INTELLIGENCE FUSION CENTERS EMERGE ACROSS THE U.S.

[Annie]

I gather that something similar is happening in the UK with regional MI5 offices.

Annie


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2006, Issue No. 50
April 25, 2006

Secrecy News Blog: http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/

Support Secrecy News:
http://www.fas.org/static/contrib_sec.jsp


** INTELLIGENCE FUSION CENTERS EMERGE ACROSS THE U.S.
** ODNI PURSUES INTELLIGENCE COMPENSATION REFORM
** HOUSE POISED TO GRANT ARREST POWERS TO CIA, NSA
** JUDGING SECRETS: THE ROLE OF THE COURTS
** FOREIGN INFLUENCE, ISRAEL AND THE SECURITY CLEARANCE PROCESS


INTELLIGENCE FUSION CENTERS EMERGE ACROSS THE U.S.

The contours of the U.S. intelligence bureaucracy are expanding to
include dozens of new "intelligence fusion centers" based around
the country.

An intelligence fusion center is "a collaborative effort of two or
more agencies that provide resources, expertise, and/or information
to the center with the goal of maximizing the ability to detect,
prevent, apprehend, and respond to criminal and terrorist
activity."

A list of state and regional intelligence fusion centers that have
been established as of March 2006 was obtained by Secrecy News.
See:

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/ise/state.pdf

Last year, the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland
Security published guidelines for the operation of fusion centers
dealing with law enforcement intelligence.

See "Fusion Center Guidelines: Developing and Sharing Information
and Intelligence in a New World," July 2005 (1.8 MB PDF):

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/ise/guidelines.pdf

So far, the fusion centers have not been an unqualified success.
State officials express growing unhappiness with the contribution
of federal intelligence agencies, according to a new survey from
the National Governors Association:

"Sixty percent of responding state homeland security directors are
dissatisfied or somewhat dissatisfied with the specificity of the
intelligence they receive from the federal government. An
additional 55 percent are dissatisfied or somewhat dissatisfied
with the actionable quality of the intelligence they receive from
the federal government."

"These numbers represent a sharp increase from the combined
dissatisfied/somewhat dissatisfied percentages from the previous
year," according to the April 5 NGA survey:

http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/0604HLSDIRSURVEY.pdf

The fusion centers are one aspect of a broader effort to promote
sharing of intelligence information within the government.

The Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 (section 1016) called for the
creation of an Information Sharing Environment (ISE), which is
defined as "an approach that facilitates the sharing of terrorism
information, which approach may include any methods determined
necessary."

This too is a work in progress, at best, that remains far from
achieving its objective.

"More than 4 years after September 11, the nation still lacks the
government-wide policies and processes that Congress called for to
provide a framework for guiding and integrating the myriad of
ongoing efforts to improve the sharing of terrorism-related
information critical to protecting our homeland," the Government
Accountability Office stated in a report published last week (SN,
04/18/06).

Selected resources on the ISE are available here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/ise/index.html

It should be noted that "information sharing" in this context does
not extend to public disclosure of government information. To the
contrary, information sharing policies may even create new barriers
to public access through the use of non-disclosure agreements and
similar devices.


ODNI PURSUES INTELLIGENCE COMPENSATION REFORM

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence is attempting to
revamp the compensation system for intelligence personnel to
emphasize "pay for performance" rather than duration of employment.

But it is considered a delicate, even "potentially destructive"
task.

"There can be no doubt that pay modernization is coming to the IC,"
wrote DDNI Michael Hayden in a February memo, "and generally, I
believe that is a good thing."

"You should all receive competitive compensation based on your
competence and contribution to mission, not just on longevity,"
Gen. Hayden wrote.

"However, if we don't carefully manage the introduction of these
changes, we could see untenable pay disparities within the IC,
potentially destructive inter-agency competition, and a negative
impact on employee morale," he wrote.

The February 6 Hayden memorandum was transmitted to senior defense
officials by Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen A.
Cambone on March 13.

A copy was obtained by Secrecy News.

See "Modernizing Civilian Compensation Systems within the
Intelligence Community," memorandum for All Intelligence Community
Employees:

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/compensation.pdf


HOUSE POISED TO GRANT ARREST POWERS TO CIA, NSA

The House version of the 2007 intelligence authorization bill would
grant CIA and NSA security personnel the authority to make arrests
for "any felony" committed in their presence, no matter how remote
from the foreign intelligence mission it might be, the Baltimore
Sun reported today.

