More ILLEGAL SPYING: Monitoring of Muslims Done Without Search Warrants

EXCLUSIVE: Nuclear Monitoring of Muslims Done Without Search Warrants
Posted 12/22/05
By David E. Kaplan

In search of a terrorist nuclear bomb, the federal government since 9/11 has run a far-reaching, top secret program to monitor radiation levels at over a hundred Muslim sites in the Washington, D.C., area, including mosques, homes, businesses, and warehouses, plus similar sites in at least five other cities, U.S. News has learned. In numerous cases, the monitoring required investigators to go on to the property under surveillance, although no search warrants or court orders were ever obtained, according to those with knowledge of the program. Some participants were threatened with loss of their jobs when they questioned the legality of the operation, according to these accounts.

Federal officials familiar with the program maintain that warrants are unneeded for the kind of radiation sampling the operation entails, but some legal scholars disagree. News of the program comes in the wake of revelations last week that, after 9/11, the Bush White House approved electronic surveillance of U.S. targets by the National Security Agency without court orders. These and other developments suggest that the federal government's domestic spying programs since 9/11 have been far broader than previously thought.

The nuclear surveillance program began in early 2002 and has been run by the FBI and the Department of Energy's Nuclear Emergency Support Team (NEST). Two individuals, who declined to be named because the program is highly classified, spoke to U.S. News because of their concerns about the legality of the program. At its peak, they say, the effort involved three vehicles in Washington, D.C., monitoring 120 sites per day, nearly all of them Muslim targets drawn up by the FBI. For some ten months, officials conducted daily monitoring, and they have resumed daily checks during periods of high threat. The program has also operated in at least five other cities when threat levels there have risen: Chicago, Detroit, Las Vegas, New York, and Seattle.

FBI officials expressed concern that discussion of the program would expose sensitive methods used in counterterrorism. Although NEST staffers have demonstrated their techniques on national television as recently as October, U.S. News has omitted details of how the monitoring is conducted. Officials from four different agencies declined to respond on the record about the classified program: the FBI, Energy Department, Justice Department, and National Security Council. "We don't ever comment on deployments," said Bryan Wilkes, a spokesman for DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration, which manages NEST.

In Washington, the sites monitored have included prominent mosques and office buildings in suburban Maryland and Virginia. One source close to the program said that participants "were tasked on a daily and nightly basis," and that FBI and Energy Department officials held regular meetings to update the monitoring list. "The targets were almost all U.S. citizens," says the source. "A lot of us thought it was questionable, but people who complained nearly lost their jobs. We were told it was perfectly legal."

The question of search warrants is controversial, however. To ensure accurate readings, in up to 15 percent of the cases the monitoring needed to take place on private property, sources say, such as on mosque parking lots and private driveways. Government officials familiar with the program insist it is legal; warrants are unneeded for monitoring from public property, they say, as well as from publicly accessible driveways and parking lots. "If a delivery man can access it, so can we," says one.

Georgetown University Professor David Cole, a constitutional law expert, disagrees. Surveillance of public spaces such as mosques or public businesses might well be allowable without a court order, he argues, but not private offices or homes: "They don't need a warrant to drive onto the property -- the issue isn't where they are, but whether they're using a tactic to intrude on privacy. It seems to me that they are, and that they would need a warrant or probable cause."

Cole points to a 2001 Supreme Court decision, U.S. vs. Kyllo, which looked at police use -- without a search warrant -- of thermal imaging technology to search for marijuana-growing lamps in a home. The court, in a ruling written by Justice Antonin Scalia, ruled that authorities did in fact need a warrant -- that the heat sensors violated the Fourth Amendment's clause against unreasonable search and seizure. But officials familiar with the FBI/NEST program say the radiation sensors are different and are only sampling the surrounding air. "This kind of program only detects particles in the air, it's non directional," says one knowledgeable official. "It's not a whole lot different from smelling marijuana."

Officials also reject any notion that the program specifically has targeted Muslims. "We categorically do not target places of worship or entities solely based on ethnicity or religious affiliation," says one. "Our investigations are intelligence driven and based on a criminal predicate."

Among those said to be briefed on the monitoring program were Vice President Richard Cheney; Michael Brown, then-director of the Federal Emergency Management Administration; and Richard Clarke, then a top counterterrorism official at the National Security Council. After 9/11, top officials grew increasingly concerned over the prospect of nuclear terrorism. Just weeks after the World Trade Center attacks, a dubious informant named Dragonfire warned that al Qaeda had smuggled a nuclear device into New York City; NEST teams swept the city and found nothing. But as evidence seized from Afghan camps confirmed al Qaeda's interest in nuclear technology, radiation detectors were temporarily installed along Washington, D.C., highways and the Muslim monitoring program began.

Most staff for the monitoring came from NEST, which draws from nearly 1,000 nuclear scientists and technicians based largely at the country's national laboratories. For 30 years, NEST undercover teams have combed suspected sites looking for radioactive material, using high-tech detection gear fitted onto various aircraft, vehicles, and even backpacks and attaché cases. No dirty bombs or nuclear devices have ever been found - and that includes the post-9/11 program. "There were a lot of false positives, and one or two were alarming," says one source. "But in the end we found nothing."


------------------------------------------------------

How much longer will U.S. Citizens sit by why more and more constitutional rights are broken each day?

 

Yoyo, our government is totally out of control. I believe in the near future there maybe another American Revolution in this country. The Constitution says that it is "our duty" to overthrow our government if it becomes too corrupt and out of control.

I don't know about the rest of you in this forum, but I'm willing to fight and die for my freedom. I'm not going to be anybody's slave. If the government wants to keep pushing, there are plenty of Americans ready to exercise the second amendment to the maximum.

