A Fusion Center Before Its Time

The other day, I described how peace groups in Washington had gotten proof that a spy from a DOD facility had infiltrated their groups. A local paper and Jeff Stein have more on the story–including (from the paper) these statements that the infiltration probably violated posse comitatus.

A Yale Law School faculty member and military law expert said he is disturbed by allegations that Fort Lewis employed a civilian who spied on an Olympia-based anti-war organization.

Eugene R. Fidell, a former judge advocate for the Coast Guard and the president of the National Institute of Military Justice, said such a practice appeared to violate the Posse Comitatus Act, a federal law that prohibits the use of the Army for conventional law enforcement activities against civilians.

[snip]

Another legal expert, Stanford Law School lecturer Steven Weiner, said there are exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act that allow the secretary of defense to authorize the Army to pass on information to local law enforcement agencies when it is gathered through normal military training and operations. Weiner said that does not sound like what happened in Olympia. Weiner, an expert in national security law, added that for the military to use “an employee as a covert operative … is probably over the line.”

“The basic rule is the military’s not supposed to be engaged in law enforcement activities,” he said.

Weiner said he doubts that someone high up in the Army chain of command would authorize spying on OlyPMR. When told about OlyPMR’s activities, he said it sounded as though the group “is not actively imperiling national security” in a manner that would justify violating Posse Comitatus.

I’ll come back to this story as it develops. But in the meantime, I wanted to draw attention to a different case–happening in San Diego–in which a number of Marines and Marine reservists are being tried for leaking terrorism-related information to the Los Angeles police departments and (possibly) private companies.

On June 26, the military charged Marine reserve Colonel Larry Richards with stealing classified documents. Those charges come after the military has gotten guilty pleas from Eric Froboese and Gary Maziarz, two of the guys whom Richards had recruited to get classified intelligence documents from Camp Pendleton and the US Northern Command and give to him to use in his role in Los Angeles’ anti-terrorism units.

Maziarz testified that Richards recruited him in 2004 as his successor for taking classified documents from Camp Pendleton. Maziarz said he routinely passed such information to Richards, plus to and from Martin.

“Almost weekly, Commander Martin would e-mail me information to tell Colonel Richards, or Colonel Richards would ask me to pass information to Commander Martin,” Maziarz said during his court-martial.

Sometimes, Maziarz said, he gave the material to law enforcement officers whom Richards had sent to Camp Pendleton. Other times, he handed off files during lunch with Litaker and Richards at a club on the base, Maziarz testified.

“Colonel Litaker knew that I was downloading information and, you know, packing it up for Colonel Richards, .utbullet.gif .utbullet.gif . (who) would leave with the package,” Maziarz testified.

The files – some classified as “Top Secret, Sensitive Compartmented Information” – included details about terrorists or suspected terrorists in Southern California.

This spy ring was first discovered in 2006 when Maziarz was investigated for stealing Iraq war trophies–but it was in place since at least 2001.

The theft operation began in 2001 or earlier with Richards at the helm, Maziarz testified during his court-martial. It might have stayed undetected had naval agents not stumbled upon classified material while questioning Maziarz for a different crime – stealing Iraq war trophies – at the end of 2006. 

Effectively, the spy ring was started by guys like Richards who had a counter-terrorism role in LA law enforcement and who wanted the information the military had collected on domestic terrorist threats (including information on local mosques) for use in their police roles.

In other words, the spy ring was accomplishing–illegally–what seems to be occurring with some kind of official sanction up in Washington.

The centrality of a bunch of LA cops in this spy ring is of particular concern given that LA has served as a model for the fusion centers proliferating around the country–particularly since 2006. In other words, the kind of information-sharing these guys were doing illegally has been replicated–with the sanction of national counter-intelligence–around the country.

And, voila! Now we’ve got spies from the military infiltrating peace groups.

