title III to “provide[] safeguards that have not existed before and that may reasonably be expected to prevent any recurrence of the abuses of the past.” Senate Intelligence Report at 16.

First, FISA requires the certification of the FBI Director (or other, similar official), the personal approval of the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General, and review of the high-level certification by an Article III judge. In contrast, a Deputy Assistant Attorney General (a member of the Senior Executive Service who is not subject to Senate confirmation and who is one rank below an Assistant Attorney General) may approve a Title III application for wire or oral communications. 18 U.S.C. � 2518(l). (For roving or emergency applications, Title III requires the approval of a higher-ranking official. See 18 U.S.C. � 2518(7), (11)). And Title III permits any attorney for the government to apply for an order authorizing interception of electronic communications. 18 U.S.C. � 2516(3). FISA’s certification and approval requirements serve as a check against abuse of powers by ensuring that the highest Executive branch officials are personally accountable for the electronic surveillance and physical searches conducted under their signatures, see Bianco, 998 F.2d at 1124, and the judicial review requirement serves as an additional check against use of FISA for illegitimate reasons.

Second, FISA contains far more extensive reporting requirements than Title III. Where Title III requires only an annual report containing “a general description” of surveillances and certain statistical information, 18 U.S.C. � 2519(2), FISA requires the Executive Branch to keep the Intelligence Committees “fully informed,” in keeping with the general framework for intelligence oversight. 50 U.S.C. �� 1808(a)(1), 1826. Congress similarly believed that its “close and continuing” oversight would “suppl[y] a compensating check” against potential Executive Branch abuses. Senate Intelligence Report at 11-12. In addition, by providing for the sunset of the amendments to FISA in the USA Patriot Act, Congress has made clear its intention to hold the Executive Branch accountable for the exercise of its FISA authority. See Section 224(a) of the USA Patriot Act, Pub.L. No. 1107-56, 115 Stat. 272 (Oct. 26, 2001).


HTML from Justice Department hardcopy by FAS

PRISM The Computer Software that Spies on Americans For us to be protected against Terrorism

7238_530748123647344_984971587_nTHANK YOU WHISTLEBLOWER your the real American Hero exposing the Federal Government tyranny but they say we do it to protect us from terrorism , hum Right sure you are, the Federal Government has been putting their spin on this issue since the whistleblower bust them butts to the News Media in another country because the US News Media is control by the Federal Government on what they said and report.  


The Federal Government even Lies more and  they are coming for you as well.


Link below to download the file of this program:

PRISM and Other Spy Tools:

PRISM has been in use since about 2003 based on a resume of a user and likely indicates PRISM collection well before recent publication of PRISM access to Internet servers, beginning with Microsoft in 2007. Numerous similar spying tools and programs are described below.

A discussion in 2000 between journalist Duncan Campbell and a Microsoft executive     about NSA planting a key in Microsoft products:

Online resumes of several persons with PRISM and other spy skills: (Thanks to A for pointing.)

1. Imagery Analyst/Collection Manager

SAIC September 2001 – May 2006 (4 years 9 months)Key West, Florida

Imagery Collection Manager Joint Interagency Task Force East March 2003 – April 2005 (2 years 2 months)

Responsible for the collection of all imagery related intelligence requirements.     Evaluated, edited, and drafted national and theater-level requirements for  validation and approval via requirements tools, including PRISM and GIMS (RMS).

Accomplishments include:

Facilitated all imagery tasking, collection, and dissemination for all counter-drug and high priority targets.

Managed and coordinated all national system tasking requirements within the JIATFS AOR.

Principal PRISM Collection Manager for all JIATFS tactical ISR requirements.

Assisted in the development & utilization of emerging AGI collection strategies.

2. Summary

13 years of all-encompassing experience in Naval Intelligence established the foundation for continued service in the Intelligence Community (IC) as a Geospatial-Intelligence (GEOINT) Source Management Analyst (SMA). Extensive experience includes: 1) the development and prioritization of NTM and airborne collection strategies via Geospatial Information Management System (GIMS), Requirements Management System (RMS) and Planning Tool for Resource Integration, Synchronization and Management (PRISM), 2) detailed knowledge and management of complex intelligence systems and architecture, 3) All-Source analysis of multiple political-military topics of national interest, 4) leadership of multiple Intelligence Watch Teams and working groups, and 5) briefing leadership at the strategic, operational and tactical levels. Repeatedly lauded for superior performance, management skills and mentorship of junior     personnel; thrives in high stress/tempo environments. ACTIVE TS/SCI clearance, in addition to the following strengths:

Technical Proficiency     Communication Skills     Resource Management     Adaptability    Analytical Expertise     Program Management

Specialties: Extensive Intelligence Community (IC) experience, to include end-to-end expertise in GEOINT-related disciplines, collection management/resource allocation, All-Source analysis, and Intelligence Systems management.

3. Trains collection management teams on the utilization of theater assets and capabilities, provides training for: PRISM, Flight Enterprise, NITB, BVI, CRATE, and the theater collection management process and procedures.

Serves as the forward deployed contract Site Lead for all theater Project ACCRUE Collection Managers; managing contractor placement/assignment in theater.

Identify issues and develop courses of action, coordinate with DIA, IJC, and CENTCOM leadership regarding all Project ACCRUE issues.


Microsoft Office applications (Word, PowerPoint, and Excel), Marine Link, Google Earth, PRISM; Falcon View, RMS, GIMS, CRATE, NITB, Flight Control, WARP, UNICORN


Active Top Secret/SCI – DOD Counterintelligence Polygraph

4. Experienced Collection Manager and DOD Instructor:

20 years combined experience as an Source Strategies Analyst (SSA), Imagery     Analyst (IA), Requirements Management Systems (RMS) Instructor, and Geospatial     Intelligence Requirements Management Systems (GRMS) Instructor in the     Intelligence Community (IC) in both the civilian and military sectors. Seeking     employment as a collection manager, team lead, or instructor in the intelligence     community.

Collection Manager and ISSR

McClendon LLC     November 2006 to November 2011

• Support the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency Innovision Directorate     as a Tasking, Retrieval, Acquisition, Dissemination, and Exploitation (TRADE) Subject Matter Expert (SME). Support to Research and Development concepts, algorithms, Airborne Operations. Tasking and Disseminating time coincidental     data over chosen targets sets.

• Research, review, develop, and monitor source collection strategies to meet intelligence community analyst’s needs. This requires extensive research in intelligence systems, such as the Requirements Management System (RMS), PMAA, and PRISM, and also coordination with other intelligence agency organizations and DOD joint commands.

• Train customers on the most effective ways to obtain Imagery for their intelligence issues.

• Train Jr. Collection Managers in proper procedures and collection tools.

• Assist other requirements managers in developing and writing requirements.

• Monitor and review established requirements to determine customer satisfaction.

• Provide tip-off information to all source analyst’s in Commands and at NGA regarding items of interest.

• Works daily with and respects all government, military and contractor  personnel of varying authority, experience and ethnic background.

• ISSR for all the Innovision Directorate.

NGA Source Strategies Analyst Booz Allen and Hamilton  August 2004 to November 2006

• Support the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency Source Directorate as a Source Strategies Analyst.

• Research, review, develop, and monitor source collection strategies to meet intelligence community analyst’s needs. This requires extensive research in intelligence systems, such as the Requirements Management System (RMS), PMAA, and PRISM, and also coordination with other intelligence agency organizations and DOD joint commands.

• Train customers on the most effective ways to obtain Imagery for their intelligence issues.

• Assist other requirements managers in developing and writing requirements.

• Monitor and review established requirements to determine customer satisfaction.

• Provide tip-off information to all source analyst’s in Commands and at NGA regarding items of interest.

• Works daily with and respects all government, military and contractor personnel of varying authority, experience and ethnic background.

5. Professional Training/Development:

• Pinnacle 3 Learning, Project Manager Professional (PMP) exam preparation     course.

• Joint Reserve Intelligence Program Information Management (JRIP-IM)     System Administrator certification course.

• Underground Facilities Analysis Center (UFAC) collection management     and strategies seminar.

• Geo-spatial Information Management Services (GIMS) and Source Strategies     Analyst (SSA) certification courses.

• Overhead Persistent Infrared (OPIR), Commercial Remote Sensors (CRS),     Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR), Airborne Intelligence Surveillance and     Reconnaissance (ISR) / Full Motion Video (FMV) Imagery, Spectral Imagery (SI), Tripwire Analytic Capability (TAC) and Pathfinder/Text Retrieval Analysis and Exploitation (TRAX) basic courses.

• Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) Basic Officer Leadership Course     (BOLC)/Leadership Development Assessment Course (LDAC) “Warrior Forge” Fort Lewis, WA. 10th Infantry Regiment, Bravo Company, 4th Platoon. July 2005

• ROTC Cadet Internship, Action Officer for U.S Army Criminal Investigation     Department (CID) Command, 701st Military Police Group (MPG), Computer Crime     Investigative Unit (CCIU), Fort Belvoir, VA. August 2005

Databases, Tools and Applications Proficiencies

• Microsoft Office (Excel, Access, Word, PowerPoint), SharePoint and Google Earth.

• Collection Requirements Analysis Tool for the Enterprise (CRATE).

• Planning Tool for Resource, Integration, Synchronization, and Management     (PRISM).

• Open Source Collection Acquisition Requirements Management System     (OSCARMS).

• Collection Requirements, Evaluations, and Tasking Enterprise Management System (CREATEMS)

• Requirements Integration for Global HUMINT Tasking Management System     (RIGHTMS).

• HUMINT Multi-domain Administrative Graphical Interface for Cross Domain     Intelligence Release (MAGIC).

• HUMINT Online Tasking and Reporting (HOTR) and Info-sphere Management     System (ISM).

• National SIGINT Requirements Process (NSRP)/National Customer Interface (NCI).

• National MASINT Requirements System (NMRS).

• Transitional Overhead Persistent Infrared Requirements System (TORS).

• Geo-spatial Information Management Services (GIMS) and Geographic Information System (GIS).

• Modernized Integrated Database (MIDB)/National Production Workshop (NPW), GEMINI, Web Fish Tools (WFT), National Exploitation System (NES), Web based Access Retrieval Portal (WARP), Web based Infrared Data for Ops and War-fighters (WIDOW), and Web Battle-space Visualization Initiative (Web-BVI).

• Web Intelligence Search Engine (WISE), Tripwire Analytic Capability (TAC), Multimedia Message Manager (M3), Pathfinder/Text Retrieval Analysis and Exploitation (TRAX), Web enabled Temporal Analysis System (WebTAS), Analyst Notebook, Harmony, Intelink, MASINT Portal, Library of National Intelligence (LNI), Falcon-View and Community On-Line Intelligence System for End Users and Managers (COLISEUM).

Current job offering:

CLEARANCE REQUIREMENT: Active Top Secret Level Clearance with SCI Access:


Responsible for planning, preparation, coordination, validation, and submission of multi INT (HUMINT, SIGINT, OSINT, MASINT, GEOINT) standing, ad-hoc, and time sensitive collection requirements

Ensuring requirements are tasked to the appropriate collection platform

Managing all collection requirements, periodically reviewing databases for expiring requirements

Developing all-source collection strategies to address intelligence gaps

Creating collection postures and assessing collection efficiency

Conducting source citation analysis, outreaching to IC partners to improve collection, and representing DCA-3 in working groups involving collection requirement management and collection support issues


Bachelor’s degree w/15 years of Collection Requirements Management experience, or as an Intelligence Analyst working in a Collection-related position supporting requirements management, such as a Collection Coordinator, or, 20 years of experience as an intelligence analyst

Credentialed subject matter expert or recognized specialist in relevant field of Collection Management

Experience working in the intelligence field with an understanding of the IC and the DoD organizational structure

Experience in collection management methods, processes, techniques, principles,     and practices in one of the following intelligence disciplines: HUMINT, MASINT,     GEOINT, SIGINT, OSINT

Demonstrated knowledge on capabilities of various collection platforms/systems.

