<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>NetRootsMass &#187; DHS/Homeland Security</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.netrootsmass.net/category/hughs-bush-scandals-list/dhs-homeland-security/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.netrootsmass.net</link>
	<description>common people for the common good</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2011 02:27:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>396.  Wrongdoing in the Air Marshal Service</title>
		<link>http://www.netrootsmass.net/2008/11/396-wrongdoing-in-the-air-marshal-service/</link>
		<comments>http://www.netrootsmass.net/2008/11/396-wrongdoing-in-the-air-marshal-service/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:52:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Hugh</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DHS/Homeland Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hugh's List of Bush Scandals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War on Terror]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Whistleblower]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.netrootsmass.net/?p=1411</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Air Marshal Service went from 33 agents and a $4.4 million budget before 9/11 to 3,000-4,000 marshals and a  $786 million budget.  During this time, it has had 3 different leaders and been moved to 4 different agencies.  Since its expansion, some three dozen marshals have been charged with crimes and [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The <a href="http://www.propublica.org/feature/air-marshals-undercover-and-under-arrest-1113/">Air Marshal</a> Service went from 33 agents and a $4.4 million budget before 9/11 to 3,000-4,000 marshals and a  $786 million budget.  During this time, it has had 3 different leaders and been moved to 4 different agencies.  Since its expansion, some three dozen marshals have been charged with crimes and hundreds (753 already at the time of a 2004 Inspector General&rsquo;s report) accused of misconduct, everything from drug smuggling, a marshal who tried to hire a hitman to kill his ex-wife, inappropriate use of firearms, drunk driving, human trafficking, corruption, and weapons smuggling.</p>
<p>A <a href="http://www.propublica.org/article/report-whistleblower-office-fails-to-protect-air-marshals-1125/#When:07:00:01Z">November 25, 2008</a> report by the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) reported that whistleblowers inside the Air Marshals Service were harassed for speaking out and that the Office of Special Counsel headed by the now fired Scott Bloch (item 153) did little to protect them.</p>
<p>This level of wrongdoing, chaos and mismanagement is pretty much what you would expect from Michael Chertoff&rsquo;s Department of Homeland Security.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.netrootsmass.net/2008/11/396-wrongdoing-in-the-air-marshal-service/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>388.  Religious profiling at the DHS</title>
		<link>http://www.netrootsmass.net/2008/10/388-religious-profiling-at-the-dhs/</link>
		<comments>http://www.netrootsmass.net/2008/10/388-religious-profiling-at-the-dhs/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Oct 2008 17:26:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Hugh</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[DHS/Homeland Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hugh's List of Bush Scandals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Incompetence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War on Terror]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.netrootsmass.net/?p=1250</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the run up to the 2004 Presidential elections the Immigration and Customs Enforcement division (ICE) of the Department of Homeland Security targeted some 2,500 foreigners living in the US. The goal was to disrupt potential pre-election terrorism.  Although the government denied it, religious profiling was the primary criterion for investigation, not any suspected [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the run up to the 2004 Presidential elections the Immigration and Customs Enforcement division (ICE) of the Department of Homeland Security <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/31/us/31inquire.html?hp">targeted</a> some 2,500 foreigners living in the US. The goal was to disrupt potential pre-election terrorism.  Although the government denied it, religious profiling was the primary criterion for investigation, not any suspected terrorist affiliation.  79% of those targeted came from Moslem countries.  Huge resources were committed to the effort.  Around 500 arrests were made, essentially for minor offenses, such as overstaying one&rsquo;s visa.  This had all the hallmarks of a classic DHS operation:  expensive, ineffective, and intrusive.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.netrootsmass.net/2008/10/388-religious-profiling-at-the-dhs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>372. Fusion Centers and Domestic Intelligence</title>
		<link>http://www.netrootsmass.net/2008/10/372-fusion-centers-and-domestic-intelligence/</link>
		<comments>http://www.netrootsmass.net/2008/10/372-fusion-centers-and-domestic-intelligence/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2008 04:50:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Hugh</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[DHS/Homeland Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hugh's List of Bush Scandals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intelligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Surveillance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War on Terror]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.endordil.com/?p=1015</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[One of the criticisms of US law enforcement in the run up to 9/11 was that it failed to connect the dots.  Part of this was because information was not passed up the chain of command or pursued.  Part was that information was not shared between agencies.  One of the ways this [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One of the criticisms of US law enforcement in the run up to 9/11 was that it failed to connect the dots.  Part of this was because information was not passed up the chain of command or pursued.  Part was that information was not shared between agencies.  One of the ways this second issue was addressed was by the creation of fusion centers.  To date, fusion centers seem better at producing dots than in connecting them.</p>
