PCJF Obtains New DHS Documents: Critical Analysis Shows DHS Is Playing Three Card Monte
PCJF Obtains New DHS Documents:
Critical Analysis Shows DHS Is Playing Three Card Monte
- March 21, 2012 •
- •
- •
| Sign up to receive updates! Be the first to know as we upload more released materials. |
|
|
Documents Received from Department of Homeland Sercurity:
How Homeland Security Is Hiding the Feds' Role in Occupy Crackdown
A trove of documents released today by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in response to a FOIA request filed by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, filmmaker Michael Moore and the National Lawyers Guild Mass Defense Committee reveal that federal law enforcement agencies began their coordinated intelligence gathering and operations on the Occupy movement even before the first tent went up in Zuccotti Park on September 17, 2011.
On September 17, 2011, a Secret Service intelligence entry in its Prism Demonstrations
Abstract file records the opening of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS)
movement. The demonstration location that the Secret Service was
protecting? The “Wall Street Bull.” The name of the Protectee? The “U.S.
Government.”
American
taxpayers might find it odd to learn that the Secret Service was on
duty to protect the Wall Street Bull in the name of protecting the U.S.
Government. But there it is.
The DHS’s Game of Three Card Monte to Deflect Disclosure of Law Enforement Operations
These
documents, many of which are redacted, show that the highest officials
in the Department of Homeland Security were preoccupied with the Occupy
movement and have gone out of their way to project the appearance of an
absence of federal involvement in the monitoring of and crackdown on
Occupy.
On
the street it would be called “Three Card Monte,” a swindler’s game to
hide the ball -- a game of misdirection. The House always wins.
The
DHS, as revealed in the newly released documents, has engaged in what
appears to be a effort to avoid looking for Occupy related materials
where it is likely to be found, including in Fusion Centers and DHS sub-divisions such as the Operations Coordination & Planning sub-division which is responsible for DHS coordination with local and federal law enforcement partners.
On November 16,
DHS Press Secretary Matthew Chandler transmitted an e-mail to top
ranking DHS officials, including the Chief of Staff to Janet Napolitano,
the Chief of Staff to the DHS General Counsel, among others, in which
he reports:
“We’re
getting inquiries from CBS, AP, Daily Caller and others on an
un-sourced Examiner.com piece that says that DHS and FBI are
collaborating with cities by providing tactics and information on
removing Occupy protestors. A check of I & A [Intelligence and
Analysis] and FPS [Federal Protective Services] shows that this type of
outreach is not occurring in any wholesale manner.”
The
Press Secretary is careful to couch the official statement, that such
is not occurring in any “wholesale” manner, leaving the door open to
possible future revelations of such conduct.
But
this official statement was based solely on a mid-November inquiry to
two DHS sub-sections: Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) and Federal
Protective Services (FPS). And by
the date of that statement, Federal Protective Services and apparently
also the I&A Directorate had already purged, “restricted and/or
rescinded,” any Occupy related intelligence products, as discussed
further here.
In
other words, having looked into only two drawers - - which had already
“restricted and/or rescinded” all Occupy related intelligence products -
- it is not surprising that Press Secretary Chandler’s statement that
no “wholesale’ coordination of Occupy related actions is based on
incomplete information.
The
Press Secretary, following the script, conveniently avoided other
likely DHS repositories and departmental components, including the
personnel deployed to Fusion Centers or to the DHS Operations
Coordination & Planning sub-division, which according to the DHS web
site is “responsible for monitoring the security of the United States
on a daily basis and coordinating activities within the Department and
with governors, Homeland Security Advisors, law enforcement partners,
and critical infrastructure operators in all 50 states and more than 50
major urban areas nationwide.”
DHS Monitoring, Megacenters and Misdirection
Before
the first OWS action took place, the DHS Office Intelligence and
Analysis (I&A) produced a series of NCCIC (National Cybersecurity
and Communications Integration Center) alerts about the coming OWS
demonstrations. When this was picked up by the media and it generated
inquiry and press, the DHS learned its lesson: Misdirection.
In
an email exchange dated September 29, 2011, DHS officials discuss the
NCCIC alert and the fact that they will now need to respond to media
inquiries about DHS monitoring and involvement in the response to the
Occupy movement. The substantive discussion about how to handle the
media is redacted, with one participant writing, “Here it is. That answer works-“ and the rest is redacted.
An October 5, 2011 document
reflects that the DHS Philadelphia Megacenter was monitoring the OWS
demonstration in New York, titled “Demonstration-Peaceful/Planned”, and
reporting on assembly and movements “peacefully protesting union
solidarity issues.”
An October 30, 2011 document
shows DHS’ Battle Creek Megacenter also reporting that a
“peaceful/unplanned” “Occupy Wall Street demonstration is taking place
in Ilus W. Davis Park in Kansas City, MO.”
These
documents appear to be the tip of the iceberg, carefully submerged by
the DHS. While there is policy discussion as to the propriety of a
threat assessment regarding Occupy Pittsburgh, other emails reference
additional internal inquiries about OWS that were withheld from public
disclosure in response to this FOIA request.
