'Fusion centers' gather terrorism intelligence – and much more

Designed to share data and head off attacks, the 72 offices in the U.S. are starting to worry civil libertarians.

November 15, 2010|By Ken Dilanian, Tribune Washington Bureau

Reporting from Baltimore — About a year ago, a police officer in Maryland noticed a truck loaded with plastic pallets driving down a main road in the early morning. He normally wouldn't have given it a second look, but the officer had seen a bulletin from the state's "coordination and analysis center" advising that such thefts were costing bakeries and grocers hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Sure enough, the pallets were stolen.

Cracking down on pallet thieves wasn't quite the mission envisioned for "fusion centers," 72 facilities across the country that were started after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorism attacks to improve information-sharing and threat analysis among local law enforcement.

The centers, which have received $426 million in federal funding since 2004, were designed as an early warning system against the next attack. Lately, amid the recent uptick in homegrown plots, the Homeland Security Department has been touting fusion centers as a means of thwarting domestic terrorism.

But it turns out that homegrown terrorism pales in frequency and fatalities compared with typical street crime, so many of the centers have begun collecting and distributing criminal intelligence, even of the most mundane kind.

In the process, Homeland Security Department officials say, the centers are developing a system to receive, sort and share crucial information. And they say it's too soon to judge the program, which is likely to grow in importance as a tool in detecting terrorism before it erupts.

"I'm a big supporter because of their potential," said Mohamed Elibiary, a Texas-based Muslim activist who advises the Homeland Security Department, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies. "If you want the government to function effectively, you need proper information sharing and analysis."

Critics argue that the centers are another potential intrusion on citizens' rights, and that having 72 of them guarantees bureaucratic overkill. Many centers make extensive use of private contractors. And the methods used are inconsistent from one to the next, raising questions about whether some of them are performing vital work.

"We thought if we just threw the name out there, built a bunch of them, we'd feel a lot better," former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said this month at George Washington University. "And I frankly think there's too many of them. We still don't have quite the protocol we need to make sure that they're effective."

Homeland Security Department officials say that by the end of the year, all 72 fusion centers will have to demonstrate competency in four key areas, showing that they are able to receive classified threat information from the federal government; analyze that information in a local context; disseminate it to local agencies; and gather tips from the public.

Civil liberties activists point to a series of privacy and civil rights flaps associated with fusion centers. They say the public is kept in the dark about what databases analysts are searching, what information they are gathering and what drives their priorities.

Information sharing is "a laudable goal," but "is this worth the risk to privacy and civil liberties?" asked Michael German, a former FBI agent who is national security counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "We certainly have a long history of police intelligence powers, so we know that this is a problematic approach to policing."

Fusion centers don't conduct criminal investigations. Instead, analysts, who are borrowed from federal, state and local agencies, dive into dozens of databases to develop threat assessments and make sense of emerging trends.

The Los Angeles Joint Regional Intelligence Center has fielded more than 2,000 tips and leads this year, director Leslie Gardner said, half of which were substantive enough to forward to the FBI-led task force that investigates terrorism crimes.

Homeland Security Department officials and fusion center officers say they pay close attention to civil and privacy rights.

Analysts at the centers don't run names without "reasonable suspicion," a decades-old law enforcement standard, officials say, and they don't have access to such records as credit card transactions without a court-approved search warrant.

There have been lapses. A Texas fusion center drew criticism last year for urging law enforcement to monitor Muslim and antiwar "lobbying groups."

"I really believe that [abuses] are the exception, not the rule," said Bart Johnson, who supervises fusion centers for the Homeland Security Department's Office of Intelligence and Analysis. The agency requires each fusion center to have a privacy and civil liberties policy, he said.

That's necessary because analysts have access to a variety of commercial and government databases that can produce a stream of personal information, including unlisted phone numbers and other details not readily available to the public.

Los Angeles Times Articles