Familiarity with one or more the following collection management databases:     Planning Tool for Resource Integration, Synchronization and Management (PRISM);     Open Source Collection Acquisition Requirement Management System (OSCAR-MS);

Requirements Integration for Global HUMINT; Tasking Management System (RIGHT-MS); Multi-domain Administrative Graphical Interface for Cross Domain Intelligence     Release (MAGIC); HUMINT Online Tasking and Reporting (HOT-R); Info-sphere     Management System (ISM); National SIGINT Requirements Process (NSRP); National Customer Interface (NCI) Client; National MASINT Requirements System (NMRS); Transitional Overhead Persistent Infrared Requirements System (TORS); GEOINT Information Management Services (GIMS)

Strong communication skills (oral and written)

Must have a Current U.S. Passport or be able to procure one prior to assignment

Current Top Secret Level Clearance with SCI Access

2. Position Description:

ITT Corporation is a top-10 US Defense contractor and global technology company     with a heritage of innovation. Our near 40,000 employees partner with military,     government, and commercial customers to deliver extraordinary solutions for more livable environments, protection and safety, and connecting our world. We offer career opportunities on technologically advanced programs, top tier  benefits, and competitive compensation.

ITT Information Systems, division of ITT Defense, is seeking a Junior     Imagery/GEOINT Collection Manager for ongoing work supporting our Intelligence     Community business in Springfield, VA (home office in Alexandria, VA).

This position provides on-site support as an Imagery/GEOINT Collection Manager.     Support, plan, and prioritize requirements from on-staff analysts and transform  them into nominations. Create, submit, and monitor standing and ad hoc requests or NTM and commercial imagery tasking’s. Review historical trends to determine the impact of system outages or changes and provide technical expertise to assist with planning for these events and the implementation of new collection systems and tools. Investigate sources of archived data sets to support scientific analysis. Organize collection data sets from R&D field collections  and transfer them to NGA archives. Support the contract activities as a data transfer agent.

Experience Requirements:

Position requires a Bachelor’s Degree in a technical field, military

intelligence training and 0 – 2+ yrs. scientific and technical intelligence analysis experience. Additional related military intelligence training and experience will be considered in lieu of a degree.

Required Experience:

” Knowledge of the imagery TCPED process and imagery requirements life-cycle

” Experience with collection management tools, including GIMS or RMS, Web     Fishtools, or PRISM

” Experience in collection requirements management, collection strategies, and the end to end systems of the IMINT cycle

” Knowledge of DoD collection requirements at the national level.

” Experience with C4ISR collection management, processes and methods.

” Ability to provide analysis using mapping tools; experience with ArcGIS, MapInfo, Google Earth, or other COTS software.

” Experience with Microsoft Office; including data analysis in Excel and creating visual aids and presentations in PowerPoint.

” Possession of excellent oral and written communication skills.

Desired Experience:

” Experience with IESS and NES exploitation systems

” Experience in NTM, airborne and commercial imagery collection and requirements     process

” Knowledge of the current NTM constellation and relevant performance issues

Applicants selected will be subject to a government security investigation for access to classified information and must possess an active TSSBI.

Geospatial Intelligence Basic Doctrine 1-0.


NGA, through its acquisition authorities, provides NSG customers with GEOINT     information technology capabilities (hardware and software) in direct support of intelligence and operational missions. NGA programs resources for and provides GEOINT generation and management capabilities in partnership with the Military Departments, DoD, and civil agencies. NGA is responsible for installation, testing, integration, and life-cycle support for NSG systems and capabilities developed through NGA programs. NSG members also program  resources to develop hardware and software capabilities to exploit data and information and to produce GEOINT on a case-by-case basis.3 To ensure interoperability, Service and Agency procurements must meet NSG standards established by the FM/NSG, in coordination with the community.

NSG capabilities provide support for accomplishing the following functions:

Requirements management:

• Requirements Management System (RMS) The primary resource used to manage and request imagery collection, exploitation, and production/distribution assets within the National and DoD environments.

• Production Management Alternative Architecture (PMAA) Provides an integrated geospatial requirements and production management system.

• Transitional ONIR Requirements System (TORS) The system used to manage and task ONIR collection, exploitation, and production/distribution assets within the National and DOD environments. (RMS cannot be used to task ONIR.)

• Planning Tool for Resource Integration, Synchronization and Management (PRISM) A web-based application that provides users, at the theater level and below, with the ability to conduct Integrated Collection Management (ICM). Integrates all intelligence discipline assets with all theater requirements.

Exploitation/production management:

• Imagery Exploitation Support System (IESS) DoD-standard system that provides near-real-time support for imagery exploitation, requirements, and dissemination management at 40 locations.

• National Exploitation System (NES) Imagery exploitation management and reporting system.


Exploitation workstations and tool sets.

• Integrated Exploitation Capability (IEC) An NGA capability that procures, delivers, and integrates NSG softcopy imagery exploitation and information production capabilities within the GEOINT community.

• Commercial Analyst Workstation (CAWS) A commercial system that integrates     intelligence applications for use at the analyst workstation/desktop level.

• Remote Replication System (RRS) A suite of commercial hardware and software that provides timely crisis and operational support by providing low volume reproduction of standard or specialized products from hardcopy and/or digital data.

Access, Dissemination, and Archiving

• Information Dissemination Services- Direct Delivery (IDS-D) NSG program that disseminates time-dominant/time-critical and near-real time data to operational users worldwide. Also sends National Technical Means (NTM) data directly to the NIL for long-term storage.

• Broadcast-Request Imagery Technology Environment (BRITE) NSG program that disseminates critical NGA GEOINT data via Military Satellite (MILSAT)/Secret     Internet Protocol Routed Network (SIPRNET) to communications-limited tactical     users worldwide.

• Web-based Access and Retrieval Portal (WARP) NSG program that provides     discovery, access and dissemination of NTM, commercial, airborne, geospatial     intelligence products from the NGA Gateway, and a variety of specially tailored     products to registered operational users worldwide over Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System (JWICS), SIPRNET and the internet.

• NSG Warfighter Imagery Library (NWIL) Image library at the Joint Warfare Analysis Center (JWAC) that provides increased availability of NTM to warfighters.

• Image Product Libraries (IPL) Scaleable, deployable libraries below Command Information Libraries in complexity and capacity.

• Command Information Libraries (CIL) Intermediate image library between the NIL and IPL; at command and agency locations.

• National Information Library (NIL) Central repository of national, tactical, and commercial imagery, imagery products, geospatial information, video and metadata.

• Unclassified National Imagery Library (UNIL) Archive and dissemination of commercial imagery. Will eventually replace the Commercial Satellite Imagery  Library (CSIL) as the hub for this activity.

• MC&G Information Library (MCGIL) Mapping, Charting, and Geodesy  Information Library.

• Commercial Remote Sensing (CRS) Ground Receiving/Processing Stations     Facilities (e.g., Eagle Vision) that generate actionable GEOINT from CRS data. These stations enhance the operational utility of CRS data to operational commanders.

Finally, it is important to mention the Distributed Common Ground/Surface System (DCGS) which is a family of systems designed to provide airborne system-derived, multi-intelligence discipline, ISR task, post, process and use capabilities at the theater and tactical levels. This support is accomplished through a combination of reach back, forward support, and collaboration. DoD and Service architectures are integrated components of this net-centric joint force intelligence processing and dissemination system.

National Security Agency seal


Letter from Verizon:

23 October 2008Related: Spying Guide below: October 2008

James Bamford, The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America, 2008, p. 236:In 2006 Verizon constructed its “secret room” on the second floor of a  nondescript two-story building at 14503 Luthe Road, in Houston, Texas. Once Verizon receives watch-listed names from the NSA, it then reroutes their Internet communications into that room, which is packed with secret Verint  machines and software. After passing through the Verint software, the messages are then transmitted in real time to a central government surveillance hub in Sterling, Virginia.Run by the FBI, the hub is a newly built annex for the bureau’s Engineering      Research Laboratory (ERF), located on the grounds of the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia. … An encrypted T1 cable connects the ERF Annex in Sterling directly to the NSA at Fort Meade. …While Verizon’s data network is centrally tapped at Luthe Road in Houston, it appears that the voice network is monitored from the company’s sprawling facility on Hidden Ridge Avenue in Irving, Texas, near Dallas. It is there that the company’s Global Security Operations Center keeps tabs on the entire Verzion system, looking for fraud. According to a sworn affidavit by Babak Pasdar, a computer security expert who has worked as a contractor for a number of major telecoms, he discovered a mysterious DS-3 line at the heart of one company’s system — a link labeled “Quantico Circuit.” His description of  the company and the link seems to match that of Verizon as outlined in a lawsuit against the company.Here are other Companies Spy Manuals link below:

Obama leads US towards absolute dictatorship – Analyst

A US analyst warns that Obama’s administration is in danger of turning rogue, evidenced by dictatorial foreign and domestic policies not capped by US Congress.

Press TV has interviewed Lawrence Freeman, writer and political commentator, Washington about Democrat and Republican focus on irrational and aggressive foreign policy and the adoption of similar police-state-type policy at home against the America population.
Also interviewed on the news analysis is Alison Weir, Executive Director of ‘If Americans Knew’; and Michael Prysner, Iraq war veteran, Los Angeles. What follows is an approximate transcript of the interview.
Press TV: It’s been stated that many Americans actually live from paycheck to paycheck – this has come out in a report and it was interesting the timing of this report as Forbes released its list of millionaires, or should I say billionaires, of which what was interesting was the number that swayed either way i.e. 100 million dollars in either net gains or loss.
But the more interesting part was that their net worth of these top 50, all over one billion dollars, one at the top of list at 58 billion dollars. What is your reaction when you hear that?
Freeman: We know that the US right now is in a full scale depression – it’s not a recession, it’s gotten worse under President Obama who’s carried out unfortunately the same policies that President Bush carried out. Twenty seven-plus trillion dollars has been given to the bankers on Wall Street and the banks in the City of London.
And right now we are looking at the potential blowout of the European monetary system, the Euro, which will drag down the US further, so, Romney showed the Republicans that he doesn’t really care about the people at all – he may be called anti-people; but he’s doing a good job of working for the Obama campaign because Obama looks a little bit better when really he is no better at all. In fact Obama’s policy in Syria and Iran and vis e vis China and Russia is actually more dangerous believe it or not than the neo-con policy of Romney. But the two Parties are not serving the American people.
We may go back to the policies of George Washington and not have political parties because neither party is offering any leadership. Some individuals in the party’s are – We’re working with people in Congress to get Glasspiegal legislation through and other legislation through to limit Obama’s ability to start another war in the Middle East.
But the Parties at the top and their leadership are corrupt. We should not pay any attention to them and we have to come up with our own policies for the development of this country and the world, which are in serious, serious danger right now.
Press TV: Talking about demonstrations and the right to protest, this was a week that marked the one year anniversary of OWS (Occupy Wall Street Movement) and the protesters did come out. Peaceful when it started, but then what happened was there were over 100 arrests made.
So let’s put it into perspective, why does freedom of expression exclude the right to protest like these protesters did, but yet it’s OK for example to make a movie that insults Islam and the Prophet Muhammad, and as a result, one and a half billion Muslims to be enraged across the world?
Freeman: Well, first of all you have to realize that President Obama is right now taking the dictatorial powers of Cheney and Bush and gone even further with the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which he can arrest people – Americans, and throw them in jail without any due process.
He has already killed Americans in his drone policy without any due process. He has violated the Constitution.

