Exclusive: U.S. directs agents to cover up program used to investigate Americans

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
Its easy to close a border.

Then why isn't the US-Mexico border "closed"?

**whembly**

Kanluwen wrote:
whembly wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
daedalus wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:

Pretending that parallel construction is "covering your tracks" rather than building a foolproof case is just as silly.

So what other situations is parallel construction appropriate beyond criminal informants (which DOES make sense)?

Undercover officers immediately springs to mind, as does things discovered in the course of other investigations.

But that's part of an active investigation.

This programs looks like a fishing expedition.

Only if you want it to play makebelieve that it is a fishing expedition.

Okay... I'll bite. Why don't you think it's a fishing expedition?

Undercover work is NOTHING like what this program does.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Its easy to close a border.

Then why isn't the US-Mexico border "closed"?

Politics.

**Kanluwen**

whembly wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
whembly wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
daedalus wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:

Pretending that parallel construction is "covering your tracks" rather than building a foolproof case is just as silly.

So what other situations is parallel construction appropriate beyond criminal informants (which DOES make sense)?

Undercover officers immediately springs to mind, as does things discovered in the course of other investigations.

But that's part of an active investigation.

This programs looks like a fishing expedition.

Only if you want it to play makebelieve that it is a fishing expedition.

Okay... I'll bite. Why don't you think it's a fishing expedition?

Undercover work is NOTHING like what this program does.

And what does this program do?

Go on. Tell us Whembly.
Enlighten me with your majestic knowledge of undercover work.

Because from the way the article describes it the SOD operates as a collating source for information gathered by undercover agents, informants, foreign law enforcement agencies, and other information.
Because from the way the article describes it as well the cases that would rely on exposing SOD involvement get dropped or plead out as the individual is caught in circumstances where they would have been arrestable anyways.

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Its easy to close a border.

Then why isn't the US-Mexico border "closed"?

Politics.

Or because closing a border is a ridiculously nonsensical idea which is not feasible.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

Undercover work is NOTHING like what this program does.

True, this "program" merely forwards pertinent information from one organization to another.

whembly wrote:

Politics.

And expense.

The point was that "closing" a border is only easy if you ignore all the facts that make it hard.

**whembly**

Kanluwen wrote:

And what does this program do?

Go on. Tell us Whembly.
Enlighten me with your majestic knowledge of undercover work.

Because from the way the article describes it the SOD operates as a collating source for information gathered by undercover agents, informants, foreign law enforcement agencies, and other information.
Because from the way the article describes it as well the cases that would rely on exposing SOD involvement get dropped or plead out as the individual is caught in circumstances where they would have been arrestable anyways.

Dude... take a chill pill man. I'm all for catching the bad guys.

But the defendant has rights in this country, and covering up how they were investigated will ruin those cases.

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Its easy to close a border.

Then why isn't the US-Mexico border "closed"?

Politics.

Or because closing a border is a ridiculously nonsensical idea which is not feasible.

Well geez sport, so why is Mexico building a border on THEIR southern border...eh?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

whembly wrote:

Politics.

And expense.

The point was that "closing" a border is only easy if you ignore all the facts that make it hard.

Then elaborate what makes it "so hard" to secure the border?

We're a fething country that put a man on the moon... and you're telling me it's impossible to make border security better?

O.o

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

Well geez sport, so why is Mexico building a border on THEIR southern border...eh?

Politics and desperation, pretty much the same reason that the US built its wall.

**Kanluwen**

whembly wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:

And what does this program do?

Go on. Tell us Whembly.
Enlighten me with your majestic knowledge of undercover work.

Because from the way the article describes it the SOD operates as a collating source for information gathered by undercover agents, informants, foreign law enforcement agencies, and other information.
Because from the way the article describes it as well the cases that would rely on exposing SOD involvement get dropped or plead out as the individual is caught in circumstances where they would have been arrestable anyways.

Dude... take a chill pill man. I'm all for catching the bad guys.

But the defendant has rights in this country, and covering up how they were investigated will ruin those cases.

Yeah, if you are talking about a purely criminal case.

However when you are talking about investigating an organization which potentially has members of local law enforcement on its payroll and can hire some of the best defense attorneys out there, the "cover up" becomes a necessity.

