Techdirt is celebrating its 20th anniversary! Check out our 
RSS
Parallel Construction Revealed: How The DEA Is Trained To Launder Classified Surveillance Info
from the americans-don't-like-it dept
Last summer, Reuters revealed how the NSA and other surveillance organizations would share info with the DEA and other law enforcement agencies, but then tell them to reconstruct the evidence via a process called "parallel construction," so that the surveillance would not then be discussed in court. This is highly questionable, and probably illegal, as a defendant has the right to know all of the evidence being used against him or her, and should also be told how that evidence was gathered, to make sure the collection was legal. But what's being done with parallel construction, is that the intelligence community is able to give "hints" to law enforcement, allowing them to come up with various pretenses for an investigation, avoiding ever having to reveal that the NSA or others used potentially illegal surveillance efforts. One example given in that Reuters report was how DEA agents would suddenly be given a tip like this: "Be at a certain truck stop at a certain time and look for a certain vehicle." The DEA would then have the local police come up with some pretense to stop the truck... and then when evidence is found they can claim it was a random traffic stop, when the reality is anything but that.
After the Reuters report, C.J. Ciaramella used Muckrock to request all DEA training material and official policies concerning "parallel construction" and recently received nearly 300 pages of documents, much of it redacted, but still which reveals that this is common practice at the DEA and widely known. Much of it is in the form of PowerPoint presentations, complete with speaker notes, which say things like how careful DEA agents need to be around classified information because "it can screw up your investigation."
Another slide notes "the devil's in the details" and explains:
A lot of the documentation deals with how to deal with having classified information, and the focus seems to be on keeping that information away from anyone involved in the case. There is -- I kid you not -- a special group of prosecutors called "the Taint Review Team" -- to be called in when things get... well... tainted.
In one part of the presentation, they talk about all sorts of ways to try to get a judge to avoid revealing classified information to defendants, and then have a plan "if all else fails" which includes redoing the indictment or dropping the case. That same presentation shows that there should be a "see no evil" plan -- which explains why DEA agents are often just told "go to this truck stop and look for this truck" without knowing any more. That way they "saw no evil" with evil being defined as questionably obtained intelligence.
It appears that much of the DEA's arguments here rely on the Supreme Court's ruling in 1938 in Scher v. United States, in which a law enforcement agent was told some things by a source, and used that information to find and arrest the defendant handling whiskey (during Prohibition). The court said that how the agent found out about the information doesn't matter, so long as the agent saw illegal acts himself. And thus, the Supreme Court "enabled" the idea of parallel construction. That case pops up repeatedly throughout the documents, basically telling DEA agents: expect information to come from intelligence sources, but do your best to never find out why they know this stuff.
Another presentation asks "what is the problem with combining IC (Intelligence Community) collection efforts & LEA (Law Enforcement Agency) investigations in US courtrooms?" and then explains that it presents constitutional problems... and that "Americans don't like it!"
The note on that one points out that "even though we seek to protect our citizens, generally, we can only use techniques to achieve that objective, which are acceptable to our citizens." But that's not what they're actually doing or teaching. Instead, they're teaching how to keep doing the constitutionally questionable things that Americans don't like... and then hiding it from the courts, the American public and even the law enforcement folks themselves, in order to create a sort of plausible deniability that launders the fact that potentially illegal and unconstitutional surveillance was used to create the basis of the legal case.
There's some more information in the documents, but it all basically points to the same basic thing: the less that law enforcement folks know, the better. If the law enforcement knows too much, call in the "Taint Review Team" to see what they can do to clean up, and see what you can use to get the judge to exclude classified evidence. All in all, it adds up to a nice little plan to allow the NSA to illegally spy on people, tell law enforcement just enough to target people, without ever revealing how they were caught via unconstitutional means.