<p>As described in a <a href="http://www.aclu.org/privacy/gen/32966pub20071205.html">November</a> 2007 ACLU <a href="http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/privacy/fusioncenter_20071212.pdf">report</a> and a <a href="http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/36185prs20080729.html">July</a> 2008 <a href="http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/privacy/fusion_update_20080729.pdf">update</a>, fusion centers were cooperative efforts to share information that grew up haphazardly beginning around 2003 among local, state, and federal authorities.  Almost every state has or is planning to have one.  Since state and local laws vary, each fusion center is different.  Mixed jurisdictions and chains of command within and between fusion centers and with no overarching regulation have led to an uncontrolled growth in mission.  The goal has moved from counterterrorism to more general law enforcement to even broader information gathering on ordinary Americans.  Military (in violation of posse comitatus) and private actors have also become involved.</p>
<p>In this, the centers can be seen as the next iteration in a long line of domestic surveillance programs from the old Red squads to the infamous FBI&rsquo;s COINTELPRO which targeted Americans like Martin Luther King to the Total Information Awareness/Terrorist Information Awareness program which Congress defunded in 2003 just as fusion centers were taking off.  By the end of 2006, the Department of Homeland Security had spent $380 million on them.</p>
<p>Like its predecessors, the system is ripe for abuse.  It mixes criminal, public, and private information into profiles of large numbers of Americans and is perfect for data mining.  It allows users to &ldquo;policy shop&rdquo; and acquire information from another jurisdiction which is against the law in one&rsquo;s home state or locality.  It includes reports on perfectly legal activities, such as using binoculars, taking notes, and espousing &ldquo;extremist&rdquo; views.  Some of these extremist views include being Muslim, a peace activist, or against the death penalty.  While these reports supposedly do not contain names, they do contain enough information for identification using other sources.  They are also in violation of Title 28 Part 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations which states that law enforcement &ldquo;shall collect information concerning an individual only if there is reasonable suspicion that the individual is involved in criminal conduct or activity and the information is relevant to that criminal conduct or activity.&rdquo;  In 2006, the DHS and Justice Department came up with guidelines for fusion centers which ignored this regulation completely and suggested the following as an incomplete list of possible information sources:</p>
<ul>
<li>Private sector entities such as food/water production facilities, grocery stores and supermarkets, and restaurants.</li>
<li>Banks, investment firms, credit companies and government-related financial departments.</li>
<li>Preschools, day care centers, universities, primary &amp; secondary schools and other educational entities providing information on suspicious activity.</li>
<li>Fire and emergency medical services in both the public and private sector such as hospitals and private EMS services.</li>
<li>Utilities, electricity, and oil companies, Department of Energy.</li>
<li>Private physicians, pharmaceutical companies, veterinarians.</li>
<li>The gaming industry, sports authority, sporting facilities, amusement parks, cruise lines, hotels, motels, resorts and convention centers.</li>
<li>Internet service and e-mail providers, the FCC, telecom companies, computer and software companies, and related government agencies.</li>
<li>Defense contractors and military entities.</li>
<li>The U.S. Postal service and private shipping companies.</li>
<li>Apartment facilities, facility management companies, housing authorities.</li>
<li>Malls, retail stores and shopping centers.</li>
<li>State and child welfare entities.</li>
<li>Governmental, public, and private transport entities such as airlines and shipping companies.</li>
</ul>
<p>This is breathtaking in its scope.  The result is that some 800, 000 of the nation&rsquo;s law enforcement officials have in effect become intelligence agents, and not very good ones, of the government.  It is not an exaggeration to say that what this is about is Big Brother and the creation of a surveillance state.   Fusion centers operate in the dark with no oversight.  They have shown no ability in their original counterterrorism mission and in their current form violate the First and Fourth Amendments massively and repeatedly.  They are antithetical to American values of privacy and democracy.</p>
<p>On <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&amp;o=09000064806a3765">July 31, 2008</a>, the Justice Department posted proposed rule <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/08/16/justice_department_may_ease_domestic_spying_regulations/?rss_id=Boston.com%20--%20National%20news">changes</a> in light of &ldquo;the new, post-9/11 information sharing environment&rdquo; that would legalize the illegal activities under Title 28 Part 23 the fusion centers have been engaged in for the last few years.  It would also increase the length of time information could be held by such centers without any updating from 5 years to 10 years.  This is another example of a government department seeking to institutionalize Administration power grabs and legitimize lawless behavior before Bush leaves office.  The rules changes are set to go into effect on <a href="http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/Judiciary/082008LeahyToAG.pdf">October 1, 2008</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.netrootsmass.net/2008/10/372-fusion-centers-and-domestic-intelligence/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>333. Government by contractor</title>
		<link>http://www.netrootsmass.net/2008/09/333-government-by-contractor/</link>