Section 423 of H.R. 5020 "appears...to grant to CIA security
personnel powers that have little to do with the primary mission of
'executive protection,' and potentially creates a pretext for use
or abuse of these powers for the purposes of general domestic law
enforcement -- something no element of the CIA has ever been
empowered to perform," wrote Danielle Brian of the Project on
Government Oversight in a letter to members of the House
Intelligence Committee opposing the provision.

http://www.pogo.org/p/government/gl-060401-intel.html

Section 432 of the bill grants similar authority to NSA security
personnel.

The bill also includes measures intended to increase penalties for
unauthorized disclosures of classified information (SN, 04/07/06).

See "Congress cracking down on U.S. leaks" by Siobhan Gorman,
Baltimore Sun, April 25:

http://tinyurl.com/lh4rd


JUDGING SECRETS: THE ROLE OF THE COURTS

Federal courts could, and should, play a more effective role in
curtailing unnecessary government secrecy, argues Meredith Fuchs,
general counsel at the National Security Archive, in a splendid new
law review article.

"All too often, courts easily accept the argument that the executive
needs unquestioning adherence to its judgments and that the court
is not competent to assess those judgments in the realm of national
security."

"Yet judges have stemmed executive overreaching in other contexts
involving national security claims. Judges have discretionary
tools -- such as the Vaughn Index, in camera review, and special
master -- available to help them do the same in the secrecy
context," she wrote.

Her article provides an updated introduction to the secrecy system,
a critique of secrecy policy, and a survey of recent judicial
actions.

See "Judging Secrets: The Role Courts Should Play in Preventing
Unnecessary Secrecy" by Meredith Fuchs, Administrative Law Review,
Winter 2006:

http://www.nsarchive.org/fuchs/Fuchs.pdf


FOREIGN INFLUENCE, ISRAEL AND THE SECURITY CLEARANCE PROCESS

Many people who have tangled with the security clearance system have
found it bafflingly inconsistent and unpredictable. New research
on the role of foreign influence in security clearance disputes,
particularly those involving Israel, finds an empirical basis for
that perception.

According to official guidelines for granting security clearances
for access to classified information, foreign influence or
allegiance can understandably be a disqualifying factor leading to
denial or revocation of clearance.

Among the security clearance disputes involving foreign influence
that are presented for adjudication to the Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), "there appear to be an unusually large
number of Israel cases," wrote attorney Sheldon I. Cohen in a
recent study.

"Since 1996, when DOHA began posting its decisions to its web site,
until February 2006,... there have been 47 cases identifying Israel
as the foreign country in question. These cases have resulted in
18 applicants being granted clearances and 29 being denied."

Cohen, a specialist in security clearance law and policy,
scrutinized many of these Israel-related cases to deduce the larger
lessons they hold about the clearance adjudication process.

"After review of such an extensive body of case law one would expect
there to be some predictability, but there is none," he concluded.

"If DOHA would provide its policies in deciding and appealing these
cases, if indeed there are such policies, applicants and their
counsel would have some idea of the likelihood of obtaining a
clearance more than simply a roll of the dice."

Instead, Cohen found, "one is left with a sense of arbitrariness and
unpredictability."

See "Israel: Foreign Influence - Foreign Preference Cases, A Review
of DOHA Decisions" by Sheldon I. Cohen, March 2006, linked on this
page:

http://www.sheldoncohen.com/publications/index.htm

A broader consideration of "Foreign Influence and Foreign Preference
Considerations in National Security Clearance Decisions," also by
Cohen, can be found at the same site.

A new Department of Defense Inspector General report found that the
perennially troubled security clearance systems is still...
troubled.

"All 26 DoD military and civilian requesting activities we visited
experienced difficulties in effectively and efficiently processing
personnel security investigation requests for military and civilian
personnel."

"As a result, requesting activities may continue to experience
delays in the security clearance process, which may impact national
security, completion of critical DoD missions, and support of the
warfighter."

See "DoD Personnel Security Clearance Process at Requesting
Activities," DoD Inspector General audit report, April 19, 2006
(2 MB PDF file):

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/dod/igclearance.pdf





_______________________________________________
Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.

To SUBSCRIBE to Secrecy News, send email to
secrecy_news-request@lists.fas.org
with "subscribe" in the body of the message.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email message to
secrecy_news-remove@lists.fas.org

OR email your request to saftergood@fas.org

Secrecy News is archived at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html

Secrecy News is available in blog format at:
http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/

SUPPORT Secrecy News with a donation here:
http://www.fas.org/static/contrib_sec.jsp

_______________________
Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
web: www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
email: saftergood@fas.org
voice: (202) 454-4691