CIA

CIA Engages in Domestic Surveillance With the Connivance of New York Cops

|

CIA
U.S. Government

Yesterday, I wrote, "[t]he surveillance state is better established than most people realize, and reaches far beyond our communications and Internet activities," and how right I was. I may have been referrring to the spreading use of license-plate cameras, but it turns out that the classic spook outfit, the Central Intelligence Agency, has turned its sights inwards, on Americans, with the enthusiatic collaboration of the Intelligence Division of New York City's own NYPD. We know this courtesy of a Central Intelligence Agency Inspector General's report obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center via that legal jaws of life known as a Freedom of Information Act request. The report concludes there's "insufficient basis to merit a full investigation" into CIA activities in New York City, even though it found "irregular personnel practices" and other lapses in the conduct of the CIA's relationship with the NYPD.

The IG's report was prompted by a 2011 Associated Press story on the intelligence relationship, raising questions about whether the report was a response to public embarrassment, or to an actual revelation about CIA conduct learned only from the press. The CIA's relationship with the NYPD apparently began in 2002, after a retired CIA officer was appointed deputy director of the NYPD-ID.

In Review of the CIA-NYPD Relationship, Inspector General David Buckley notes that the "Agency's longstanding relationship with the NYPD-ID is unique. OIG is unaware of any similar relationship between the Agency and other local law-enforcemet entities in the United States." This is probably a good thing, given the acknowledged risks of "negative public perception," especially with regards to the CIA stepping outside its appropriate bounds.There is also, the IG notes, "the risk that CIA officers could become involved in law enforcement matters." That's no small concern, since the CIA's own Website defines the Agency director's mission as "[c]ollecting intelligence through human sources and by other appropriate means, except that he shall have no police, subpoena, or law enforcement powers or internal security functions."

The report continues:

With these considerations in mind, OIG's discovery of a number of irregular personnel practices, the lack of formal documentation in some imporatant instances, and the varying degrees of management and legal oversight regarding the CIA-NYPD relationship post-9/11 is noteworthy. The revelation of these issues, as discussed in more detain in the Executive Summary, leads me to conclude that the risks associated with the Agency's relationship with NYPD were not fully considered and that there was inadequate direction and control by the Agency managers responsible for the relationship.

Specific problems included the mishandling of "potentially unfiltered NYPD-ID reports." Part of the problem here seems to be that a CIA officer given leave without pay to work full-time with the NYPD was never advised as to prohibitions on CIA domestic activity "and believed he had 'no limitations' as far as what he could or could not do." Ultimately, this CIA officer came to direct "ALL NYPD investigations, operations and surveillance activities directed at US persons and non-US persons."

Since this CIA officer he was on leave without pay, however, (though apparently paid by the NYPD), the CIA's Office of the General Counsel concluded that legal restrictions on CIA law enforcement activities don't apply.

Nice end run.

In return, an NYPD detective was apparently offered "Agency operational training," though he or she failed to successessfully complete the course.

Other CIA officers were also detailed to the NYPD to analyze intelligence reports and liaise between the police department and other agencies, including the FBI.

Despite the very close relationship between the CIA and NYPD in conducting and analyzing surveillance, and admitted missteps along the way in terms of guidance and handling intelligence reports, Inspector General Buckley concludes there is no "evidence that Agency officers engaged or participated in any activities that violated EO 12333 or the National Security Act of 1947."

So, all is well. Except that the Central Intelligence Agency is now operating domestically, through local police proxies.

NEXT: Ex-Wife: Nelson Mandela's Condition Improving, Still Critical

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. OT, but the case against Zimmerman just crashed and burned:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-50…..l-gunshot/

    “At first it was “What’s going on,” and no one answered,’ ” Good said, describing calling out for the men. “And then at that point the person on the bottom, I could finally see, I heard a ‘help.’ Then at some point I said ‘Cut it out.’ And then, ‘I’m calling 911.’ That’s when I thought it was getting really serious.”

    Then, he said, the altercation seemed to escalate. The struggle moved to the cement pathway, and he said the person in dark clothing straddled the other man in “mixed martial arts position” he later described to police as a “ground and pound.” He said he saw “arm movements going downward,” though he couldn’t be certain the person on top was striking the person on the bottom.

    “The person you now know to be Trayvon Martin was on top, correct?” asked defense attorney Mark O’Mara. “He was the one raining blows down on George Zimmerman, correct?”

    “That’s what it looked like,” Good answered.

    So this is the prosecution’s witness right?

    1. The prosecutor won when he got to the court-room.

      1. This case is even a bigger loser than I expected. I’m starting to be convinced that the prosecution really is just going through the motions here, not trying or expecting to convict.

        1. Yeah, I almost feel bad for the guy. “Here guy, you’re taking this dogshit case and you’re probably going to lose but there is nothing I can because the media circus will ruin my career if I don’t do something.”

          1. I will admit, when the story first came out, I was of the opinion that Zimmerman was some wannabe cop who did the coply thing and found a random black kid to exercise some “Procedures Were Followed” on. More information came out, now I’m not sure whether or not what happened was murder, manslaughter, or self-defense. But I know the prosecution has turned this case into a steaming, fly-covered turd with it’s star witness being an illiterate liar and subsequent witnesses having little to no damning testimony to offer against Zimmerman.