Now, to the military and FBI’s credit, they are prosecuting the spy ring that worked out of Pendleton. But what seems to have happened–even while these guys were being court-martialed–is that some smart guy in Washington (probably named Michael Chertoff, though Janet Napolitano has embraced fusion centers as well) decided they were onto something and decided to institutionalize precisely what the military is prosecuting in San Diego.

  1. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Thanks. Look forward to reading more about the DC embroglio, too.

    Another fine way to revoke Posse Comitatus without going to Congress. Law, what law?

  2. Arbusto says:

    The Washington State spy was from Force Protection, a ploy I’m sure the DoD will use, stating an effort to stop home grown terrorist peace groups from intimidating or harming the troops and in concert with State and local law enforcement. Ditto San Diego.

    We didn’t break no stinken laws.

  3. ART45 says:

    During the Vietnam war, military intelligence lieutenants were used to infiltrate anti-war groups (I have personal knowledge of this).

    No change much on this front.

  4. joanneleon says:

    O/T About an hour ago, the House (in some weird happenings on the House floor) interrupted debate/vote on Barney Frank’s bill to give shareholders the right to vote on executive compensation in order to bring forward a supplemental bill to put more funds into the “Cash for Clunkers” program. They used a rule to bring it to the floor immediately and they are voting on it right now. It’s going to pass (316 yea – 108 nay – 2 present).

    It just passed.

    They took money from the Innovative Technology initiative and transferred 2 billion to “Cash for Clunkers”.

    So it looks like that program will continue, hopefully through the summer.

    The Technology funds were not scheduled to be used for another year (or more?). I hope the House considers shuffling some more of the stimulus money forward and for more direct programs (though I do hope that $2B gets back into innovative technology initiatives — take it from the damned tax cuts).

  5. SmileySam says:

    The case referred to in this diary is one I have tried to follow for a couple yrs now. The perp was found with a entire storage unit full of classified data, guns and was also found to have been passing his data to several secret police units in the San Diego and LA area.

      • emptywheel says:

        Richards and one more of the suspects is real law enforcement–as I said, working in a real fusion-type function.

        The others are military buddies recruited to pass on the information. There’s some indication that the spies were being offered jobs in private intell companies–that would then contract to local govts to talk about risks.

        • klynn says:

          There is an interesting historical trend for our intel community and Def community to follow peace groups/anti war groups and brand them as spy hotbeds.

          Guess I had it all wrong. I thought pro war groups would be the better spy hangout/cover.

        • Mary says:

          Isn’t it interesting that all the patter about how violent Town Halls are turning is now that the pro-war contingencies are feeling disgruntled. Apparently the DFH didn’t do much to scare and intimidate anyone – but anti-healthcare birthers are frothing.

        • Civlibertarian says:

          bmaz, thanks for that link about the astroturf campaign organized by the same lobbying groups that planned the April tea parties.

          At the time I’d suspected that the April tea parties were astroturf, but hadn’t bothered to look deeper.

          I’d closely followed the grassroots movement that supported Ron Paul and conducted the original political “tea party” fundraisers and other events as upbeat, positive gatherings. Except for the single-day fundraising totals, the grassroots events in support of Ron Paul got little to no coverage in the old media.

          The wide media support and coverage of the April tea parties was a huge indication of astroturf. It’s disgusting to see the astroturfing continue.

        • fatster says:

          Thanks so much for the information. It’s been a long time, but the pattern from Civil Rights and anti-war eras was a huge overlap of police, military (retired and NG, mostly, since “active” military were being put through the ‘Nam meat grinder), and right-wing paramilitary and just plain strange groups. They shared everything too, passing dossiers on us back and forth. Our church and other groups were all infiltrated, too (fortunately, the infiltrators were obviously just that).

          Very scary folks, and the the ones in San Diego are even scarier. The technology they have now is unbelievable. At least the authorities are onto those guys. I’m curious if local extreme-right-wing groups are also involved.

          Looking forward to more of your excellent work on this subject, EW.