So I don’t think we should have any illusions that this administration has any idea of what is pro-democratic, in fact our administration is pushing the policy of regime change around the world.

And the situation with Occupy Wall Street, they have the right inclination, but they are not functioning on what is actually demanded.
We don’t have years… We have weeks and months. This President Obama may start another war in the Middle East… and it’s not Netanyahu pulling the strings. Obama has made it clear to Netanyahu that he can carry on this dog and pony show, but he’s told Netanyahu – we’ve gotten this from Israeli sources and also from the public domain in Israel – that Obama said we will follow you in.
General Dempsey the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the only one who said no, we do not want a war with Iran, I do not want to be part of it and we do not want a war with Syria.
So, Obama is really the provocateur.
My concern, my concern and my organization’s with Mr. La Rouche and EIR (Executive Intelligence Review) magazine is that this president will get us into war before or after the election. And if it’s a war that is backed up by Russia and China, then it could be a nuclear war.
So I think we have to have a reality check. The demonstrations are valid, but they’re missing the point. We need an overhaul of this economic system. It’s bankrupt, it’s finished and it doesn’t work anymore.
We have to build projects, infrastructure projects that we had under Roosevelt; we have to emphasize more funding for a space program and we have to provide for the welfare of the people – give them good paying jobs, give them dignity and that means having Glasspiegal separation of the banks from the gambling casinos.

We have a fully worked out program, but the problem is the Republicans don’t really like people, especially poor people; and Obama is in never never land, in fact Obama’s funders are the same people funding Romney in Wall Street and the same rich people he goes golfing with and he hangs out with.


So right now there’s no difference between the two parties, they’re both corrupt and they’re brainwashing the population by thinking we have to vote for either one.
We have to fight for real policy, but the immediate danger is that Obama is out of control and he could start a war and if it’s a nuclear war then we’re all in trouble. And that’s what concerns me right now.

We ARE controlled by a few very greedy, reckless, egoistic and evil people.

John F. Kennedy, former President of the United States, mentioned that there are secret societies controlling the US Government. George W. Bush Senior, also former President of the United States, revealed plans for a New World Order on 9/11/1991. One day after 9/11/2001, Senator Gary Hart (CFR member) anounces the begining of the New World Order. Think your part. But don’t close your eyes and choose the easy way.

The New World Order in 2012

In 2012 very few people understand what the New World Order is all about and how the New World Order has evolved to what it is today. This lack of understanding is derived from a systematic denial by the Globalists and Politiciansthat the New World Order doesn’t exist.

When the term New World Order first came into vogue in the wake of the Gulf War, but especially following the collapse of the Soviet Union, it evoked the promise of an exciting, higher plateau of international relations, including:

  • International security, particularly between East and West, no longer based on the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction (and other equally MAD theories of deterrence) but guaranteed by the reality of a unipolar world, led by the West.
  • Freedom to travel and migrate for people confined for decades (or entire lifetimes) behind the “Iron Curtain”.
  • Opportunity for the enslaved communist economies of Central and Eastern Europe to serve primarily indigenous needs on the basis of market principles, rather than support the economy of the USSR, as required for decades by the Council on Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA).
  • Transformation of the economies of Russia and the other former Soviet republics into market based ones.
  • The chance for Central and Eastern Europeans and former Soviet citizens to enjoy material advantages previously denied.
  • Freedom for Third World Governments from having to choose sides in the overriding bipolar political / military struggle that had dominated global relations for 45 years.
  • Optimism among Third World leaders who thought that perhaps they could now devote more energy to improving the living standards of their own citizens (the pessimists feared the opposite, now that their UN votes counted for little).
  • The assumption that inevitable regional disputes could be settled quickly on the basis of coordinated international action, possibly on the Gulf War Coalition model.
  • A new scope for collective security by the West with co-operation from much of the Arab World.

Reality of the New World Order in 2012

This view of the New World Order was a rosy one. However, It under estimated and neglected a number of vital factors. The reality of today paints a different picture.

The bipolarity of the geo-political world (one that is forced to accept blame for international tension, even while it provided the longest continuous period of peace Europe had known in the 20th Century) was succeeded not by an orderly unipolar world but by a disorderly multipolar one.

On the positive side:

This multi-polarity has, at least, reduced the relative weight of international security and military alliances as the currency of international relations and supplanted them with economic and commercial competition that is headed by the Globalists.

The relaxation of international tension has also permitted co-operation and diplomatic breakthrough in areas of Europe, the Middle East, Latin America and Southern Africa, probably not otherwise possible.

Throughout much of the world, the demise of Communism led to a greater acceptance of western values relating to good government, free press and civil rights.

On the other hand:

  • Regional and even local problems are tending to become more thoroughly and more quickly globalized, just as global institutions are increasingly paralysed in their attempts to deal with them. The tragic events of Rwanda were one example of how the world took it upon its self to take the blame for the conflict.
  • We face new and destabilizing non-traditional threats to world order, some a by-product of augmented economic and commercial competition. e.g; environmental degradation, increased economic migration, rising international organized criminal activity, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
  • In Europe and the Middle East, the most immediate and sharply felt threat is that of ethnic conflict and civil war resulting from the release of nationalist and irredentist forces thought to have been excised from the European psyche in 1945. When one contemplates for a moment the carnage in Gorazde, in Mostar and in Sarajevo, how wrong we were!
  • The suppression of ethnicity and nationalism, the centuries-old twin scourges of Europe and the middle east which, twice in the last 80 years blighted the continents and beyond, turns out to have been only temporary, necessitated by the overriding strategic demands of the Cold War.

They say “A picture paints a thousand words.” Look deep into this picture and you will see what the New World Order is all about – False Flags – Natural Resources & Money – Chip and Pin for everyone – Mass depopulation by whatever means including WMD’s (depleted urnnium), Vaccinations (HPV, Swine Flu and other toxic jabs), Mind Control, Forced removal -  Imprisonment – Assasinations/Deaths -  Matial Law – Police State – Drones – CCTV/Internet/Phones Monitoring and Total Control of your life!! Basically do what they say or have your chip switched off making it impossible for you to go to the bank, go shopping, go to hospital or see a doctor etc without these basic needs ones fate is clearly sealed!!

Out of all the articles I have ever written this particular one was probably the most difficult and accordingly it is also very long…….one cannot write a standard aricle based on the magnitude of this topic and I have no intenton of doing so…..basically you can read it or not and likewise you can believe it or not…..the choice is yours……all I can say is whatever your decision just remember this article next time you look into the eyes of your children or grandchildren and say to yourself “I let this happen and did nothing” !!

Despite all my efforts over many years on TV, Radio and writing hundreds of articles on this topic the so called compassionate human beings that grace this planet still go along with this huge cover-up and act like lost sheep in a world that is fast disappearing. I guess there was only one man who appeared to know what the future would hold for us and his name was H.G. Wells who back in 1898 wrote that classic book “War of the Worlds.

His incredible ability to foresee the future goes without saying but maybe he made just one simple mistake……..her referred to the aggressor’s as being “Martians” instead of “The New World Order (NWO).

The book’s underlying message clearly related to “British Imperialism” and in that context he was spot on because the true “Axis of Evil” is right here in the City of London.

It is from here that the New World Order’s tentacles reach out across the pond to American, Europe and the rest of the world with strong connections to the European Royal Families, the Rothschild’s, the Pilgrims Society, the Royal Institute of International Affairs ( Chatham House), the Bank of England, selected banking and financial institution, Friends of Israel Groups and so many other “Elite Groups”……..not forgetting the Freemans etc.

These evil and very satanic organizations controls their counterparts over in the US i.e.  The Rockefeller’s, the Council of Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, the Federal Reserve Bank, AIPAC and that little known powerful group known as The Project for the New America Century (PNAC) a so called charity that basically writes up the policy for the White House and Congress etc.

You may also find it hard to believe that part of the NWO is the UN and all its respective departments, the WHO, the ICJ and the entire Judicial System, the Educational System, the foundation of the Banking and Financial System, the Mainstream Media and believe it or not NATO which is its military arm. The latter is trying to spread its tentacles to form a defensive ring around the globe to basically surround the old Soviet Bloc and stop its ideology and also an attempt to stem the spread of Islam etc………..basically one can clearly see that the Cold War as such has never ended and the Crusades continue.

This is not the first time they have tried to do this……when I served in the Military and worked at NATO HQ they tried this same ring of defence…….it was called (as it is now) NATO but what you didn’t know was the fact that there was also CENTO which was basically the Middle East and then there was SEATO which was SE Asia and the Far East.

You can clearly see the same game is on again with the build up in the Middle East and with a focus (yet again) to boost joint military cooperation with SE Asian and Far Eastern countries including the latest pact signed with Australia which has now allowed the US to establish a base in Darwin, Northern Territory. One should also be concerned of the fact that Howard also signed up a deal (20 years or so) to allow the US and other allies to use Australian Territory to fire live weapons/munitions/bombs and missile…….needless to say many such weapons contain uranium based components.

We must be aware that such tactics has been used in many other regions of the world such as Vieques,  a small island to the east of Puerto Rica, that was used by the United States Navy, Royal Navy and others to live fire on the established bombing range where a huge amount of depleted uranium weapons were dropped. There has also been much concern from such places as Guam, the Marshall Islands and the British Territory called Diego Garcia to name but a few!!

It was this type of  activity alone that eventually contaminated Vieques and the entire area with depleted uranium which obviously hiked up the regional cancer rates etc…… the inevitable happened….the US got kicked out after many local protests. The local government forced the US EPA to carry out a clean up of the area but I must emphasise that one cannot clean up depleted uranium….it remains in the environment for a half life of 4.5 billion years and so Australia should remain extremely cautious of this fact.

We are now seeing the US military moving into a sort of “Star Wars Scenario” with extremely sophisticated weapons being designed that fit into the Hyper-Speed range that have been on test now for many years. One place that comes to mind is RAF Machrihanish, on the Kityre Peninsula, Scotland. This base has been used by many none British military forces and at one stage was taken over by the United States Navy (USN Naval Weapons Facility), including US Navy Seals.

RAF Machrihanish which now belongs to the MoD

It was used as a transit/test facility for military Hypersonic Vehicles and if one asks any of the radar operators that were around at the time you will hear some pretty amazing stuff!! Can you imagine such a weapon having the ability to fly from the UK to Sydney in around 50 minutes such is the mindset of the military and the advancing technology v poverty and naturally our environment!!

It is rather sad in a way that beautiful Scotland was and still is used as a testing and dumping ground for military weapons, including the dreaded depleted uranium, and also good place to dump your nuclear waste!!

So back to the topic of NATO again…….one can see a distinct intentional reduction in all those countries military capabilities. Take the UK for instance our respective forces are now being drastically cut back which means each respective country is loosing it own ability to defend, thus making it dependant on NATO which is controlled by the New World Order… you get it yet?     