    2. Of course the cracker neighbor is going to stick up for his cracker “white hispanic” buddy. His testimony should be thrown out because you can never trust the testimony of a honky in a case like this. /Al Sharpton

      1. Speaking of Sharpton. He was on some news show earlier this week claiming to “not want to encourage over emotional reactions.”

  2. Why wait for the PM links.

    http://www.reuters.com/article…..TF20130628

    (Reuters) – An IRS official effectively waived her right not to testify about the tax agency’s targeting of conservative groups, a Republican-led congressional committee concluded on Friday in a vote that cleared the way for Congress to hold her in contempt.

    1. I am troubled by this.

      If a person had no intention of waiving rights then it is dangerous to play ‘gotcha’ on technicalities regarding what words they might say.

      Lesson: If you intend to invoke your 5th amendment rights then do so and STFU. Say nothing else.

      I would like to see a court ruling stating that the only way a person can waive their rights is by specifically stating that that is what they are doing.

      1. She had a laywer sitting next to her that supposedly is providing professional advice. All the laywers that hang out here said immediately that she fucked up and waived her rights.

        Maybe she can sue her laywer now.

      2. I would like to see a court ruling stating that the only way a person can waive their rights is by specifically stating that that is what they are doing.

        Didn’t this just happen for the right to remain silent?

        1. No, that ruling was that if you don’t invoke it specifically, you’ve apparently waived it. See linky below.

      3. Meh, fuck her. She should sue her lawyer for bad counsel.

        1. Maybe she can, provided she was following their council. Perhaps she did not.

      4. Hell, a court has ruled that you have no rights unless you specifically invoke them first.

        1. That seems incompatible with the concept of ‘inalienable’.

          1. It is however compatible with the concept of “FYTW”.

          2. Also the fact that nothing in the 5th says you have to invoke it for its protection.

            1. It’s in the special magic ink that also contains all the “except…” clauses. Only the courts have the magic glasses necessary to read it.

              1. Why couldn’t they have just put an invisible treasure map on the back of The Constitution like they did with the Declaration of Independance?

      5. To be sure, the Fifth isn’t intended for you to only testify to the good things while pleading the Fifth on the bad things. You are supposed to keep your mouth shut on the whole business.

        It’s not clear to me that she testified on the facts, but it isn’t a bad argument that she did, as she lead into her “I didn’t do nothin'” with a list of what she was being charged with. Also, this is Congress, not a court, which could make the issue more interesting.

        1. Yeah, I don’t think you can basically refute the allegations against you and then clam up when it comes time for cross-examination.

          1. It’s a little tricky because she didn’t dive into the details, but I suspect regular old criminal defendants have been found to waive their rights for doing something similar.

  3. I’m envisioning another Church Committee. This shit is way out of hand again.

    1. Except neither side seems to care this time.

      1. Be patient. I think people are simmering a bit about this, and much more will come out. Even the media, some of it, is starting to wake up.

        Give it another year, and this will be a full-blown disaster for the government.

        1. From your lips to God’s ears.

          1. The problem isn’t that steps won’t be taken–they probably will be–it’s that they won’t work or will be a mere veneer.

            The one advantage we have today, compared to the 70s, is that information gets out much more easily, quickly, and broadly.

            1. But the government is so much more powerful and unaccountable it doesn’t matter.

              1. Got me there. Let’s hope it’s not too late to rein in some of these abuses.

        2. I have doubts about that. After a year goes by without the government rounding up large numbers of people and carting them off, people become complacent, not angrier. There will likely be some electoral fallout, but the programs themselves will continue.

          1. It seems a little worse right now, and there’s definitely some resentment building. Sure, it could all go away for the news story du jour, but at least people are paying some attention right now.

  4. Pyongyang on the Hudson

    1. Love it! I’m-a start calling it that (well, Pyongyang-on-Hudson to go with other towns like Croton-on-Hudson, etc.) and see how that goes over among my friends.

      1. It also comes with some unpleasant Robin Williams associations, so there’s that.

    2. Pyongyang on the Potomac works pretty well too.

      1. In DC we can at least have large beverages, cigarettes in public, and salt in our food!

        1. We have large beverages and cigarettes in public, too. That said, for how pretentious Manhattan can get, it really can’t hold a candle to DC.

          /TEAM REGION

  5. Except that the Central Intelligence Agency is now operating domestically

    If you really think that the CIA wasn’t operating domestically in some clandestine form even though they have no charter for it, you’re in fucking dreamland. There’s no way those territorial fucks were going to let the FBI handle everything. I guarantee you the CIA has operatives and contacts with local police all over the fucking place domestically.

    1. I’ve always assumed they did, at least informally.

    2. Yes, but we have proof of it now. It’s not tinfoil-hat stuff anymore.

      1. Is there any actual tinfoil-hat stuff left anymore? I mean, since most of it seems to be turning out to be true.

        1. Human/alien hybrids?

          1. What about Pelosi and Waxman? Are they not proof?

            1. Waxman is a mole-person from Under-Earth. He’s as Terran as you or I.

  6. This isn’t domestic surveillance, it’s foreign surveillance conducted in partnership with the military forces of an independent, autocratic city-state.

    1. Reminds me of a hilarious twitter picture or something that was a pic of Times Square as the photographer was leaving, captioned “Goodbye New York City, hello America!”

  7. Just as disgusting and loathsome as Bloomberg is that police commissioner Ray Kelly: A sphincter for the ages.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.