  6. Mary says:

    I’m hoping the “war trophies” he was “stealing” were just things like guns. I know that no one blinked much over Bush wanting to be given some actual severed heads as his “trophies” for being such a great President in 2001, but I’d like to think more mundane things were involved.

  7. Mary says:

    DiFi on the warrantless wiretapping program – I guess the bronCIAtus is better.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..48787.html

    Here are the facts, as I understand them: Immediately after 9/11, the warrantless surveillance program was authorized by President Bush and its activities were declared lawful by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). Initially, the OLC based its opinion on the president’s inherent constitutional authorities as Commander-in-Chief. Subsequently, the OLC shifted its rationale to rely upon the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, which granted the president the wartime powers to use “appropriate and necessary force” against terrorists. But that authorization says nothing about electronic surveillance.

    According to a recent report by the five Inspectors General, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo was the only person in the OLC “read into” the surveillance program from its inception in October 2001 until he left the Department in May 2003.

    It’s so discouraging to read her rambles. She goes from:

    When John Yoo left OLC, his successors raised major concerns about the legal basis for the program, including Yoo’s opinion that FISA could simply be ignored as inconsistent with the president’s commander-in-chief powers, along with his inaccurate description of the scope of the intelligence activities conducted.

    Ok – you’re kinda on a roll girl, but the you …

    General Hayden also implies that because Congress amended FISA last year to allow this kind of surveillance, Congress therefore endorsed the president’s surveillance program. To the contrary: The fact that Congress passed legislation to bring the surveillance program back within the law illustrates that Congress recognized the need for all intelligence tools to be soundly rooted in the law, with appropriate oversight from the Executive Branch, Congress, and the courts.

    pretty much say that the scope of the surviellance Yoo, Gonzales, Bush and YOU told all of us about (al-Qaeda calling) is a big ol fib, then say then say that hey, it’s ok for Congress to “bring the surveilance program back within the law” without ever acknowledging that a) you have no way of telling if you have EVER FREAKING BEEN TOLD THE TRUTH ABOUT ANYTHING, and b) that every judge who looked at the program said it was UnCONSTITUTIONAL – not just against FISA but against the Constitution! Since when can you bring an unConstitutional program “within the law” by drafting Impierial Powers legislation on command?

    God I have a hard time liking any/many Democrats.

    • stryder says:

      this sure sums it up, thanks

      pretty much say that the scope of the surviellance Yoo, Gonzales, Bush and YOU told all of us about (al-Qaeda calling) is a big ol fib, then say then say that hey, it’s ok for Congress to “bring the surveilance program back within the law” without ever acknowledging that a) you have no way of telling if you have EVER FREAKING BEEN TOLD THE TRUTH ABOUT ANYTHING, and b) that every judge who looked at the program said it was UnCONSTITUTIONAL – not just against FISA but against the Constitution! Since when can you bring an unConstitutional program “within the law” by drafting Impierial Powers legislation on command?

      God I have a hard time liking any/many Democrats

  8. Mason says:

    Side note: According to the 9/11 Commission, two Al Quaeda members (al-Mihdar and al-Hazumi) who attended the Al Quaeda terrorist conference in Kuala Lumpur in December, 1999, and are believed to have hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 and crashed it into the Pentagon on 9/11, flew from Kuala Lumpur to L.A. arriving on January 15, 2000. According to an article written by Larissa Alexendrovna and posted on Raw Story, they likely were met at the airport by Omar al-Bayoumi (a Saudi defense contractor with connections to the Saudi Royal Family) who drove them to an apartment he rented for them in San Diego.