		<comments>http://www.netrootsmass.net/2008/09/333-government-by-contractor/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2008 03:25:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Hugh</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Contractors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corruption]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cronyism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DHS/Homeland Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hugh's List of Bush Scandals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Incompetence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.endordil.com/?p=931</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A June 2007 report of the House Committee on Oversight (Waxman Committee) found that discretionary spending had grown from $614.8 billion in 2000 to $1 trillion in 2006.  Of this, spending on procurement rose from $203.1 billion in 2000 to $412.1 billion in 2006, representing an average annual increase of 12.6% as compared to [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A June 2007 <a href="http://oversight.house.gov/features/moredollars/moredollars.pdf">report</a> of the House Committee on Oversight (Waxman Committee) found that discretionary spending had grown from $614.8 billion in 2000 to $1 trillion in 2006.  Of this, spending on procurement rose from $203.1 billion in 2000 to $412.1 billion in 2006, representing an average annual increase of 12.6% as compared to 2.4% a year for inflation.</p>
<p>Among departments, Pentagon spending on procurement increased from $133.5 billion in 2000 to $297.7 billion in 2006 representing 72% of the total federal procurement budget. At the Department of Homeland Security, procurement spending went up from $3.5 billion in 2003 when the DHS was created to $15.1 billion in 2006 with $5.1 billion of that occurring between 2005 and 2006 alone.</p>
<p>Among contractors the top 6 were Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, General Dynamics, and Halliburton. Together, they received $99.9 billion in 2006 or 24% of all federal procurement spending in that year. The largest federal contractor was Lockheed Martin with 14,016 contracts worth $31.5 billion, or more than the gross domestic product of 109 countries.  Interestingly, Halliburton which Vice President Cheney once headed has been the fastest growing federal contractor.  It went from 28th place in 2000 with $763 million in contracts to 6th place with $6 billion in 2006, a 700% increase.  It&rsquo;s good to be the king, as Mel Brooks once said.</p>
<p>As for the contracts, $67.5 billion were let in 2000 without full and open competition.  By 2006, this had increased to $206.9 billion, an increase of 206%.  Of this last number, no-bid contracts comprised $103 billion, up form $46.6 billion in 2000.  Limited competition contracts (where only a small pre-selected group is allowed to bid) amounted to $62.6 billion in 2006.  In $10 billion of these, there was in fact only one bidder.  Among contracts listed as available to full and open competition in 2006, some $47.7 billion also had a single bid up from $11.7 billion in 2000 (a 308% rise).</p>
<p>The report also found significant waste, fraud, and abuse in 187 ongoing contracts worth $1.1 trillion.  The principal reason for this has been a failure in oversight.  While procurement contracts have exploded in size and number under the Bush Administration, competition has shriveled, more abuse prone cost-plus contracts have been awarded, and the number of personnel to oversee them has remained static.  It is all a recipe to loot the government by the powerful.  It is welfare for the wealthy and the well connected.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.netrootsmass.net/2008/09/333-government-by-contractor/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>331. Freedom of Information, well not so much</title>
		<link>http://www.netrootsmass.net/2008/09/331-freedom-of-information-well-not-so-much/</link>
		<comments>http://www.netrootsmass.net/2008/09/331-freedom-of-information-well-not-so-much/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2008 03:23:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Hugh</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[DHS/Homeland Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hugh's List of Bush Scandals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Incompetence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.endordil.com/?p=927</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Despite a December 14, 2005 Executive Order requiring that &#8220;agencies shall process requests under the FOIA in an efficient and appropriate manner and achieve tangible, measurable improvements in FOIA processing,&#8221; the March 2008 Knight Open Government Survey of the National Security Archive found that the backlog in FOIA requests in the subsequent two years to [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Despite a December 14, 2005 <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051214-4.html">Executive Order</a> requiring that &ldquo;agencies shall process requests under the FOIA in an efficient and appropriate manner and achieve tangible, measurable improvements in FOIA processing,&rdquo; the <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/03/16/audit_bush_barely_trims_foia_backlog/?rss_id=Boston.com+--+National+news">March 2008</a> Knight Open Government Survey of the National Security Archive found that the backlog in FOIA requests in the subsequent two years to the end of 2007 was only cut from 217,000 to 212,000.  A July 2007 <a href="http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB224/index.htm">report</a> by the group had found that the oldest unprocessed FOIA requests dated back 20 years to 1987.  In the most recent study, Michael Chertoff&rsquo;s Department of Homeland Security had set a goal of eliminating its backlog of 82,544 requests by the end of 2007 but instead saw the backlog increase to 83,661.  Why am I not surprised?  For its part, the Treasury Department had developed the strategy of sitting on FOIA requests then sending out letters demanding a response within 15 days.  If no response was received the request was cancelled out.  Researchers found that even when they responded on time, Treasury would send out a second letter playing the same game.  For cases over 10 years in the works, the department claimed the materials had been transferred to the National Archives and that a new FOIA request would have to be submitted there.  What this says is that the government which is supposed to be accessible and responsive to its citizens is not.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.netrootsmass.net/2008/09/331-freedom-of-information-well-not-so-much/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