No that we have got most of that out the way we come back to what exactly is this New World Order all about and just how powerful are they? Well you may find it hard to believe that despite the many organizations and their numbers they are relatively small compared to the masses that live on “Mother Earth” and yet they are well down the track on their master plan which basically will absolutely shock you to a point of not even believing me………well that’s fine because I have taken a few knocks in my time and another strike on the chin isn’t going to make any difference………as far as I am concerned I have a sort of “Call of Duty” to talk about this satanic group and attempt to educate you and the general public in the hope that you can break away from your X-Factor or TV Soapies and maybe possibly slow them down or by the “Grace of God” actually stop them……I think the latter could be quite a battle to say the least…….anyway here we go with the story and its left entirely up to you…..a sort of “Believe it or not.”

I have written some very hard hitting stories in my time on some very gut wrenching topics that would reduce even the strongest of men to tears. I have always thought that I have seen the scariest of things and just when you thought it cannot get anymore evil than this…..along comes another story that leaves the others for dead (excuse the pun11).

So sit tight folks and hold firm of the armrests of your armchair and be prepared for something that is totally and utterly beyond belief. We already know some of the NWO’s geo political plan which is:

  • To control the natural resources of the world
  • To control the markets for those resources
  • To control the transit routes, sea lanes and pipeline routes for those resources.

We all have our own respective religions right? We all have our own God’s we worship right? But what would you say if there is another unknown God out there or should I say someone that wants’ to play God that is progressively changing this wonderful and beautiful planet into what one could only say is a sort of “Hell on Earth.”

Take a look at one page of this authentic document that was written and fully approved by the United Nations compliments of Alex Jones:

Note the date of this document is 1969 and believe me these plans have already been implemented and some aspects are currently under test in other countries prior to them being implemented in the west whilst others are already firmly embedded into our lives!!

Besides all the obvious ways of mass depopulation or mass genocide which I have already written about so many times before i.e. The illegal use of  WMD’s in all wars and conflicts (mainly on Islamic populations) i.e. Depleted Uranium and indeed Low Yield Tactical Nuclear Weapons (dial up value up to 5kt’s), Introduces Virus’s such as HIV and Swine Flu etc,  Vaccination Programmes (containing deadly or DNA altering ingredients) such as HPV and the current annual “Flu Top-UP Vaccine” which now incorporate Swine Flu,  Chemical and Biological Programmes some of which can target specific race genes i.e. Afro, Chinese or whatever and last but not least the existing government “Triage Health Assessment Programme” whereby they decide who lives and who dies etc……….so now having been totally knocked of your feet you might just say what else?………sorry but there is even more deeply upsetting stories emerging which you will never read about in the regular mainline media because they are controlled by the Zionist backed NWO empire.

Don’t you find it so sad that you have to go offshore to watch stations such as Press TV or RT and those other stations that are almost frowned upon such as Jeff  Rense and  Alex Jones in the US or Radio Stations such as Talk Radio Europe and ITALK FM both based in Marbella, Spain….truly a very sad world………alternatively you have the many many blogs that exist (me being one of them) where you get either praised or totally ridiculed by the masses, many of whom  suffer from the “Ostrich Syndrome” i.e. have their heads buried in the sand or in some case up their own arse!! 

So to move on what else is there you might ask…….well I have to tell you what you are about to read is not only horrific but absolutely beyond comprehension and logic!!

If any of you have ever watched the interview between Aarun Russo and Alex Jones you would have seen some of what I am talking about…..this man was one of the most  wonderful persons to ever grace this planet and just dedicated his life to bringing the truth to the world. He has since died of cancer but this dear man will never be forgotten…. take a look at this link and please take your time watching it all because it forms the building blocks of our future:

Remember what you are watching here is also occurring in the United Kingdom because that is where the brainchild of the New World Order is based and one can clearly see this is also happening all over Europe with France and Germany playing a leading role.

Now that you have the foundation blocks on the New World Order firmly set in your mind this is what they are doing to us all at the current time:

They have openly admitted that they want to depopulate the world my whatever means and the figure talked about is anything between 80 to even 90%…….I emphasis the “by whatever means.”

Alex Jones gave one classic example regarding the use of Bisphenol A or BPA which is a chemical used in the manufacturing of plastics. This product is far from being friendly to the human body……on the contrary it has the potential to be a very dangerous “Hormone Disrupter Chemical”…….so now you are asking what the hell is that?

This basically means such a chemical can have a multitude of applications when it is controlled by such organisations as the satanic New World Order who can use it as a Sterilant or allow it to mimic Estrigen

A Sterilant is capable of lowering male fertility and it is also an Estrogen which can cause and does cause major problems in both male and females.

In males it can cause breast growth, weight gain, less sexual drive, facial hair growth, increase in possible blood clots, liver problems, softer skin texture and more importantly unwanted femininity or the ability to became bi sexual or gay……which is certainly on the increase.

In females it can cause changes to the menstrual cycle,……no doubt many of you have experienced some of the not so popular side effects of going onto the HRT programme which to me should never have been introduced as it’s certainly a case of playing with nature. BPA can mimic Estrogen causing problems for your reproductive tract, the urinary tract, the heart and blood vessels, bones, breasts, skin, hair, mucous membranes, pelvic muscles, and the brain. Sexual characteristics, such as pubic and armpit hair, organ systems, including the musculoskeletal and cardiovascular systems etc and more importantly creating a Hypo feminisation of females which basically means that very young female children develop breasts quickly and start their first period at a very young age… has been shown that such changes can take place anytime from the age of 5 onwards and certainly before normal puberty….I have actually witnessed this first hand and seen a young girl almost become a women before going to high school……BPA also has  links to breast cancer.

In a nutshell Bisphenol is devastating our society with these Hormonal Disrupters which are freely running off into our lakes, rivers, streams and our water tables that we drink.

They are confusing the sexual reproduction in fish and other aquatic species such as beavers, salamanders, turtles, frogs and plants. We drink it, swim in it and fish in it……it is basically a toxic waste that the NWO is now putting to good use.!!

I might also add that all of this is being overseen by the UN, WHO and our respective governments and health services. When one considers that such chemicals do compromise the development of reproduction, behavioral, sexual integrity and normal nervous system functioning.

To add to this terrible cover-up one must remember that back in 1969 plans were being made to severely reduce populations that was tied in with the United Nations with an additional theme of trying to destroy the family unit which is also way down the track!!

One could read many books on this topic, one being Ecoscience jointly written by Paul Ehrlich, John Holdren and Anne Enrlich – Which openly discusses “Involuntary Fertility Control” to name just one of the topics” We basically are being forced to take drugs that are added to water supplies in many forms from Radioactive Isotopes – Sodium Fluoride etc which alone gives a 7 fold increase in cancer etc and as I said such chemicals  mimics Estrogen.

Besides all of the above problems associated with such chemicals we also have the fact that it not only accelerates hormonal development but it also accelerates the aging process, caused birth deformities, abortions, miscarriages etc.

You may find it hard to believe that the US made a deal in 1976 with China to help industrialise that country (with the help of the US and the UN) in return for implementing such a programme of population control. The problem is this forced birth control and all the other things that are going on is not across the board…….many of the elite in that country have normal families and do not come under the stringent government restrictions. 

So where is this so called Bisphenol or BPA in our everyday lives……you will be shocked!!

It is known that as much as 40% all shopping till receipts are covered in these “Dangerous Hormonal Disruptors.” 

Most of our food is contained in plastic including the glad wrapping that surrounds almost every product, plastic trays, plastic bags etc and even in tins that contain the many foods we consume…….it is now on such a vast scale it is almost impossible to avoid it and that’s exactly how they want it because one way or the other you will either digest it or absorb it!!

It is blatantly clear that test results have shown a clear trend in animals and as is normally the case it is the unborn featus , babies and chilren that will be the ultimate victims of their satanic plans and remember this is likely to be passed on to generation after generation as is the case with depleted uranium, except to say the latter has terrible pain and suffering associated with it!!

It is one thing to try to reduce population growth by natural means but to genocide people by intense suffering or to take away their right and joy of having a child or for grandparents to share that joy is truly an act against humandkind!

We are all mature enough to understand that when you attempt to play God and tamper with the very DNA of life you are certainly going down an ireversible path, not knowing the final outcome. I am sure that deep down,  despite all the hype and publicity we were all shocked when they cloned a sheep….what we do not know is the mental aspects of the animal itself as it cannot talk!…… it normal or is it simply a sort of robot with no feelings etc

It is clear that in the past many shortcuts have occurred trying to rush an experiment, vaccine or to get a drug over the counter before it has reached its full testing programme and one classic example of this was the HPV vaccine that has now been given to well over 75% of the young female population in the UK…..could it be that many of these young girls will never have a child?

By now you are starting to think “Oh my God” and wonder if there is anymore of this shit that we have to put up with……….sorry to have to tell you there is even more……let’s take a routine visit to the dentists. If you can recall the fillings some time ago were mercury based which is highly toxic and extremely dangerous and this in more modern times has been replaced with a safe amalgam right?…….wrong……take a look below and maybe you can again see another problem looming on the horizon and whilst on the topic of dentistry……do you remember the days when they used to put a leaded cape around your neck and and chest to reduce exposure to radiation from the X-Ray machine…….well my observations to date show that many dentist no longer do this, what used to be a legal requirement and still is!!!!…….I challenged one dentist and staff on this topic and they said its only low level radiation…… response was “There is no safe level when it comes to radiation and if as you say it’s safe why do you all walk out the room whilst you take the shot”…….they were unable to answer and one person’s face went extremely red……..the dentist then whispered they are supposed too…… reply was “then it is your duty to ensure it is done.”

It is also vital that you check the labels of plastic containser such as those that you can store water in (drinking fountains) or baby bottles because that have also in the past contained BPA as per the extract below.

Ok so by now you are totally pissed off and full of rage and maybe asking yourself surely there is no one who would intentionally do this to humankind…….what made you think that?…….they did 9/11 and 7/7 and many other major incidents that were clearly inside jobs….known as “False Flags” so why should this bother their sadistic little minds, not to mention the latest false flat in Toulouse!!!

So lets continue to stick to this magic chemical that these shits have got so attached too and see if there are any other medical problems that can be related to BPA…….well here’s another  two examples.

Had enough yet?………sorry my friends but it is my duty of care to inform you of all the potential risks that the UN – WHO – Governments – Health Authorites and the EPA are keeping under lock and key and then having done so leave it to you the general public to decide what happens next….whatever way this causes you stress or concern or whichever way you want to react to this article is entirely up to you but one thing I must stress that should you take to the streets in protest please do so in a peacefull and orderly manner because they (NWO) want you to become rebelious and unlawfuly so that they can arrest you or impose more stringent laws to contain you or stop you from carrying out such activity in the future…….that is what living in a “Police State” is all about.

Then we have the question of obesity which many people blame for simply eating too much but please do not be so critical of such people, especially when it comes to the fact that such chemicals and highly toxic sugar (not to mention the artificials sweetners) are all adding to their demise……..ever thought that a can or bottle of soft drink contains around 99% sugar and 1% flavour plus the possible presence of BPA and one can see what the NWO have on their agenda………I had to smile to myself only yesterday when a wife asked her husband “what was that drink you purchased for me the other day”……he pointed to a well known can of soft drink…….she replied “no it wasn’t that one it was a diet drink”……..what she did not realise is that the assumption that is diet makes is safer and less fattening…….unfortunately it’s just one big con with an artificial sweetner being used that in itself is extremely toxic to the body with again the possibility of BPA  being also included by some means………come on people wake up!!! Are you starting to understand by now what is really going on?

Oh boy I am having so much difficulty putting this across to you all and can imagine just how much you can take in without freaking out and God forfid if depression take over…………you have to think in a very optimistic way and say to yourself, like I did some years ago,  you either accept it and suffer the consequences or you simply do something about it.