The Fusion Centers
Moreover,
the DHS documents evidence the misdirection to avoid civil liberties
issues by handing off OWS monitoring to DHS’s project of Fusion Centers
and then failing to make inquiry for information to the Fusion Centers
or DHS personnel deployed to them, even though documents indicate that a push-down of Occupy related information into the massive fusion center clearinghouses was already in play.
By November 16,
when the PCJF filed this FOIA request, and when the media was
contacting DHS regarding its role in the Occupy crackdown one I&A
analyst, following such guidance, reported that I&A “scrupulously
avoided any connection with the Occupy movement/protests/dismantlings. We cannot speak for any individual fusion center or other departmental component...”
On October 17,
2011, the DHS Intelligence Coordination Branch wrote in an email titled
“Guidance Requested: Occupy Wall Street” that in response to requests
for OWS information, “we have recommended…that our intelligence Officers
refer inquiries [i.e., requests for intelligence information] to Fusion
Centers and avoid the topic altogether. That being said, given the
number of requests that have appeared, we would like to equip the field
with formal guidance…”
DHS Guidelines on How To Justify Intelligence Gathering on Free Speech Activities
The
DHS then undertakes to draft policy guidance on OWS. Within days,
however, the DHS concludes that formal policy guidelines are not going
to go into effect. Instead, on October 24, 2011, a redacted email chain includes the recommendation that policy guidance changes have sought “to take out language that indicates our guidelines are mandatory.
For instance replace ‘personnel must’ with ‘personnel should’. I also
recommend that we advice only the DHS people and remain silent on
whether they should pass along our input to the Pittsburgh folks.”
On October 28,
2011, further exchanges on the guidance draft discuss making the
recommendations less specific, and that they should focus on the “congruence concept.”
The “congruence concept” is the creation of a supposedly criminal
pretext for investigation into First Amendment activities. It is so
loosely applied that any unsupported, unsourced tip -- or agent
provocateur statement on a website -- can create the basis for
monitoring and investigation.
When the final guidance is produced,
it has no mandatory language and states: “If you ever feel you are in
put in a situation where first amendment rights could be potentially
violated, please refer to the below guidance, which was created after we
received a number of questions from around the nation in reaction to
the Occupy protests.”
The guidance then explains how to “justify research into and creation of a product containing First Amendment protected activity…” including the “congruence concept.”
Subsequent discussion on October 31, 2011 regarding how and when DHS can “clear on any [intelligence] product on OWS” is significantly redacted as is the author.
Purging of DHS Files and the Carefully Constructed Media Response
A November 1,
2011 email reflects that following the internal guidance issued to
I&A, all Occupy related materials had been “restricted and/or
rescinded” including specifically by FPS. The email, from an FPS
official, reports that:
“FPS
was notified of the guidance to the I&A representatives to restrict
production of all Occupy products absent criminal activity and/or life
safety issues, FPS has followed this guidance and restricted and/or rescinded all products (both internal and pass-through).”
By November 16,
when the media was barraging the DHS with inquiries about its role in
the Occupy crackdown, the responses to media were carefully crafted.
“We’re getting inquiries from [various media] on an un-sourced
Examiner.com piece that says DHS and FBI are collaborating with cities
by providing tactics and information on removing Occupy protestors. A
check of I&A and FPS shows that this type of outreach is not
occurring in any wholesale manner.”
As
we now know, checking with I&A and FPS by November 16 was not
likely to lead to responsive information given that the DHS activity was
being carried out by other components and that a purge, restriction
and/or rescission of intelligence “products” had taken place.
At this point the DHS provided a prepared statement, given over and over to the press, which includes a quotable paragraph and then “background” points.
Documents show
that in the drafting of that paragraph, which is disseminated
repeatedly to the press, and shows up in numerous press reports from the
time, there is a second paragraph that is removed and appears not to be given to the press.
That sentence read: “We have held standard coordination calls and
face-to-face meetings with our partners to ensure that the proper
resources are available for operations such as street closures, etc,”
Showing
the deficiency of response to the FOIA demands, there are no records
produced that reflect those “standard coordination calls” and
“face-to-face meetings.”
Evading a Complete FOIA Records Search
In
addition to these efforts to misdirect the press and the public, the
other tactic the DHS has used to stave off inquiry into DHS involvement
is to evade a responsive search to this and other FOIA requests. As we
stated previously, we had been told by the DHS that other media
requestors agreed to narrow their FOIA requests to consist only of
materials in the possession of select senior staff. We have not so
agreed, and will be pursuing further disclosure of information from the
DHS.
Highly
conscious of the demand for public disclosure of DHS actions, one
official wrote in November of their considered response to FOIA requests
and urged the department to release their policy guidance regarding
First Amendment activities. He wrote, “I understand we have already
received some FOIA requests regarding our possible reporting of the
“Occupy…” protests. I think should the FOIA experts find it appropriate
to release information about the manner in which this issue was managed
with DHS, it could only be perceived as a positive by those in the
public who closely observer [sic] the Department.”
So for those of you who wish to “closely observe” the Departments responses, the PCJF is making the documents available in a searchable format. We will also be disclosing and uploading more materials obtained from our national campaign of federal and local FOIA demands as they become available.
No comments:
Post a Comment