After the Reuters report, C.J. Ciaramella used Muckrock to request all DEA training material and official policies concerning "parallel construction" and recently received nearly 300 pages of documents, much of it redacted, but still which reveals that this is common practice at the DEA and widely known. Much of it is in the form of PowerPoint presentations, complete with speaker notes, which say things like how careful DEA agents need to be around classified information because "it can screw up your investigation."
Our friends in the military and intelligence community never have to prove anything to the general public. They can act upon classified information without ever divulging their sources or methods to anyway [sic] outside their community. If they find Bin Laden's satellite phone and then pin point his location, they don't have to go to a court to get permission to put a missile up his nose.There are also training materials that discuss how parallel construction works, as well as the fact that in "the new post-9/11" era, a "national consensus" has been formed making it easier for the intelligence community and law enforcement to share information. It even refers to the federal courts as the intelligence community's "nemesis."
We are bound, however, by different rules.
Our investigations must be transparent. We must be able to take our information to court and prove to a jury that our bad guy did the bad things we say he did. No hiding here. However, we are also bound to protect certain pieces of information so as to protect the sources and methods.
To use it....we must properly protect it.
A lot of the documentation deals with how to deal with having classified information, and the focus seems to be on keeping that information away from anyone involved in the case. There is -- I kid you not -- a special group of prosecutors called "the Taint Review Team" -- to be called in when things get... well... tainted.
Another presentation asks "what is the problem with combining IC (Intelligence Community) collection efforts & LEA (Law Enforcement Agency) investigations in US courtrooms?" and then explains that it presents constitutional problems... and that "Americans don't like it!"
There's some more information in the documents, but it all basically points to the same basic thing: the less that law enforcement folks know, the better. If the law enforcement knows too much, call in the "Taint Review Team" to see what they can do to clean up, and see what you can use to get the judge to exclude classified evidence. All in all, it adds up to a nice little plan to allow the NSA to illegally spy on people, tell law enforcement just enough to target people, without ever revealing how they were caught via unconstitutional means.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Misplaced end tag?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Misplaced end tag?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Really though, if they've reached the point where they consider the courts, and constitutional law/rules to be 'enemies', then it's pretty obvious they've become the very thing they think they're fighting: criminals and/or enemies of the US and it's citizens.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
-C S Lewis
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Bow down before me and tell me I'm pretty.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I will not have you arrested, have your sidewalk dug up, nor have glitter thrown on you, but survaillance will continue.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Was this manual written by Mike "Your privacy can't be violated if you don't know about it" Rogers? You see, it can only an unacceptable technique to the citizens if the citizens know about it, right? That makes everything they don't know about fair game, right?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Good example
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
excellent example
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: excellent example
Which doesn't seem to be far from the truth.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: excellent example
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Imagine if defendants could use parallel construction...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Imagine if defendants could use parallel construction...
Does all the time.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Imagine if defendants could use parallel construction...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't really have a problem with Parallel Construction
If it's just the Feds giving local police tips on who to watch for suspicious activity in the future, they could just call in an anonymous tip and everyone would be fine with it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't really have a problem with Parallel Construction
The reason for forbidding evidence from a tainted source is to remove the temptation from law enforcement to become evil themselves, even if "for a just cause".
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't really have a problem with Parallel Construction
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't really have a problem with Parallel Construction
No, you are confusing "everyone wouldn't know about it to question it" with "everyone would be fine with it." Besides, anonymous tips should be treated with a heavy dose of skepticism that will not be present with an intelligence tip, even if it should be.
They are two very different things in both cases.
In the general case, this "see no evil" approach allows the NSA/FBI/CIA to direct law enforcement for harassment purposes, with the officers so abused not even being aware. Combined with certain other issues currently in existence, the practical implication is that an NSA/FBI/CIA analyst could essentially have anyone they like arrested at any point, for no given reason at all.
One of those issues would be the shocking amount of legislation that almost ensures that each American citizen has committed multiple felonies a day. Others would be a litany of corruption within certain police forces, which of course should also show up in the NSA dragnet to make sure that a pliable cop is tasked with harassing/arresting the target.