    The FBI had collected sufficient evidence prior to 9/11, including the presence and location of al-Mihdar and al-Hazumi, that should have resulted in someone connecting the dots and, of course, much of the dispute over the 9/11 Commission’s report is whether the government had connected them and allowed it to happen, or perhaps even participated or was responsible for it. I’m not going to get into that, however, EW’s article describing the unlawful distribution of classified and Top Secret intelligence to civilian law enforcement investigating terrorism in early 2001, makes me wonder if al-Mihdar and al-Hazumi were mentioned in that information. If so, I’d sure like to know what it was because there’s a money trail of monthly $2,000 checks (totaling tens of thousands of dollars) issued by Prince Bandar’s wife that runs through several people straight to al-Bayoumi beginning at the time he leased the apartment for the two hijackers. As I’m sure y’all know Prince Bandar is a member of the Saudi Royal Family and close friend and confidant of Bush 41 and Bush 43. If I were a suspicious person, I might be tempted to suspect that the money was laundered living expense and play money for al-Baroumi (who wasn’t working) and the two hijackers, al-Mihdar and al-Hazumi.

    We know NSA’s domestic surveillance program became operational before 9/11. I doubt that the 9/11 Commission knew it was in effect when it published its report and I’m guessing that whatever information NSA collected about the hijackers and their plans wasn’t made available to the Commission. Could this information, whatever it was, clarify what our government knew about the hijackers and their plans and when they knew it? If so, how might that affect the validity of the 9/11 Commission’s Report?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

    Here’s the link:

    http://www.rawstory.com/news/2….._0228.html

    • Mason says:

      I should have added that it’s ironic that two of the hijackers were living practically under the noses of the military spooks in San Diego.

      • Hmmm says:

        Embarrassment over that might go quite some way towards explaining the extreme overreaction now. Publicly embarrass an authoritarian at one’s own risk. As we have seen recently.

    • stryder says:

      Basically you’re implying that there was a vast conspiricy of sorts at work here right?

      • Mason says:

        “Basically you’re implying that there was a vast conspiracy of sorts at work here right?”

        No, I’m saying there are enough legitimate questions to start a new investigation to answer them.

      • james says:

        You don’t need a vast conspiracy to accomplish what was accomplished on 9/11. All that is needed is access to the gatekeepers, the people who are essential to getting information from its entry point into the system to the people who can act on it.

        Someone in a position to make sure vital information doesn’t become part of the stream, or a couple of someones, is all that’s needed. Coleen Rowley identifies that person as the agent in the FBI who was promoted after denying all reasonable requests to obtain warrants for Moussaoui’s laptop which contained info that would have led to discovery of the plot. Of course, had the warrants been obtained there was someone else in place to ensure that the information didn’t become part of what was needed to know.

        Not a conspiracy theory, the way of the world.

      • Mason says:

        My answer @31 is inadequate to your question @28 about whether I believe that a massive conspiracy is responsible for 9/11.

        The truth is that I firmly believe the Bush-Cheney administration was capable of deciding to stage a Pearl Harbor type incident like 9/11 and I’m not satisfied that the 9/11 Commission report reached an accurate conclusion. I have many unanswered questions and I think the matter needs to be reinvestigated.

        I also know there is zero chance that will happen.

        I have no confidence in our government and no respect for our newly elected President.

  9. Mason says:

    BTW, if y’all are interested, check out former FBI agent, lawyer and courageous whistle-blower Coleen Rowley’s article published by Raw Story two weeks ago calling for a new 9/11 investigation.

    http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/…..stigation/

  10. fatster says:

    O/T (Old Topic), or detainee victories

    FRIDAY JULY 31, 2009 11:32 EDT
    More detainee victories and what a majority of Congress tried to do
    (updated below – Update II)

    Glenn Greenwald

  11. fatster says:

    Wonder if the fusion centers are tracking this kind of activity:

    Right-Wing Harassment Strategy Against Dems Detailed In Memo: ‘Yell,’ ‘Stand Up And Shout Out,’ ‘Rattle Him’

    Contains the memo.

  12. james says:

    And the fact that the military used a civilian employee of the Dod kind of infers that they knew what they were doing was impermissible but figured it could be hedged by using someone who was not technically active duty military.