But let's just keep playing pretend that this is targeting street level dealers and your average crackslinger, shall we? Let's ignore the implications of how SOD is actually used or why local law enforcement might be kept out of the loop in any of these situations.

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Its easy to close a border.

Then why isn't the US-Mexico border "closed"?

Politics.

Or because closing a border is a ridiculously nonsensical idea which is not feasible.

Well geez sport, so why is Mexico building a border on THEIR southern border...eh?

Nice patronizing attitude. Too bad it just makes you look weak in discussions like these.

dogma wrote:

whembly wrote:

Politics.

And expense.

The point was that "closing" a border is only easy if you ignore all the facts that make it hard.

Then elaborate what makes it "so hard" to secure the border?

We're a fething country that put a man on the moon... and you're telling me it's impossible to make border security better?

O.o

"Making border security better" is not the same thing as "closing a border".

I am not sure what any of that has to do with the space program though.

**Da Boss**

I imagine it'd be complicated by the fact that Mexico is a pretty big trading partner with the US? Any stricter border controls would impact trade in some way?

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

Then elaborate what makes it "so hard" to secure the border?

I used the word "close" not the word "secure". The US-Mexico border is presently secure, it could be made more so, but it cannot be closed.

Regardless, the US-Mexico border is a little less than 2000 miles long. Compare this to Israel, a state with borders which total less than 800 miles. That, in and of itself, indicates a herculean task.

whembly wrote:

We're a fething country that put a man on the moon... and you're telling me it's impossible to make border security better?

O.o

No. I said that closing a border, specifically referring to the US-Mexico Border, is not easy.

Please read what is written.

**whembly**

Kanluwen wrote:

Yeah, if you are talking about a purely criminal case.

Yep.

However when you are talking about investigating an organization which potentially has members of local law enforcement on its payroll and can hire some of the best defense attorneys out there, the "cover up" becomes a necessity.

But let's just keep playing pretend that this is targeting street level dealers and your average crackslinger, shall we? Let's ignore the implications of how SOD is actually used or why local law enforcement might be kept out of the loop in any of these situations.

How is that any different than a "purely criminal case". o.O

How 'bout you answer this then? Why are the agents being directed to cover up the program when building the case?

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Its easy to close a border.

Then why isn't the US-Mexico border "closed"?

Politics.

Or because closing a border is a ridiculously nonsensical idea which is not feasible.

Well geez sport, so why is Mexico building a border on THEIR southern border...eh?

Nice patronizing attitude. Too bad it just makes you look weak in discussions like these.

**Kanluwen**

whembly wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:

Yeah, if you are talking about a purely criminal case.

Yep.

However when you are talking about investigating an organization which potentially has members of local law enforcement on its payroll and can hire some of the best defense attorneys out there, the "cover up" becomes a necessity.

But let's just keep playing pretend that this is targeting street level dealers and your average crackslinger, shall we? Let's ignore the implications of how SOD is actually used or why local law enforcement might be kept out of the loop in any of these situations.

How is that any different than a "purely criminal case". o.O

How 'bout you answer this then? Why are the agents being directed to cover up the program when building the case?

Seriously?

For the same reason you do not go build a case purely off of a "confidential informant".

**juraigamer**

If you put down enough covers, you can't feel what's underneath.

**rubiksnoob**

Alfndrate wrote:
Like this?

Caught one!

**Ahtman**

whembly wrote:
Well damn... we're getting into a "Semantic War" then...

The difference between closing the border and increasing border security isn't semantic; it is politically, logistically, and fiscally different.

**whembly**

Ahtman wrote:
whembly wrote:
Well damn... we're getting into a "Semantic War" then...

The difference between closing the border and increasing border security isn't semantic; it is politically, logistically, and fiscally different.

No... what I'm saying is that whenever "Closing the border" is thrown out, the context is "make the damn thing more secure".

I'm in the camp that if someone really, REALLY wants to close a border (ala, North Korea)... that's crazy talk.

But dayum, we're drifting off-topic here...