Someone once told me I have started a journey….you do not know how it started or how it will end and certainly you will never know what contribution you have made to humankind but once you start there is no turning back so enjoy the ride!!! I could never imagine the things I have done since this journey started but believe me its been hard but extremely rewarding in a different sort of way!

Ok so we are now well into this big article with just a few more point to make which again will blow you away……….they say that “Money is the root of all evil”……well when it comes to BPA it’ss certainly true and even everyday things like ink catridges can spoof you.

Let’s just again refresh our memory at some of the sources of BPA

Yes you read right it’s also in Cosmetics and Branded Clothing

When it comes to our drinking water it is obvious that we all know about Chlorine and Flouride (which are Carconogenic)  and there relationship with cancer but what about other possible drugs that have either entered the water table by normal runoff or the fact that water will always find its own level by the simple action of gravity etc. One should not  dismiss the possibility of further interference by other third parties but I won’t go down that road at the moment as there is more than enough to write about!!!

We all take tablets from time to time but I myself found that I was getting hooked on pain killers for headaches and migraines etc………naturally it is good for the pharmaceutical industry to push such remedies over the county but did they or you realise that what goes in certainly comes out and can and does find its way into the water table and so we sort of digest them for the second time……this is what someone had to say about it.

Ok so now we come to what you all like doing best and that is shopping for clothes and guess what Greenpeace found out?

Ok so now I am nearly finished (thank God you might say) and just want to see who in the world is paying attention to the dangers of all this junk that is being pumped into our bodies…….Canada declared BPA as being toxic and we could well see more from these neck of the woods. The FDA in the US (as one would expect) has faulted on its his stance……as they say why would you change anything if it serves a purpose!!

However we are starting to see some slight improvements with the release of some packages that are BPA free as this clearly show below

Just one word of caution to remember to check everything as there are still things slipping under the radar and new products always coming out!

It would not be right to miss out one very important player in this game of deceit especially when it comes to a very dangerous alternative to products that are grown under the rules of mother nature and it is a company called Monsanto that comes to mind. I have always believed that they  seek to harm people for their own greed and will go to any length to gain a foot in the door to market their products. As a result of their activity we can see clearly that their products are not only destroying the lives of many poor farmers around the world and their families but also there is also a very high suicide rate as a direct result of being controlled by Monsanto who not only rip them off but also destroy their natural seed banks and that of the district. I first came across this in Indonesia with the rice crop and now we are at last seing India fighting back. They arrived in Iraq during or just after the war and pushed their products onto the local populatiions…….at the same time totally destroying their own seedbank which was the birthplace of civilisation and indeed agriculture….that is so very sad. Please understand that Monsanto contaminates and kills the land we used to grow our healthy crops in…….nothing more and nothing less!!!

Now that we have got most of that out the way there is one very important topic that has played a very important part in my life for some time and that is the question of the continued use of highly illegal weapons that clearly come under the title of WMD’s and have been and continued to be used in all areas of conflict since the early 70′s. They were first introduced to the Israel military (Yom Kippur War) by the designers of these evil weapons the USA. The main problem being the use of depleted uranium  and in some cases smaller tacktical nuclear weapons that have been used in Iraq, Afghanistan and also possibly in Libya.

This would have to be the greatest “War Crime ever to hit this world” and clearly shows an act of “Mass Genocide” that makes the Holcaust miniscule by comparison and yet those people who suffered under the hands of the Germans have indeed themselves used WMD’s against Lebanon in 2006 and again in Gaza 2009/10…….what is even more horrific is the fact they also “Nuked their own population in Israel”…………one also has to understand that the foundation stones of the New World Order clearly rests on their shoulders and their Christian brothers  under the title we  call Zionists……..having said that however there is an elitist group that basically are a sort of “Zionist Mafia” who have strong ties with The Project for the New America Century (PNAC) and believed to be implicated in that “False Flag” called 9/11 along with the CIA, Mossad and other key players in the US.

I have no intention of describing again the effects of using these terrible weapons but at the end of this article you will see the consequences of their actions. Millions have died since the war in the Balkans (where they were used excessively) and millions will continue to die over a period of time, including possibly over one million war vets in many countries. I think the picture below shows the war as I see it. Make no mistake this is happening right now and our government, the US, France and others are encouraging more conflicts in Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan with the ultimate target being that of Iran which all forms part of their grand master plan that was planned back in 1997 with the help of Paul Wolferwitz and others and again revitalized by the Pentagon after 9/11.

The level of contamination falls well outside the areas of battle/conflict and truly leaves no part of the world without some donation from the millions of radioactive particles that simply drift on the wind to start their deadly cycle of cancers and so much more, It can never be cleaned up and remains in situ for a half life of 4.5 billion years…….such is the insanity of the New World Order – The United Nations – The WHO – Our Respective Governments!

I have decided at this stage that another way of showing you this terrible situation is to do so with pictures. These images clearly speak for themselves and show the connection between those that want to play God and those of us that could well become their victims……….remember they are few and we are many but unless you all get up off your arse now and break away from your TV’s or trips to the Night Clubs/Bars nothing will change…….you can naturally ignore all of this and just accept it ( like the sheep they want you to become or have already become)…..that is your choice….that is democracy…. but do so at your own peril and always remember “Big Brother is Watching You and guiding you.”

I wonder what is written in Cameron’s awe inspiring speech – could it be:

“We are immensely proud of your efforts to protect the streets of the United Kingdom but one thing I must tell you is that you are all actually here to protect our geo political plan which is to rape this country of its resources and more importantly to protect the opium crop that is so vital to our economy.” Henry Kissinger once said “Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.” “That is exactly my own sentiment, and remember when you return home, and that is assuming you will, (after being contaminated with the depleted uranium weapons we gave you) we will turn our back on you once your initial treatment budget has run out:”

 All the many areas I have covered reveal the problems that face us as human beings but having just returned from Latin America there was another incident that caused me deep concern and that is the impact of all of this on our environment and on others species.

Whilst in Peru there was a major incident involving the death of thousands of anchovies and many dolphins with conflicting reports as to what actually caused the problem. The first report clearly blamed the offshore oil exploration companies and the dolphins in particular appear to have died from damage caused by seismic apparatus but then the story line from that same source changed…….either way something terrible had occurred and this is not the first time that aquatic animals have been victim of our greed.

I received an email from someone I communicate with from time to time by the name of Jeff Weffeson (I call the Dolphin Man) and his partner Liesbet who originally came from North Carolina and now spends most of their time travelling around Australia and New Zealand…….they both worship mother nature and all that is has to offer. It was his email that had a profound effect on me, especially having been in Peru at the time. I have decided to print his email which puts everything into true perspective in a very meaningful and compassionate way……here is his account of that incident:

What we are witnessing is the mass-genocide of the Earth’s highest beings, blatant expressions of human ignorance, stupidity and violent aggression, using the latest in technology, in the name of our unwaivering worship of our false ‘gods’ of money, greed, and most lethally, the delusional and psychotic beliefs we cling to about ourselves as ‘modern man’: that WE are the ‘pinnacle of creation’, that what WE do somehow matters far more than the rights to exist of all other living things, that we are homo sapiens, ‘man, the wise.’ A dark irony is that ‘man, the wise’, in his great wisdom, is literally taking himself out, scientifically and methodically; if he alone were being affected, one could say that justice was being done but the sad and dire reality is that the ‘wise ones’ are taking out all living beings, reluctant companions in our joy-ride to hell. Such are the implications of mis-use of our immense powers of creativity, the result of our deviation from the sacred path of the Great Spirit.

Who will speak for the whales and dolphins, for the Earth herself? And who are their murderers? Names can be named, fingers can be pointed at organizations, bureaucracies, individual influential decision-makers…the reality is that it is a mentality that is driving the destruction, a MOE, or ’mental operating environment’ shared in varying degrees among all ‘civilized’ people in all countries.

Ultimately we are ALL to blame; we are ALL responsible for what our species is doing to the Earth, to ‘mitakuye oyasin’, ‘all our relations.’ When we stop functioning as ‘soldiers in World War 3′ ourselves, then we might have a meager chance of slowing the juggernaut of ecocide; if we don’t begin by changing ourselves, by reprogramming our daily routines, we stand no chance whatsoever of affecting the behaviour of the U.S. Navy or the global army of energy and resource extraction corporations.

Thousands of cetaceans are washing up on the shores of northern Peru, not only dolphins but other kinds of whales as well. These deaths, which represent only the very tip of a massive ‘ice-berg’ of unseen mortality, are occurring in a region of some of the heaviest hydrocarbon exploration in South America. Houston-based BPZ has been conducting seismic and electromagnetic surveys in the area over the past few months. Other companies with licenses to explore in this area include London-based Gold & Oil and Petrotech, formerly a Peruvian company now owned by South Korea and Colombia. Like their sister company Anadarko, a Texas-based oil giant implicated in the Christchurch earth-quakes and New Zealand cetacean strandings, these exploration corporations hire geophysical exploration contractors who operate ‘research vessels’ armed with 21st century technologies like seismic air-gun arrays which are functionally almost identical to the low frequency active (LFA) sonar systems deployed by the U.S. and NATO naval forces. These technologies generate power levels on the order of tens of thousands of watts per blast and generate a ‘kill zone the size of Texas.’ According to an Anadarko representative, over 100 of these ‘research vessels’ would be in operation globally at any given point in time. The likely result might be that, given that most exploration takes place in relatively shallow coastal waters where cetaceans spend most of their time, hundreds of thousands or even millions of beautiful cetaceans might be dying right now.

If we all stopped using so much hydro-carbon fuel in our light-years of needless driving, we might choke off the trans-nationals a bit, but it’s possible that an even darker agenda could be in operation, that is, the imperative to rid the Earth of not only cetaceans but biological life as she currently exists. The U.S. Navy has been granted…by one of its own subsidiaries, the NOAA and NMFS…permits to ‘take’ 11.5 million marine mammals over the next five years. It makes me wonder what their legal ‘take limit’ on human beings is for this same time period. End of Jeff’s email.

I intentionally underlined the last line which directly relates to this entire story.

A Typical 3D Seismic Run as carried out in the oil industry

Jeff’s message really did hit home with me as I can recall my own days onboard a minesweeper with all the sophisticated devices we lowered into the water that send acoustic noises deep into the ocean and the long booms trailing behind us on top of the surface  transmitting a strong magnetic field ……at the time I could never imagine the damage to the marine life…….then there were my days in the oil and gas industry again reminded me of his words……yes we certainly have much to account for………..last but not least is the tremendous energy released from massive radar antennas (I was a radar operator)……..sometime you may recall when you have a simple hand held radio how you get funny impulses obscuring the sound, especially when you are near an airport radar facility……not to mention the mobile phone antennas and the massive microwave dishes used by the police, military and government departments……..basically we are contaminating our environment with high levels of unacceptable junk…

Environmentally friendly? – Certainly not they are highly toxic!!

 Before I forget what about the new generation of so called efficient light bulbs (CFL’s) that are literally being forced upon us by the government, who in some cases actually gave a free set to the elder…I wonder why?…..they are certainly not good for us or the environment….they emit Electro Magnetic Fields (EMF) that play games with your mind and health and they also contain Mercury………If your break one in the home you had better beware and look up how to remove and clean the floor because iff broken indoors will flood the space with toxic mercury vapours. Mercury is one of the most toxic elements on earth and it affects the nervous system and kidneys. CFLs emit EMF radiation because of the dirty electricity produced by the extremely rapid on and off internal electrical switching. This is common to all fluorescent lighting. EMF radiation has been linked to cancer, neurological disorders, and it plays havoc with diabetics. It’s almost like living in a microwave when your living space is full of CFL’s..… could try handing a bag of expired CFL bulbs to your garbage man….he could well refuse to take them………my question would therefore be why are they mass producing them…… already know the answer!!…….Halogen lights are a much better option but please remember they get extremely hot and you can get burnt if you touch them and they can also be dangerous should you put material close to them or over them…….always allow good air circulation around them and you will be fine.