They say fact is stranger than fiction, and whoever said that is right. The things that really go on in our world today are stranger than any book you could ever read, movie you could ever watch, or game you could ever play.

 

I agree. But how many people do you see willing to brush aside our freedoms for the illusion of safety from terrorists? It seems even the majority of people on here are willing to scrap the constitution if they think it makes them safer.

 

Well, Heres my review yo-yo:
Whatever is done, they blame the Muslims (i am not a muslim). If there is a car attack, they say the muslims have done it. If its a suicide attack, they say the Muslims have done it.

 

I can see both sides.
If I was a Muslim and I was being watched, I don't see why I would care? I would cooperate, because I'm not doing anything wrong? I wouldn't question my government when they're doing stuff in the interest of the nation. They're not stalking Muslims for fun. domaintalk, it generally is only Muslims who are guilty of these attacks. Muslims were behind the 911 attacks, that's a fact. They're not blaming them.

I guess there is the constitutional right thing also, but then would you have a greater sense of freedom, or a greater sense of security? I don't care if my government investigates me. I honestly don't care because I don't do anything wrong. I'm therefore in favour of this and I understand it needs to be done.

 

So you think everyone being monitored is guilty of something? Then why don't they just arrest them?

Bah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah!

 

I am not weighing in on the article, simply your point in bold. Without freedom what are we fighting for? Going for safety IMO above what the US the great land where I live was founded on is a wussy bitches way out, and shows someone who doesn't give a shix what this country was founded on...

I realise you are not in the US, I simply take exception to anyone whining about safety above keeping the US free and great like it was intended to be. Our freedoms come with dangers, we all know that and it doesn't make it right to kill any of those freedoms simply because it 'might' make us safer. In the long run as our constitution was founded on to keep us safe from the one group that could do our citizens more harm than any terrorist group could dream, the US government itself.

 

Little secret... from an article I read in the 70's. The US has been monitoring for radiation from specific civilian sites, sites that could be used for terroristic events.

I was surprised to find this was happening considering my very-very limited knowledge of the 4th Amendment. But truth being, energy(heat, radiation, sound, etc) emulating from a residence, or building, is not protected by the Constitution, and no search warrant is needed to observe these emulations. The courts found that if you want to secure your privacy, you need to take steps to secure it, and have belief your privacy is secured. Meaning if you draw your blinds, cops can't peak in visually since you took steps to protect your right to privacy, but since you didn't draw infrared blocking blinds, you are giving the right for law enforcement to monitory you via IR. Or if your window is still open, they can listen from outside too.

As I said, this is old-school, from the Carter days when certain ethnic groups over-through a country and held American hostages. So, one can say our country's craziness transcends time, and politics. Americans justify government's actions by either not voting, or voting back in government members 6-7 times.

So I close, what'cha gunna do? Bitch or take action?

Merry Christmas everyone, even you closet lawyers.

Tom

 

At least part of your statement is false, without a warrant?

http://www.erowid.org/freedom/courts/supreme/supreme_case2_comment1.shtml

Sorry no can do,,defeats much of your post right in this one ruling...


Unless of course there is a new one I don't know about?

--edit there are still from what I know a few areas of arial spying still not ruled unconstitutional, maybe this is what you're talking about?

 

The Bush administration has the Patriot Act. With this illegal legislation, they can do what they want when they want. All they need to do is apply a label to you.

The constitution and all the laws based on it no longer matter and americans are proud of this and insist they are safer. Goes to show you, the dumbing down of american was a success.

P.S. Learn Chinese

 

I actually don't disagree with you on that one bit

What they currently are doing, or what US citizens are allowing is a totally different story of what is constitutional... I think we are on the same page

 

Since comments were already posted, let me update my post. What I learned was what was being done in the 70's. Since then yes, an individuals house is protected NOW. But I think the secret fourth branch of government(the administrative branch), can perform acts not limited by the latest rulings. They can do an 'area survey', and health departments can do 'check ups', so even though people doing the surveys and check ups are police, premise that it's for the greater good of people, and not 'targeting' a specific person/property, it's allowed.

Now my knowledge is from discussions with lawyers(mid/late 90's), I am not a LAWYER, but I had questions about computer security and wire tap laws effecting internet traffic. I was amazed at the number of loop-holes that existed for law enforcement to 'examine' a place.

It's scary isn't it?

 

I heard that the new version of the constitution is going to be reworded from, "We the people" To "Us Corporations".

The paid political lobby needs to be eliminated!

 

Fair enough there are loop holes that the feds, local police do use, but it still makes them far from constitutional or even legal to use in a court case itself

 

But still overserving a public place, without a warrant, illegal?

I think, in my little nonlegal mind, it comes down to this, right?

tom

 

Now we're getting somewhere. The question is how do we make them realise it?

 

Public place is a bit different than private.........Public place I don't see why a warrant would be needed myself...If I'm wrong maybe someone can explain it to me, I'd think permission being asked from the owner of the public property though would need to be obtained.

Again 100% agreement on this one!

 

Nope, didn't say that. I wouldn't care if they monitor me. They would obviously have reason to monitor me.

For that matter, monitoring people without warrants was around WELL before 911. Just because the government is now targetting members of the Muslim faith (because they are most likely to commit terrorism going by the past), people start to care about it.

As I said before. I think the only people who should dislike this, would be people doing wrong. We get monitored on computers at school, yet I don't see the people who actually do their work complaining about it as in invasion of their privacy, because they don't care.

 

Ha- that explains a lot about your mentality. How old are you- 14?

 

In the UK that might be acceptable, in the US however to say such a thing is nothing more than pissing on our constitution reguardless if you're doing something wrong or not....