**Dreadclaw69**

This, and the fact that they have been covering the origins of their information, is the anathema of a free and open society. Anyone accused of a crime is supposed to be allowed a fair chance to test the evidence and defend him/herself against the charges. This practice is a contravention of this most basic right, and the fact that it happens without the Prosecution or Judiciary knowing about it is even especially troubling.

Lets not forget that this is not happening in isolation. The article gives the example of an NSA intercept forming the origin of an investigation. Given the current NSA scandal and the revelation of just how far reaching its surveillance is that poses serious questions as to whether there is the appropriate oversight into these activities, whether they are legal (it is difficult to grant a warrant when the Judiciary is being actively deceived).

Kanluwen wrote:
Go on. Tell us Whembly.
Enlighten me with your majestic knowledge of undercover work.

Who was making a racket about "smarmy" comments earlier?

**daedalus**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Go on. Tell us Whembly.
Enlighten me with your majestic knowledge of undercover work.

Who was making a racket about "smarmy" comments earlier?

It's okay when he does it; he represents the good guys.

**DIDM**

Easy E wrote:
That is pretty awful.

Why do I get the feeling that if you are a cop long enough, you start to "Red-Line"; and everyone starts being a criminal?

I hope my thought is wrong.

I see cops follow a car for no reason except the car in front of them is scared of a ticket, in this amazing economy, that they freeze up and drive worse than an old lady. They do this just to see how scared they make people, they don't pull them over, they just follow them. I have also seen them put on their lights and have the car pull over and speed off and turn off their lights, it's a thrill for them

**Frazzled**

"meow"
"Did you just say meow?"

**d-usa**

DIDM wrote:
Easy E wrote:
That is pretty awful.

Why do I get the feeling that if you are a cop long enough, you start to "Red-Line"; and everyone starts being a criminal?

I hope my thought is wrong.

I see cops follow a car for no reason except the car in front of them is scared of a ticket, in this amazing economy, that they freeze up and drive worse than an old lady. They do this just to see how scared they make people, they don't pull them over, they just follow them.

Or just maybe there is a reason they are looking for a certain make/model/color vehicle that was involved in a crime. And if they see a vehicle that matches they drive behind it, run the tag, and if it comes back clear they will be on their way.

That and cops are actually driving cars. So they have to be on the road. Which also means that when they are driving they will always be behind somebody.

I have also seen them put on their lights and have the car pull over and speed off and turn off their lights, it's a thrill for them

Does Ohio have a law against driving in the inside lane unless you are passing?

If you do it's not really anything unusual for cops to use their lights to get people to move out of the inside lane (and get people to follow the law) without actually stoping somebody for their violation and issuing tickets.

**Alfndrate**

d-usa wrote:

Does Ohio have a law against driving in the inside lane unless you are passing?

If you do it's not really anything unusual for cops to use their lights to get people to move out of the inside lane (and get people to follow the law) without actually stopping somebody for their violation and issuing tickets.

Why does Ohio matter here?

I feel like I missed something.

And it depends on what you consider "inside" lane. I'm assuming you mean the left most lane. In Ohio the left-most lane is a regular driving lane except on the Ohio Turnpike, in which case it's only to be used in passing. A few years ago I was driving south from a gaming store near my house back down to school. It was late-ish at night (winter, so it was pitch black at 9:30). A black cop car pulled up behind me while I was in the left most lane and was riding my tail. I sped up a bit so he'd pass me. Turns out, it's a cop. He flips his lights, I freak the feth out and pull over to the left shoulder of the road and slow to a stop. He flies past me and pulls a guy over that had been flooring it down the road.

So, yeah cops user their lights to get people to move the feth over. It doesn't make me feel better when it happens

.

**d-usa**

I thought I saw OH on his profile, now I see that it is OR.

**Alfndrate**

d-usa wrote:
I thought I saw OH on his profile, now I see that it is OR.

Your #YOLO got in the way of your Reading #SWAGGER

According to the site I got my info from (http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html), Oregon follows the Uniform Vehicle Code where slower traffic moves to the right.