Is the system used this way right now? We can't say with any degree of certainty, because a self-reporting agency would never report themselves doing that.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't really have a problem with Parallel Construction
Law enforcement has to get a warrant based on presenting to a judge a case for probable cause BEFORE they can engage in such activity. And a tip from a citizen is not the same as a tip from another government entity.
Next, I don't think you get the most exactly what parallel construction actually is. It's using an illegal means to gain information to be used in a case against someone and then finding another way to get the same information all over again so that you can pretend you got it legally. If this were on the defendant side and dealing with ill gained money, it would be considered money laundering. In fact, we should actually drop the whole term "parallel construction" term altogether and just call it what it really is EVIDENCE LAUNDERING.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
How about, 'No'?
Investigations, arrests, charges, all of those things are supposed to be time consuming, require effort, and have careful checks and balances, precisely to protect the innocent from being steam-rolled by the system, weakening the system to catch someone you're 'sure' is guilty just makes the entire system a game of 'Who do I want to harass or throw in a cell today?'
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't really have a problem with Parallel Construction
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't really have a problem with Parallel Construction
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Don't really have a problem with Parallel Construction
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Don't really have a problem with Parallel Construction
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't really have a problem with Parallel Construction
Feuding mobsters want anonymity. Spies & cops work to trace rumours back to their source.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't really have a problem with Parallel Construction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't really have a problem with Parallel Construction
All I can say is, fuck you, for dismissing my privacy so blatantly.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't really have a problem with Parallel Construction
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't really have a problem with Parallel Construction
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't really have a problem with Parallel Construction
Then its Construction and a False Construction at that!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is pretty clear that there has been a huge shift in moral since the towers fell. Now illegal means being stupid and getting caught as opposed to breaking the law. In this case, it should be noted that the other agencies' actions are the main problem and completely obliterate due process in these DEA cases.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
It's almost as if - call me crazy here - citizens are the ones who employ you
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Understatement... they do tend to get really pissed off when the law is broken by those who are supposed to champion it.
When they violate the law to "win" at all costs, it isn't winning.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
One Country
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One Country
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One Country
Cops triply so. HR looks for loyalty. The force is coercive.
And spies? You bet. Today's "poison" is clear -- all these double-agents masquerading as "public servants".
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
What do mean "probably"? Falsification of evidence is *ABSOLUTELY* illegal.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No matter where we think the evidence points. We aren't the arbitrator of any case, let alone all of them.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
They're told "Americans don't like it", and none of them even wonder why. No empathy, no self-reflection, no doubt. They know what they're doing is hated and illegal, and their only thoughts are on how best to hide their actions from the public.
No remorse, no feelings of guilt. Just bottomless sociopathy.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That slides merely illustrates a "lesser of two evils" approach to privacy-security.
They "imagine" their beloved united states has the legal balance correct.
They cannot imagine the legislation & internal policies of intelligence agencies are (in fact) in the state Snowden shows them to be in.
Plausible denial. Plausible naivety. Plausible shock 'n bother.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
This should ring all alarm bells at full motherporking loudness. It's one clear indication of an Executive going rogue.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
And no, law enforcement agancies are not exempt from RICO lawsuits. Just ask LAPD (love to be plaintiff's lawyer on that one).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
A violation of the officer's oath
Recall 18 USC 1001, where it is a felony to lie to a government employee. The law must apply to everyone or to no one. We must make it a felony for the government to lie to us. But wait, every time Parallel Construction is employed, everyone in the chain of the lie commits a crime.
So, now we not only suspend the Constitution to collect the data in an operation of pervasive surveillance, but it proves to be too tempting to those government employees who are restrained by the law, and when they can't get some secret court to give them permission, they find and institutional lie to permit it anyway.
Is it time yet to hold a Convention to consider how to amend and repair the relationship the present Leviathan State has with us? Or are too many people still afraid of losing their precious rights? Hello!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A violation of the officer's oath
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment