Materials arranged chronologically.
Schulhofer, Stephen. The Enemy Within: Intelligence Gathering, Law Enforcement, and Civil Liberties in the Wake of September 11. New York: Century Foundation, 2002.
Eggen, Dan. "FBI Misused Secret Wiretaps, According to Memo." Washington Post, 10 Oct. 2002, A14. [http://www.washingtonpost.com]
According to an internal FBI memorandum obtained by Rep. William D. Delehunt (D-MA), the "FBI illegally videotaped suspects, improperly recorded telephone calls and intercepted e-mails without court permission in more than a dozen secret terrorism and intelligence investigations.... The errors in the first three months of 2000 were considered so egregious that FBI officials in Washington launched a wholesale review of the agency's use of secret wiretaps and searches."
Moss, Michael, and Ford Fessenden. "New Tools for Domestic Spying, and Qualms." New York Times, 10 Dec. 2002. [http://www.nytimes.com]
Masse, Todd. Domestic Intelligence in the United Kingdom: Applicability of the MI-5 Model to the United States. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, 19 May 2003. Available at: http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31920.pdf.
Clark comment: This CRS report is recommended for anyone wanting to discuss the issue of how to organize U.S. domestic security. It does not answer the question (which is not CRS' job), but does offer a well-thought out perspective.
"While there may be lessons to be learned from the British experience with domestic intelligence, there are also important differences between U.S. and British governmental, legal, cultural and political norms.... This paper summarizes pending legislation relating to domestic intelligence, briefly explains the jurisdiction and functions of MI-5, and describes some of the factors that may be relevant to a discussion regarding the applicability of the MI-5 domestic intelligence model to the United States."
Hulnick, Arthur S. Keeping Us Safe: Secret Intelligence and Homeland Security. Westport, CT: Praeger Greenwood, 2004.
According to Peake, Studies 49.2 (2005), the focus here "is on assessing the role of intelligence in domestic security." The author "does not suggest that the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is the solution to the problems identified, but he concludes that whatever its role, it will require an intelligence element." Hulnick's "is not ... a detailed, case-oriented treatment. Problems are identified, but only the nature of solutions are suggested." The work "is more a primer on the intelligence process that the author thinks should be applied to homeland security problems."
Marrin, IJI&C 18.3 (Fall 2005), finds the strength of this work in "its breadth rather than [its] depth, [as] very little in th[e] book is new." However, "it is a splendid introductory text for the general reader." For Jeffreys-Jones, I&NS 20.2 (Jun. 2005), this book "is a useful primer for those interested in the field.... But the book is more than a repository of useful facts. It is a treasury of wise and sensible remarks."
Martin, Kate. "Domestic Intelligence and Civil Liberties." SAIS Review 24, no. 1 (Winter-Spring 2004): 7-21.
The author argues that for domestic intelligence purposes, a "law enforcement" paradigm, as opposed to an "intelligence" (data-mining) paradigm "is both more effective and much less threatening to individual privacy and liberty."
Gibb, John. Who's Watching You? The Chilling Truth About the State, Surveillance and Personal Freedom. Glasgow: Collins & Brown, 2005.
From publisher: "In this present age of sophisticated technology, governments and their agencies have the capabilities to track citizens not only on the street (CCTV surveillance equipment is everywhere) but also in the 'privacy' of our homes.... This book analyses the fragmentation of civil liberties in the 'Free West.'"
O'Harrow, Robert, Jr. No Place to Hide: Behind the Scenes of Our Emerging Surveillance Society. New York: Free Press, 2005.
According to Stone, Washington Post, 20 Feb, 2005, the author "unveils a modern world riddled with seemingly innocuous private businesses, government agencies and software programs ... [that] are relentlessly compiling information" about all aspects of our lives. In a "chilling narrative, O'Harrow identifies the risks [posed by our more convenient, more secure society] and vividly illustrates them with powerful real-life stories."
Posner, Richard A.
1. Remaking Domestic Intelligence. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, 2005.
From publisher: The author "reveals all the dangerous weaknesses undermining our domestic intelligence in the United States and offers a new solution: a domestic intelligence agency modeled on the ... Canadian Security Intelligence Service.... He also shows how a new U.S. domestic intelligence agency might offer additional advantages over our current structure even in terms of civil liberties."
2. Remaking Domestic Intelligence. Hoover Institution Weekly Essays. 16 Jun. 2005. [Downloadable PDF file at: http://www.hoover.org/pubaffairs/we/2005/posner06.html]
"This is a special web-only essay that takes up where Posner's Hoover Studies book, Preventing Surprise Attacks: Intelligence Reform in the Wake of 9/11, leaves off."
From Abstract: "The magnitude of the terrorist threat..., coupled with the lack of coordination among our domestic intelligence agencies and the failure of the lead agency, the FBI, to develop an adequate domestic intelligence capability, argues compellingly for reform. Because the FBI's failure is systemic, being rooted in the incompatibility of criminal law enforcement (the FBI's principal mission) with national-security intelligence, the reform must have a structural dimension. The WMD (Robb-Silberman) Commission's proposal ... is to create a domestic intelligence agency within the FBI by fusion of its three units that at present share intelligence responsibility. Such a fusion may or not be a good idea; but clearly it is not enough. The Director of National Intelligence should take the coordination and command of domestic intelligence firmly into his hands by appointing a deputy for domestic intelligence, while the President should by executive order create outside of (but not in derogation of) the FBI a domestic intelligence agency, modeled on such foreign agencies as the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, that would have no law enforcement functions. The agency could be lodged in the Department of Homeland Security."
Clark comment: As much as I admire the clarity of Judge Posner's reasoning (especially his critique of the 9/11 Commission's work), the very thought of lodging another agency in the DHS gives me cold shivers.
Posner, Richard A. "Our Domestic Intelligence Crisis." Washington Post, 21 Dec. 2005, A31. [http://www.washingtonpost.com]
In this OpEd piece Judge Posner, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, comments that the domestic surveillance activities of Defense Department components, such as, NSA and the Counterintelligence Field Activity "are criticized as grave threats to civil liberties. They are not. Their significance is in flagging the existence of gaps in our defenses against terrorism. The Defense Department is rushing to fill those gaps, though there may be better ways....
"The Pentagon's rush to fill gaps in domestic intelligence reflects the disarray in this vital yet neglected area of national security. The principal domestic intelligence agency is the FBI, but it is primarily a criminal investigation agency that has been struggling, so far with limited success, to transform itself." The United States has" no official with sole and comprehensive responsibility for domestic intelligence. It is no surprise that gaps in domestic intelligence are being filled by ad hoc initiatives."
Eggen, Dan. "FBI Papers Indicate Intelligence Violations: Secret Surveillance Lacked Oversight." Washington Post, 24 Oct. 2005, A1. [http://www.washingtonpost.com]
According to heavily censored documents provided to The Washington Post by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which acquired them through an FOIA lawsuit, "[t]he FBI has conducted clandestine surveillance on some U.S. residents ... without proper paperwork or oversight." However, FBI officials argued "that none of the cases have involved major violations and most amount to administrative errors. The officials also said that any information obtained from improper searches or eavesdropping is quarantined and eventually destroyed."
Lichtblau, Eric. "F.B.I. Watched Activist Groups, New Files Show." New York Times, 20 Dec. 2005. [http://www.nytimes.com]
According to newly available documents, FBI "[c]ounterterrorism agents ... have conducted numerous surveillance and intelligence-gathering operations that involved, at least indirectly, groups active in causes as diverse as the environment, animal cruelty and poverty relief."