**whembly**

Reuters uncovered an IRS manual that instructed its agents to fabricate phony investigative trails when using tips from the DEA’s Special Operations Division. According to this reporting, it mirrors the instructions given to DEA agents for building cases for the prosecution.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/07/us-dea-irs-idUSBRE9761AZ20130807?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=574655

Exclusive: IRS manual detailed DEA's use of hidden intel evidence

Details of a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration program that feeds tips to federal agents and then instructs them to alter the investigative trail were published in a manual used by agents of the Internal Revenue Service for two years.

The practice of recreating the investigative trail, highly criticized by former prosecutors and defense lawyers after Reuters reported it this week, is now under review by the Justice Department. Two high-profile Republicans have also raised questions about the procedure.

A 350-word entry in the Internal Revenue Manual instructed agents of the U.S. tax agency to omit any reference to tips supplied by the DEA's Special Operations Division, especially from affidavits, court proceedings or investigative files. The entry was published and posted online in 2005 and 2006, and was removed in early 2007. The IRS is among two dozen arms of the government working with the Special Operations Division, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency.

An IRS spokesman had no comment on the entry or on why it was removed from the manual. Reuters recovered the previous editions from the archives of the Westlaw legal database, which is owned by Thomson Reuters Corp, the parent of this news agency.

As Reuters reported Monday, the Special Operations Division of the DEA funnels information from overseas NSA intercepts, domestic wiretaps, informants and a large DEA database of telephone records to authorities nationwide to help them launch criminal investigations of Americans. The DEA phone database is distinct from a NSA database disclosed by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

Monday's Reuters report cited internal government documents that show that law enforcement agents have been trained to conceal how such investigations truly begin - to "recreate" the investigative trail to effectively cover up the original source of the information.

DEA officials said the practice is legal and has been in near-daily use since the 1990s. They have said that its purpose is to protect sources and methods, not to withhold evidence.

NEW DETAIL

Defense attorneys and some former judges and prosecutors say that systematically hiding potential evidence from defendants violates the U.S. Constitution. According to documents and interviews, agents use a procedure they call "parallel construction" to recreate the investigative trail, stating in affidavits or in court, for example, that an investigation began with a traffic infraction rather than an SOD tip.

The IRS document offers further detail on the parallel construction program.

"Special Operations Division has the ability to collect, collate, analyze, evaluate, and disseminate information and intelligence derived from worldwide multi-agency sources, including classified projects," the IRS document says. "SOD converts extremely sensitive information into usable leads and tips which are then passed to the field offices for real-time enforcement activity against major international drug trafficking organizations."

The 2005 IRS document focuses on SOD tips that are classified and notes that the Justice Department "closely guards the information provided by SOD with strict oversight." While the IRS document says that SOD information may only be used for drug investigations, DEA officials said the SOD role has recently expanded to organized crime and money laundering.

According to the document, IRS agents are directed to use the tips to find new, "independent" evidence: "Usable information regarding these leads must be developed from such independent sources as investigative files, subscriber and toll requests, physical surveillance, wire intercepts, and confidential source information. Information obtained from SOD in response to a search or query request cannot be used directly in any investigation (i.e. cannot be used in affidavits, court proceedings or maintained in investigative files)."

The IRS document makes no reference to SOD's sources of information, which include a large DEA telephone and Internet database.

CONCERN IN CONGRESS

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Michigan, expressed concern with the concept of parallel construction as a method to hide the origin of an investigation. His comments came on the Mike Huckabee Show radio program.

"If they're recreating a trail, that's wrong and we're going to have to do something about it," said Rogers, a former FBI agent. "We're working with the DEA and intelligence organizations to try to find out exactly what that story is."

Spokespeople for the DEA and the Department of Justice declined to comment.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, a member of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, said he was troubled that DEA agents have been "trying to cover up a program that investigates Americans."

"National security is one of government's most important functions. So is protecting individual liberty," Paul said. "If the Constitution still has any sway, a government that is constantly overreaching on security while completely neglecting liberty is in grave violation of our founding doctrine."

Officials have stressed that the NSA and DEA telephone databases are distinct. The NSA database, disclosed by Snowden, includes data about every telephone call placed inside the United States. An NSA official said that database is not used for domestic criminal law enforcement.

The DEA database, called DICE, consists largely of phone log and Internet data gathered legally by the DEA through subpoenas, arrests and search warrants nationwide. DICE includes about 1 billion records, and they are kept for about a year and then purged, DEA officials said.