It is obvious that we are all species living on this one planet with its one environment. If we allow this mass genocide to continue then each species will progressively die.

What I must emphasise is the fact that in nature we are all totally dependent on each other and if you contaminate or kill one species then you are adding to the demise of all the others………its that simple……we are all connected to mother natures massive eco system and indeed its food chain.

This article has become almost a book rather than an article but it’s like anything else in life once you get on a thought wave you keep surfing. I hope that you have managed to read it and found some, if not all aspects, of interest…….for me it was probable the hardest article I have ever written because of the hidden agenda that lies behind it and hopefully I would not like to write such a story again… let’s leave this one as my classic LOL!!

Oh by the way if you feel all of this is a bit of an over reaction you should study the UN Agenda 21 programme which clearly shows and almost demands a massive depopulation programme leading to what is basically a one world government…….China has accepted the Agenda 21 and is probably the only country at the moment ….this basically makes China a sort of test bed for this programme……….then the rest of the world will follow…….hey presto!!!

For my part all I can do is educate via TV, Radio, Articles, Conferences, Functions and Events.

I feel this information is so important that your very life may one day depend on it.

Please feel free to communicate with me should you require someone to give a talk at one of your conferences, functions or events. I can assure you that I will keep your audiences attention and also keep them on the edge of their seats. What I talk about you will never see or read about in today’s severely controlled and highly censored mainline media!

Topics range from War Crimes – Wars/Weapons Used – New World Order Infrastructure/Funding – The Well Planned Financial Meltdown and Associated Links to the Arab/Western Spring – Their Geo Political Plan – Mass Genocide and Depopulation – Massive Corporate Fraud Linking Senior Executives with their counterparts in the Banking and Financial Sectors,  Senior MP’s and respective members of the House of Lords – The Numerous False Flags including 9/11 and 7/7 – The Truth behind Gaza and Palestine – Why They  Support Various Leaders in the Middle East and Force Regime Change in others – The Dangers of Vaccinations in the Developed World and in the Third World – The Lies about Gulf War Syndrome and Depleted Uranium -  How Zionism is funding and running politics – How to safeguard your potential investment from Virtual Companies that simply do not exist – Global Development and how it increases poverty rather than reducing it – GM crops/Monsanto, the implications on countries their environment and farmers -  The reduction in our Military and the implications – The continued Thatcherism and the European Union  that is destroying this country etc etc…….basically any topic you require or a mix of all followed by a question and answer session. It can be just a talk or combined with a Power Point Presentation.

Finally I would like to say, despite all of the above, that all is not doom and gloom. If one remains eternally optimistic, show love and compassion towards each other, treasure what you have, enjoy the beauty of nature and live for the moment you will certainly overcome any future fears that may come your way…….you do however have a duty of care towards your children and grandchildren because they didn’t ask for any of this.

There are always risk associated with what we do and no matter what fate comes your way the most important thing is to duplicate and distribute everything you do to as many safe houses both within your country and to as many overseas locations as possible… Make sure wherever possible you report sensitive issue to the Police, Serious Fraud Office, Local MP’s, National MP/Lords and blog it because news travels fast…this then gives you a certain amount of security and also allows the battle to continue should they eventually get you!! Oh and don’t forget to switch off your phone when in transit unless it’s vital for you to remain on air – your phone operates just the same as a Sat Nav and they can follow you.

Last but not least the new HD TV now have software to connect your Laptop – Tablet into the TV….That TV now may have a camera and recording mechanism which allows you to talk to your friends and relatives via the TV (on the big screen)….but be warned the GCHQ, MoD, Government or Intel services could well hack into the system and not only watch you but also record you talking etc…….would you believe this?……..I hope that you do 

Take care and God Bless

The Georgia Guidestones is a large granite monument in Elbert County, Georgia, USA. A message clearly conveying a set of ten guidelines is inscribed on the structure in eight modern languages, and a shorter message is inscribed at the top of the structure in four ancient languages’ scripts: Babylonian, Classical Greek, Sanskrit, and Egyptian hieroglyphs.

The structure is sometimes referred to as an “American Stonehenge. The monument is 19 feet 3 inches (5.87 m) tall, made from six granite slabs weighing 237,746 pounds (107,840 kg) in all. One slab stands in the center, with four arranged around it. A capstone lies on top of the five slabs, which are astronomically aligned. An additional stone tablet, which is set in the ground a short distance to the west of the structure, provides some notes on the history and purpose of the Guidestones.


The stone featuring the English version.

In June 1979, an unknown person or persons under the pseudonym R. C. Christian hired Elberton Granite Finishing Company to build the structure.


A message consisting of a set of ten guidelines or principles is engraved on the Georgia Guidestones in eight different languages, one language on each face of the four large upright stones. Moving clockwise around the structure from due north, these languages are: English, Spanish, Swahili, Hindi, Hebrew, Arabic, Chinese, and Russian.

  1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
  2. Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.
  3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
  4. Rule passion — faith — tradition — and all things with tempered reason.
  5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
  6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
  7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
  8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
  9. Prize truth — beauty — love — seeking harmony with the infinite.
  10. Be not a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature.

Explanatory tablet

The explanatory tablet, immediately west of the edifice.

A few feet to the west of the monument, an additional granite ledger has been set level with the ground. This tablet identifies the structure and the languages used on it, lists various facts about the size, weight, and astronomical features of the stones, the date it was installed, and the sponsors of the project. It also speaks of a time capsule buried under the tablet, but the fields on the stone reserved for filling in the dates on which the capsule was buried and is to be opened are missing, so it is not clear whether the time capsule was ever put in place. Each side of the tablet is perpendicular to one of the cardinal directions, and is inscribed so that the northern edge is the top of the inscription.

The complete text of the explanatory tablet is detailed below. The accompanying image shows the overall layout. The tablet is somewhat inconsistent with respect to punctuation, and also misspells “pseudonym”. The original spelling, punctuation, and line breaks in the text have been preserved in the transcription which follows.

At the center of each tablet edge is a small circle, each containing a letter representing the appropriate compass direction (N, S, E, W).

At the top center of the tablet is written:

The Georgia Guidestones Center cluster erected March 22, 1980

Immediately below this is the outline of a square, inside which is written:

Let these be guidestones to an Age of Reason

Around the edges of the square are written the names of four ancient languages, one per edge. Starting from the top and proceeding clockwise, they are:Babylonian (in cuneiform script), Classical Greek, Sanskrit and Ancient Egyptian (in hieroglyphics).

On the left side of the tablet is the following column of text:

Astronomic Features 1. channel through stone indicates celestial pole. 2. horizontal slot indicates annual travel of sun. 3. sunbeam through capstone marks noontime throughout the year

Author: R.C. Christian (a pseudonyn)  [sic]

Sponsors: A small group of Americans who seek the Age of Reason

Time Capsule Placed six feet below this spot On To Be Opened on

The words appear as shown under the time capsule heading; no dates are engraved.

 Physical data

On the right side of the tablet is the following column of text (metric conversions added):


1. OVERALL HEIGHT – 19 FEET 3 INCHES [5.87 m].
2. TOTAL WEIGHT – 237,746 POUNDS [107,840 kg].
   AN AVERAGE OF 42,437 POUNDS [19,249 kg].
   INCHES [4.98 m] HIGH, WEIGHS 20,957
   POUNDS [9,506 kg].
5. CAPSTONE IS 9-FEET, 8-INCHES [2.95 m]
   LONG, 6-FEET, 6-INCHES [1.98 m] WIDE;
   1-FOOT, 7-INCHES [0.48 m] THICK. WEIGHS
   24,832 POUNDS [11,264 kg].
   4 INCHES [2.24 m] LONG 2-FEET [0.61 m] WIDE.
   1 FOOT, 4-INCHES [0.41 m] THICK, EACH
   POUNDS [2,211 kg].
   2½ INCHES [1.28 m] LONG, 2-FEET, 2-INCHES [0.66 m]
   WIDE, 1-FOOT, 7-INCHES [0.48 m] THICK.
   WEIGHT 2,707 POUNDS [1,228 kg].
8. 951 CUBIC FEET [26.9 m³] GRANITE.

Guidestone languages

The Chinese and Arabic inscriptions

Below the two columns of text is written the caption “GUIDESTONE LANGUAGES”, with a diagram of the granite slab layout beneath it. The names of eight modern languages are inscribed along the long edges of the projecting rectangles, one per edge. Starting from due north and moving clockwise around so that the upper edge of the northeast rectangle is listed first, they are English, Spanish, Swahili, Hindi, Hebrew, Arabic, Chinese and Russian. At the bottom center of the tablet is the following text:

Additional information available at Elberton Granite Museum & Exhibit College Avenue Elberton, Georgia

Astronomical features

The four outer stones are oriented to mark the limits of the 18.6 year lunar declination cycle.[3] The center column features a hole through which the North Star can be seen regardless of time, as well as a slot that is aligned with the Sun’s solstices and equinoxes. A 7/8″ aperture in the capstone allows a ray of sun to pass through at noon each day, shining a beam on the center stone indicating the day of the year.


The Georgia Guidestones are located on a hilltop in Elbert County, Georgia, approximately 90 miles (140 km) east of Atlanta, 45 miles (72 km) from Athens, and 9 miles (14 km) north of the center of Elberton. The stones are standing on a rise a short distance to the east of Georgia Highway 77 (Hartwell Highway), and are visible from that road. Small signs beside the highway indicate the turnoff for the Guidestones, which is identified by a street sign as “Guidestones Rd.” It is located on the highest point in Elbert County.


Elbert County owns the Georgia Guidestones site. According to the Georgia Mountain Travel Association’s detailed history: “The Georgia Guidestones are located on the farm of Mildred and Wayne Mullenix…”. The Elbert County land registration system shows what appears to be the Guidestones as County land purchased on October 1, 1979.

The monument was unveiled in March 1980, with the presence of 100 people.[Another account specifies March 22, 1980 and said 400 people attended.






The Makeup of the U.S. Shadow Government

This is a summary report on those elements of that clandestine organizational network, (which we shall label the Shadow Government), which serves as a kind of “parallel government” to the official elected and appointed government of this country. It includes those elements known to the author with sufficient certainty that they can be positively identified, and their known or reliably reported functions described. It is distinctly possible that there are other elements, (particularly in the realms of the “Black Budget” and “Special Operations”,) which have eluded our study, and are not named here.

Just as with the official government, the Shadow Government has functional branches. However, unlike the official government, the purpose of the none-executive branches of the Shadow Government is simply to distribute various functions, but not to achieve a system of checks and balances, as was supposed to happen constitutionally between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the U.S. Government. That is because the Shadow Government is a creature of a powerful elite, who need not fear being dominated by an instrument of their own creation.

In the Shadow Government five branches may be identified. These branches are: the Executive Branch, the Intelligence Branch, the War Department, the Weapons Industry Branch, and the Financial Department.

The reporting lines of the Intelligence Branch and the War Department to the Executive Branch are straightforward and obvious. Intelligence exists to provide the Executive Branch with sufficient necessary information to make adequately informed policy decisions. The War Department exists to provide coercive force to carry out Executive policy decisions which could meet with public resistance. The Special Operations units within the Intelligence Branch and War Department exist to carry out policy directives requiring covert action and official deniability.