What's interesting is that this practice was in place for quite a while... . Its removal of this program also suggests that the government decided that openly discussing how to falsify investigative trails could compromise pending cases in court. Like... duh...

**Frazzled**

Its like every tin foil hat nutjob was...right.

Did we really land on the moon after all?

**Kanluwen**

It's amusing that Whembly posted a 'new article' which uses most of the information in the article that Frazzled originally posted.

And what is even more amusing is this statement:

DEA officials said the practice is legal and has been in near-daily use since the 1990s. They have said that its purpose is to protect sources and methods, not to withhold evidence.

And this bit of information:

The 2005 IRS document focuses on SOD tips that are classified and notes that the Justice Department "closely guards the information provided by SOD with strict oversight." While the IRS document says that SOD information may only be used for drug investigations, DEA officials said the SOD role has recently expanded to organized crime and money laundering.

According to the document, IRS agents are directed to use the tips to find new, "independent" evidence: "Usable information regarding these leads must be developed from such independent sources as investigative files, subscriber and toll requests, physical surveillance, wire intercepts, and confidential source information. Information obtained from SOD in response to a search or query request cannot be used directly in any investigation (i.e. cannot be used in affidavits, court proceedings or maintained in investigative files)."

**whembly**

Kanluwen wrote:
It's amusing that Whembly posted a 'new article' which uses most of the information in the article that Frazzled originally posted.

And what is even more amusing is this statement:

DEA officials said the practice is legal and has been in near-daily use since the 1990s. They have said that its purpose is to protect sources and methods, not to withhold evidence.

And this bit of information:

The 2005 IRS document focuses on SOD tips that are classified and notes that the Justice Department "closely guards the information provided by SOD with strict oversight." While the IRS document says that SOD information may only be used for drug investigations, DEA officials said the SOD role has recently expanded to organized crime and money laundering.

According to the document, IRS agents are directed to use the tips to find new, "independent" evidence: "Usable information regarding these leads must be developed from such independent sources as investigative files, subscriber and toll requests, physical surveillance, wire intercepts, and confidential source information. Information obtained from SOD in response to a search or query request cannot be used directly in any investigation (i.e. cannot be used in affidavits, court proceedings or maintained in investigative files)."

So... you're accused to a crime.

Don't you have rights to face your accuser on how they asserted you've committed a crime?

**Kanluwen**

Read your own article Whembly.

According to the document, IRS agents are directed to use the tips to find new, "independent" evidence: "Usable information regarding these leads must be developed from such independent sources as investigative files, subscriber and toll requests, physical surveillance, wire intercepts, and confidential source information. Information obtained from SOD in response to a search or query request cannot be used directly in any investigation (i.e. cannot be used in affidavits, court proceedings or maintained in investigative files)."

Information obtained from SOD in response to a search or query request cannot be used directly in any investigation (i.e. cannot be used in affidavits, court proceedings or maintained in investigative files).

**Frazzled**

Then its an illegal search. If they can't use it its an illegal search.

The fact they haven't been telling prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys supports this.

**whembly**

Kanluwen wrote:
Read your own article Whembly.

According to the document, IRS agents are directed to use the tips to find new, "independent" evidence: "Usable information regarding these leads must be developed from such independent sources as investigative files, subscriber and toll requests, physical surveillance, wire intercepts, and confidential source information. Information obtained from SOD in response to a search or query request cannot be used directly in any investigation (i.e. cannot be used in affidavits, court proceedings or maintained in investigative files)."

Information obtained from SOD in response to a search or query request cannot be used directly in any investigation (i.e. cannot be used in affidavits, court proceedings or maintained in investigative files).

But, you're not making the leap about what's concerning here...

You cannot use evidence that was acquired illegally... as what the SOD claims you cannot do (see what's quoted). So, once an investigator finds that a crime has been committed, via illegal means. They then go about building a more valid legal investigation to be used in prosecution.

The danger here is that if the court determined that the case would NOT have moved forward without the initial illegal evidence... it's susceptable to be thrown out.

That's WHY this practice has (or is likely) to stop.