The Weapons Industry Branch reports to the Executive Branch most often indirectly, through the War Department and/or the Intelligence Branch (for Black Budget weapons systems).

The Financial Department theoretically reports to the Executive Branch for fiscal policy implementation, but de facto also reports directly to the international power brokers who have created the Shadow Government. The Financial Department serves at times directly as their instrument of fiscal policy implementation.


An analysis of the overall purposes of these five branches suggests that the overall purpose of the Shadow Government is to exercise covert control by:


1) collecting comprehensive institutional and personal information,

2) by establishing national and international policy independently of the established Government,

3) by developing high-tech arms and equipment, and, with these, establishing small, specialized, highly-mobile, elite military units to effect these covert policies, when need arises, without having to rely on the official (and “unreliable”) Armed Services, (whose subservience to the Shadow Government is reasonably suspect),

4) by developing an armed capability to repel any threat to the status quo, (including the uncertain ontological, social, and economic impacts of any revelation of the reality of UFO and extraterrestrial presence) through the development of a Star Wars/BMDO ground and space-based surveillance and SDI weapons network,

5) by denying information compromising to the Shadow Government from all those outside “need-to-know” policymaking levels, and

6) by exercising control on the money supply, availability of credit, and the worth of money, through policy decisions made outside of the official Government.

All of these mechanisms of control serve to preserve or advance the agenda of an international group of pivotal power and influence brokers. That agenda is, according to Senator Barry Goldwater, that “national boundaries should be obliterated and one world rule established.” [With No Apologies, Berkley Books, New York [[date unknown]].]

These power brokers’ most visible unifying instrumentality is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), (which promotes the transition of Earth from a cluster of Nation-States to one global government), [Chairman: Peter G. Peterson; headquarters: 58 E. 68th Street, New York, NY 10021]. [Cf. In Control, Kerrville, TX: Fund to Restore an Educated Electorate, 1993.] However, one must not underestimate the influence of the Trilateral Commission (TC), (which coordinates economic initiatives of the Group of Seven with other “developed countries” vis-a-vis the “underdeveloped world”,) [Chairman: Paul Volcker; headquarters: 345 E. 46th Street, New York, NY 10017].

Neither should one misjudge the power of the secretive Bilderberg Group (BG), (which concentrates on the military and strategic considerations of powerful West European and North American power brokers), [chair rotates, former Chair: Prince Bernhard of Holland; headquarters unknown: annual meetings rotate, but originally were held at the Hotel de Bilderberg, Oosterbeck, Holland].


David Rockefeller is the Chairman Emeritus of both the CFR and the TC, and certainly influences, through proxy representatives (such as Lloyd Bentsen), the Bilderberg Group. [Cf. Holly Sklar, ed., Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management; Boston: South End Press, 1981.]

What follows is a succinct identification and description of the constituent agencies in each of the five branches of the Shadow Government.



(This branch contains the effective policymaking and controlling structures behind the veil of apparent, democratic governmental structures):

a) Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) (includes George Bush, Bill Clinton, all modern CIA Directors, most modern Joint Chiefs of Staff, most modern Cabinet and top Executive Branch appointed officeholders, etc.);

b) Tri-Lateral Commission (David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, John D. Rockefeller, Alan Greenspan, Zbignew Brzezinski, Anthony Lake, John Glenn, David Packard, David Gergen, Diane Feinstein, Jimmy Carter, Adm. William Crowe, etc.; c) The Bilderberg Group (Prince Hans-Adam of Liechtenstein, Prince Bernhard of Netherlands, Bill Clinton, Lloyd Bentsen, etc.);

d) National Security Council (NCS), (the military and intelligence policymaking and control group for national and international security, which reports directly to the President), its secret 5412 Committee (which directs black [covert] operations), and its PI-40 Subcommittee (aka MJ-12: which exercises policy direction and control of the UFO Cover-Up);

e) Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS)’s Special Operations compartment, (the operations directorate which implements the orders of the NSC’s 5412 Committee, utilizing the U.S. Special Forces Command);

f) National Program Office (NPO), (which operates the Continuity of Government Project (COG), an ongoing secret project to maintain command, control, communication and intelligence executive centers during an extreme National Emergency by operating clandestine, secure, underground cities staffed by surrogates for above-ground national leaders]); and,

h) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)‘s black projects compartment, (which operates federal preventive-detention camps [often located on military bases or federal Bureau of Land Management lands], secure underground shelters for the elite during cataclysms, etc.).



(Serves functions of domestic and international surveillance and of secret police/enforcers):

a) National Security Agency (NSA), (monitors and screens all telephone, telegraph, computer modem, radio, television, cellular, microwave, and satellite communications, and electromagnetic fields “of interest” around the world, and orchestrates information-control and cover-up activities related to UFO secrecy and surveillance of extraterrestrial operations), Fort Meade, MD;

b) National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), (controls and collects information from global spy satellites, monitors UFO traffic entering and leaving Earth’s atmosphere, coordinates firing of energy-beam weapons from orbiting Star Wars satellites at selected human ground and airborne targets and selectively at extraterrestrial craft), Pentagon basement and Dulles-Airport area, VA;

c) National Reconnaissance Organization (NRO) (aka MJ-TF), (the military/intelligence operations arm of the PI-40 Subcommittee, conducts surveillance, interdiction, capture and confiscation of UFOs and their extraterrestrial occupants for intelligence and “International Security” purposes; surveilles and “interacts” with close-encounter experiencers, including occasional physically and sexually assaultive mind-control kidnappings disguised as “Alien abductions” for psychological warfare and disinformational purposes), headquarters unknown, probably compartmented and dispersed among various elite Delta Force Special Operations units, such as the USAF Blue Light at Hurlburt Field, Mary Esther, FL and Beale Air Force Base, Marysville, CA;

d) Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), (commands, often controls, and sometimes coordinates, the gathering of secret overseas information gathered by spies (HUMINT), electronic surveillance (SIGINT), and other means; carries out covert unconstitutional paramilitary counterinsurgency operations and preemptive political pacification projects in violation of international law, as well as counter-intelligence sting operations against foreign agents; engages in domestic surveillance, and manipulation of the U.S. political process, “in the National interest” in direct violation of its congressional charter; operates proprietary “false-front” companies for profit; conducts a major share of international transshipment of illegal drugs, using National Security cover and immunity; and cooperates with NSA’s UFO cover-up operations), Langley, VA, and worldwide branches;

e) Federal Bureau of Investigation, Counter-Intelligence Division, (the branch which investigates, surveilles and neutralizes foreign Intelligence agents operating within the U.S., and cooperates with the National Reconnaissance Organization in the surveillance of those involved in close encounters with UFOs and extraterrestrials);

f) Department of Energy Intelligence (DOE-INTEL), (which conducts internal security checks and external security threat countermeasures, often through its contract civilian instrumentality, the Wackenhut Corporation);

g) NSA’s Central Security Service, and CIA’s Special Security Office, (which respectively spy on the spies, and conduct special operations which cannot be entrusted to line intelligence officers), Ft. Meade, MD and Langley, VA;

h) U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM)  whose assignments include psychological and psychotronic warfare (PSYOPS), parapsychological intelligence (PSYINT), and electromagnetic intelligence (ELMINT), Ft. Meade, MD;

i) U.S. Navy Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI), which gathers intelligence affecting naval operations, and has a compartmented unit involved in UFO and USO [Unidentified Submerged Objects] information gathering;

j) U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI), (which gathers intelligence affecting aerospace operations, and has a compartmented unit involved in investigating UFO sightings, extraterrestrial contact reports, as well as IAC [Identified Alien Craft] surveillance, and coordination with NRO interdiction operations), Bolling Air Force Base, MD;

k) Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), (which coordinates the intelligence data gathered from the various Armed Services intelligence branches (Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard and Special Forces), and provides counter-threat measures, (which include providing security at ultra-classified installations by the deployment of U.S. “Thought Police”, who conduct surveillance, by remote-viewing and other para-psychological measures, against penetrations and scanning by foreign or civilian remote-viewers [clairvoyants/out-of-body seers]), Pentagon, VA, Fort Meade, MD, and the entire astral plane;

l) NASA Intelligence, (which gathers intelligence data relating to space flights, sabotage threats, astronaut and reconnaissance satellite encounters with UFOs and ETs, and coordinates the transfer of alien technology to U.S. and allies’ aerospace operations);

m) Air Force Special Security Service (which is an NSA/USAF joint intelligence operations unit dealing with possible threats to aerospace operations from foreign powers, terrestrial or otherwise);

n) Defense Industry Security Command (DISCO), (which conducts intelligence operations within and on behalf of the civilian defense contractor corporations engaged in classified research, development, and production);

o) Defense Investigative Service (DIS), (which conducts investigations into people and situations deemed a possible threat to any operation of the Department of Defense);

p) Naval Investigative Service (NIS), (which conducts investigations against threats to Naval operations);

q) Air Force Electronic Security Command, (which conducts surveillance and interdiction of threats to the security of Air Force electronic transmissions and telemetry, and to the integrity of electronic counter-measure (ECM) warfare equipment;) Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) Intelligence, (which conducts surveillance and interdiction of drug smuggling operations, unless exempted under “National Security” waivers);

s) Federal Police Agency Intelligence, (which coordinates intelligence relating to threats against federal property and personnel);

t) Defense Electronic Security Command, (which coordinates intelligence surveillance and countermeasures against threats to the integrity of military electronic equipment and electronic battlefield operations), Fort Worth, TX.

u) Project Deep Water (the ongoing effects of the compromised personnel, sources and methods resulting from the secret importation of Hitler’s own Nazi Intelligence chief, Gen. Reinhard Gehlen, to redesign the U.S.’s Intelligence apparatus);

v) Project Paperclip (the ongoing results of the secret importation of Nazi weapons and aerospace/UFO scientists into U.S. secret military research and development bases);

w) (Undoubtedly, more clandestine units exist, not identified at this time.)



(High-Technology Weapons Development and Covert Special Forces/Special Operations Units Deployment):

a) CIA’s Directorate for Science and Technology, (which gathers information with promise for scientific and technological developments which present a superiority advantage for, or a threat against, the National Security, [also contains the "Weird Desk", which centrally processes intelligence about UFOs and ETs and their interaction with Earth], current Deputy Director of Central Intelligence for Science and Technology is Ron Pandolfi);

b) Strategic Defense Initiative Office (SDIO)/ Ballistic Missile [sic] Defense Organization (BMDO), (which coordinates research, development and deployment of Star Wars electromagnetic-pulse, killer-laser, particle-beam, plasmoid, and other advanced-technology aerospace weapons);

c) Department of Energy (DOE) (which, besides its cover-story of researching cleaner-burning coal and gasoline and more solar power, is principally involved in research and development of: more specialized nuclear weapons; compact, self-sustaining, fusion-powered, particle and wave weapons, including electromagnetic pulse, gravitational/anti-gravitational, laser, particle-beam and plasmoid applied weapons research; high-energy invisibility “cloaking” technology, etc.);

d) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories (LLNL)/Sandia National Laboratories-West (SNL-W), (which are involved in nuclear warhead “refinements”, development of new trans-uranic elements for weapons and energy applications, development of anti-matter weapons (the Teller Bomb: 10,000 times the force of a hydrogen bomb, laser/maser technology applications, and, reportedly, successful teleportation experiments, among other projects, at this Russian-nicknamed “City of Death”), Livermore, CA;

e) Idaho National Engineering Laboratories (INEL), (which houses numerous underground facilities in an immense desert installations complex larger than Rhode Island, has security provided by its own secret Navy Base, is involved in nuclear, high-energy electromagnetic, and other research, and includes Argonne National Laboratory, West), Arco, ID;

f) Sandia National Laboratories (SNL)/Phillips Air Force Laboratory, (which are sequestered on Kirtland Air Force Base/Sandia Military Reservation, and conduct the translation of theoretical and experimental nuclear and Star Wars weapons research done at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories into practical, working weapons), Albuquerque, NM;

g) Tonopah Test Range (SNL’s DOE weapons-testing facility for operationally testing Star Wars weapons in realistic target situations, and is adjacent to classified stealth and cloaked aerospace craft and U.S.-UFO bases at the Groom Lake [USAF/DOE/CIA] Base [Area 51] and Papoose Lake Base [S-4]), Nevada Test Site/Nellis AFB Range, Tonopah, NV;

h) Haystack (Buttes) USAF Laboratory, Edwards AFB, CA, a 30-levels deep, extreme-security facility reportedly engaged in alien technology retro-engineering;

i) Los Alamos National Laboratories (LANL), (which is the premiere research lab for nuclear, subatomic particle, high magnetic field, exo-metallurgical, exo-biological and other exotic technologies research), Los Alamos County, NM;

j) Area 51 (Groom Lake [USAF/DOE/CIA] Base), and S[Site]-4 (Papoose Lake Base), ultra-secure “nonexistent” deployment bases where extremely classified aerospace vehicles are tested and operationally flown, including the Aurora [Mach-8] spy-plane, the Black Manta [TR-3A] stealthy fighter follow-on to the F-117A, the Pumpkinseed hyper-speed unmanned aerospace reconnaissance vehicle, and several variants of anti-gravitational craft (U.S.-UFOs), including the Christmas Ornament (glowing orange orb) and the Firefly (strobing, flitting, bluish-white lit airframe);

k) U.S. Special Forces Command, Hurlburt Field, Mary Esther, Fl, along with its Western U.S. Headquarters, Special Forces Command, Beale AFB, Marysville, CA, coordinating:

1) U.S. Army Delta Forces (Green Berets);

2) U.S. Navy SEALS (Black Berets), Coronado, CA; and 3) USAF Blue Light (Red Berets) Strike Force;

l) Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), (which coordinates the application of latest scientific findings to the development of new generations of weapons); (now called ARPA);

m) the Jason Group (elite weapons-application scientists, developing cutting-edge-science weapons for DARPA/ARPA, and operating under the cover of the Mitre Corporation);

o) Aquarius Group (UFO technology-application scientists, reportedly working under the guidance of the Dolphin Society, an elite group of scientists privy to extremely classified science and technology findings);

p) Defense Science Board, (which serves as the Defense Department’s intermediary between weapons needs and the physical sciences);

q) Defense Nuclear Agency (DNA) (currently concentrating on fusion-powered, high-energy particle-beam, X-ray laser, and EM forcefield weapons development and deployment);

r) U.S. Space Command, (Space War Headquarters for operating “the next war, which will be fought and won in space”), Falcon AFB, CO;

s) North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), (operating the nuclear-survivable space surveillance and war command center deep inside Cheyenne Mountain), Colorado Springs, CO;

t) Air Force Office of Space Systems, (which coordinates the development of future technology for operating and fighting in space);

u) National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) (which operates covert space-defense, ET research, and space-weapons compartments, in addition to manned Shuttle and unmanned scientific satellite launches);

v) NASA’s Ames Research Center, (which conducts the SETI Search for

Extraterrestrial Intelligence) Project, Exobiology (alien life forms) Division, and “Human

Factors” (PSY-Warfare) Division), Sunnyvale, CA;

w) Project Cold Empire (SDI weapons research-classified);

x) Project Snowbird (pseudo-UFO’s used as disinformation);

y) Project Aquarius (UFO research-classified);

x) Project MILSTAR (development and deployment of WW III [space war]

command, control, communication and intelligence satellites);

z) Project Tacit Rainbow (stealth drones/pseudo-UFO’s);

aa) Project Timberwind (nuclear-powered spacecraft);

bb) Project Code EVA (space-walk-based technology);

cc) Project Cobra Mist (SDI energy-beam (plasmoid?) weapon research); and

dd) Project Cold Witness (SDI weapons-classified), etc.



(“private” [black project] weapons and covert operations contractors):

a) AT&T (Sandia Labs, Bell Labs, etc. – Star Wars weapons research and NSA telephone/satellite communications interception facilitation); (Sandia Weapons Lab has now reportedly being taken over by Batelle Memorial Institute, a proprietary with reported Intelligence connections);


b) Stanford Research Institute, Inc. (SRI), (an Intelligence contractor involved in psychotronic, parapsychological and PSY-WAR research);


c) RAND Corporation (CIA-front involved in Intelligence projects, weapons development, and underground bases development);


d) Edgerton, Germhausen & Greer Corporation (EG&G), (NSA/DOE-contractor involved in Star Wars weapons development, fusion applications, and security for Area 51 (U.S. UFO-technology aerospace vehicles base) and nuclear installations, etc.);


e) Wackenhut Corporation (NSA/CIA/DOE cut-out contractor) involved in contract security operations for Top Secret Ultra and Black Budget surface and underground military reservations, such as Area S-4 (U.S. UFO base), NV and Sandia National Labs, (Star Wars weapons base, NM), and, reportedly, “dirty jobs” for CIA and Defense Intelligence agencies;

f) Bechtel Corporation (CIA’s “ditch-digger” for covert projects and off-the-books underground bases);

g) United Nuclear Corporation (military nuclear applications);

h) Walsh Construction Company (on the CIA projects dole);

i) Aerojet (Genstar Corp.):( makes DSP-1 Star Wars battle satellites for the NRO);

j) Reynolds Electronics Engineering (on CIA/DoD dole);

k) Lear Aircraft Company (Black Budget technology);

l) Northrop Corporation (makes U.S. antigravity craft, back-engineered from alien technology, near Lancaster, CA);

m) Hughes Aircraft (classified projects compartment);

n) Lockheed-Martin Corporation (Black Budget aerospace projects);

o) McDonnell-Douglas Corporation (Black Budget aerospace projects);

p) BDM Corporation (CIA contractor, involved in UFO back-engineering and psychotronic projects, etc.);

q) General Electric Corporation (electronic warfare and weapons systems); and

r) PSI-TECH Corporation (involved in military/Intelligence-applications of research into psychotronics, parapsychology, remote viewing, and contacting extraterrestrial consciousness);

s) Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC); “black projects” contractor, reportedly including psychic warfare.


(Extra-Constitutional funding):

a) Federal Reserve System (cartel of private banks overseen by elite superwealthy financiers, such as the Rockefellers, Mellons, DuPonts, Rothschilds, etc., which dictates to the Government the flow of money, worth of money, and the interests rates);

b) CIA self-financing (the operation and/or control of much of the international drug trade in heroin, cocaine and marijuana, as well as “front” business enterprises, as a source of cash for off-the-books covert operations, and the purchase of exotic munitions and strategic bribe funds);

c) Department of Justice self-financing (the use of confiscated cash and valuables from “targets of investigation to finance “special projects”);

d) Special Forces self-financing (the self-use of confiscated “booty” from covert military operations to fund other clandestine operations).

What conclusions can be drawn from this preliminary analysis of the structure, functions and operations of the Shadow Government? First, the Shadow Government is a very large, well-organized, skillfully camouflaged, parallel power structure. History suggests that it has served its masters well, and that its predilection for operating out of sight and notoriety, if not in an outright clandestine fashion, is exactly how its masters want it to function not drawing attention to itself, manipulating power behind the scenes, and accomplishing by covert operations what cannot lawfully or politically be accomplished out in the open.

What should be the attitude of the informed citizen to the Shadow Government? Since it thrives in the dark, we should shine the light of full disclosure on it. Citizens can demand: the end of the Congressional practice of allowing “Black Budget” items; the end of unpublished secret Executive Orders and National Security Directives; the end of the practice of indefinitely- sustained Presidential Declarations of National Emergency (as is currently in place); the end of Federal Reserve Notes and the return to the gold standard to back the dollar; the end to governmental domestic spying on its own citizens; and extremely severe reduction (on the order of 90%) in the number, staffing and scope of the endlessly proliferating Intelligence agencies, which are an anachronism since the Cold War ended; and an end to CIA and DEA collusion in allowing a continuing stream of drugs to pour into this country. We founded this Country; it’s time to take it back.


U.S. Shadow Government Plan in Place Since Sept 11:

By Patricia Wilson – WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Activating a Cold War-era plan, President Bush has put in place a “shadow government” working in secret bunkers outside Washington in case of a catastrophic attack, administration officials said on Friday.

The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the precautionary operation to ensure the government would continue to operate was put into effect on Sept. 11 in the first hours after hijackers slammed commercial aircraft into the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon near Washington.

“Of course we’re taking steps to ensure the continuity of government,” one U.S. official said. “Anything else would be irresponsible. We are taking all necessary steps to ensure the job of government can continue in any circumstances.”

Originally designed to withstand Cold War nuclear threats and dating back to the 1953 to 1961 presidency of Dwight Eisenhower, the shadow government plan, first reported by The Washington Post, has been implemented out of fear that the al Qaeda network — blamed for the Sept. 11 attacks — might obtain a portable nuclear weapon.

The administration officials stressed that U.S. intelligence had no specific knowledge of any such weapon and that implementation of the government-in-waiting plan was a prudent precautionary measure.

Under the classified “Continuity of Operations Plan” reported in The Washington Post on Friday, Bush has deployed a “shadow government” of about 100 senior civilian managers to live and work in fortified locations outside Washington.

The newspaper said high-ranking government officials representing various departments had begun rotating in and out of the assignment at one of two fortified locations along the East Coast.

A senior official involved in managing the program and quoted by the Post said the civilian force in the underground bunkers usually numbered 70 to 150, and “fluctuates based on intelligence” about terrorist threats.


In the event of a disabling blow to Washington, the underground government’s first mission would be to prevent the collapse of essential functions, such as containing disruptions of the nation’s food and water supplies, transportation links, energy and telecommunications networks, public health and civil order. Later, it would begin to reconstitute the U.S. government.

Drawn from every Cabinet department and several independent agencies, those activated for what some call “bunker duty” live and work underground 24 hours a day, away from their families, the newspaper said.

Citing security concerns, the administration officials declined to confirm the details of the Post report. The newspaper said it had agreed to a White House request not to identify any of those deployed or identify the two principal locations of the shadow government.

During the Cold War era, a top-secret bunker was built under a wing of the Greenbrier Hotel in West Virginia for use by members of Congress and their families in the event of a nuclear attack on Washington. It was declassified in 1992 and is now open for tours.

The shadow government is one of several steps the Bush administration has taken to ensure continuity in the event of a catastrophic attack.

Vice President Dick Cheney’s activities and whereabouts have been strictly shielded. He frequently works at a “secure, undisclosed location” and rarely appears in the same place as Bush. In a worst-case scenario, Cheney is next in line for the presidency and would need help to run the government.

Immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks, top leaders of Congress were spirited away, but they came back together on the steps of the Capitol that night in a show of unity.

Bush has also ordered his Cabinet heads to complete explicit succession plans for their departments.

The Post said that within hours of the synchronized attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, military helicopters lifted off with the first wave of evacuated officials. Initially a temporary precaution, the program has been extended indefinitely.