Calif. Guard Unit Probed for Possible Spying

[rick_reno]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161764,00.html

Calif. Guard Unit Probed for Possible Spying
Wednesday, July 06, 2005

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Military authorities Wednesday began investigating whether a California National Guard (search) unit was created to spy on citizens, as dozens of demonstrators confronted Guard officials while armed soldiers stood by.

The federal probe of the nation's largest National Guard force involves the U.S. Army's inspector general, the federal National Guard Bureau's inspector general and the National Guard Bureau's legal division.

The unit has raised concern among peace activists that the Guard is resorting to the same type of civilian monitoring that helped fuel Vietnam War-era protests. During the 1960s and 1970s, the military collected information on more than 100,000 Americans. Such monitoring, while not illegal, would be a departure for the Guard.

"These are your mothers, grandmothers and neighbors," said George Main, president of Veterans for Peace (search) and an organizer of Wednesday's protest outside guard headquarters. About 30 demonstrators took part.

"They are not potential terrorist threats," Main said. "The excuse that these groups might be infiltrated is an insult to the intelligence of every Californian."

Under scrutiny is a California National Guard unit with a tongue-twisting name: the Information Synchronization, Knowledge Management and Intelligence Fusion (search) program. It was established last year, and came to public light after a recent story in the San Jose Mercury News.

Investigators also are looking into the Guard's monitoring of a Mother's Day anti-war demonstration at the state Capitol that was organized by several peace groups. The activities were documented in e-mails originating in Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's (search) press office and made public by the newspaper.

That monitoring was by a second unit, the Guard's Domestic Watch Center. Both units were under the command of Col. Jeff Davis, who has since retired and left the state.

Guard spokesman Lt. Col. Doug Hart said monitoring activities merely meant tracking media coverage of the protest. "We do not spy on people," Hart said. "Never have, never will."

A member of the women's peace group Code Pink, which was one of the groups involved in the Mother's Day protest, took issue.

"Even with a seemingly innocent act as watching TV, they're breaking the law," said Natalie Wormeli, who wore a T-shirt reading "One Nation Under Surveillance" at Wednesday's demonstration.

The Guard has described the unit as consisting of two members who monitor the military's classified e-mail system and seven others who help gauge terrorist threats to bridges, buildings and other structures.

Protesters spoke outside the Guard's headquarters in a suburban Sacramento office park, and at one point engaged in a verbal confrontation with Guard officials as soldiers carrying M-16 rifles stood in the background. One soldier blocked the locked headquarters door as the protesters tried to enter.

Officials in the Guard and the governor's office said they will cooperate in the federal inquiry. Hart said the federal units were declining comment on their probe. Army spokeswoman Lt. Col. Pamela Hart declined to even acknowledge that an investigation was under way.

Democratic state Sen. Joe Dunn has begun his own investigation into the Guard unit, but the acting adjutant general for the California National Guard, Brigadier General John R. Alexander, said he would provide no details to the lawmaker while the federal investigation is ongoing.

The Schwarzenegger administration also is concerned about whether the Guard "may have exceeded its mandate in the realm of intelligence operations," Deputy Chief of Staff Richard Costigan III said in a letter sent Wednesday to Dunn.

Costigan promised cooperation with both investigations.

 

[odysseus]

So anyone still talking that crap of the national guard being what the founding fathers called the militia?

Outside of that, just to say, this doesn't sound like the functions they should be involved in. Don't we have agencies that do this?

 

[Joejojoba111]

Oh who cares anymore. The federal government has infiltrators in every major and minor political organization, they have information gathering cabapilities that the communists could only have wet dreams about. If you are a threat they pay a criminal to join your group and then cajole you into committing crimes, and even if you refuse to abet them your association with the criminal is a crime, and the criminal will get a suspended sentence for testifying against you.

It's too messed up to even sweat the details.

I respect your opinions, and your fears are valid and justified, it's just so much so fast it overwhelmed me. Sorry.

 

[RevDisk]

The military should be above such things. I was handed this card once. Listed a bunch of "Army values". Most of it was just BS, but I do take "Honour" and "Integrity" rather seriously.

The military should not be used on the citizenry except under exceptional circumstances. Riots, sure. Spying on citizens exercising their right to protest? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.

I'm willing to make a wager. If any wrong-doing is found, or even if it's not, a lower enlisted will be thrown the wolves. Maybe a Sergeant, but more likely a Spec4 or PFC. Since I know I'll win that bet, I'll double or nothing that said Spec4 or PFC thrown to the wolves is likely the Spec4 or PFC that actively questioned the legality of the entire thing to his chain of command.

Any takers?

 

[Sinsaba]

One of the things that caught my eye was ...

"Even with a seemingly innocent act as watching TV, they're breaking the law," said Natalie Wormeli, who wore a T-shirt reading "One Nation Under Surveillance" at Wednesday's demonstration.

WHAT??

 

[roo_ster]

Expect to see more "military" types collecting intel of all types, to include domestic.

CIA & FBI have screwed the pooch for so long WRT intel that the military is doing for itself what FBI & CIA ought to.

If the target is domestic intel, it makes some sort of sense that the collecting units would be NG or Reserve units.

That being said, there is not enough data presented by the article to substantiate the allegations. If the accusations are true, I suspect that it might be more in the nature of a training exercise than their objective. We would expect similar demonstrations from opponents in countries we have troops in, as we are not the kind of people to mow them down with gunfire & crush their bodies under tank treads.

Statements such as:

"Even with a seemingly innocent act as watching TV, they're breaking the law," said Natalie Wormeli, who wore a T-shirt reading "One Nation Under Surveillance" at Wednesday's demonstration.

do not bolster the credibility of the accusers.

 

[richyoung]

Don't we have agencies that do this?

SURE we do..ask General Short and Admiral Kimmel about relying only on those sources...

 

[Tory]

Revisionism rejected

"...ask General Short and Admiral Kimmel about relying only on those sources..."

Neither commander (of Pearl Harbor in December, 1941 for the historically challenged) really NEEDED "those sources."

Japan had ALREADY invaded China, raping, pillaging and murdering civilians.

The US had ALREADY stopped exports of oil and metal to Japan for that reason.

The US had ALREADY been warned, in writing by a naval power expert - YEARS before the actual sneak attack - that our next threat would be Japan, not a European power, AND that the attack would almost certainly be:

1. On a Sunday; and

2. Against Hawaii.

ANY competent base commander ought to comprehend the duty - and NEED - to secure the perimeter and surveille it regularly.

Both Kimmel and Short ignored the obvious, failed to take even minimal steps to monitor the perimeter (Short had B-17's; Kimmel had PBY's), REDUCED our ability to respond (Short WITHHELD ammo from patrol units for fear the "Japanese collaborators" would capture it) and failed to act even when NOTIFIED of the assault (no response after Ward sunk a Jap mini-sub sneaking through the sub net behind Antares).

Short and Kimmel were incompetent. Men died, ships were lost and our military capability in the Pacific was crippled because of their incompetence. And if it weren't for the Japanese failure to launch the specified third wave, which was tasked with destroying the sub pens, tank farms and ammo dumps, we would likely have been unable to stop the Japanese advance with our sub attacks and may well have lost the entire Pacific Theater.

The "intelligence failure" at Pearl was in its commanders. Period.

 

[richyoung]

Neither commander (of Pearl Harbor in December, 1941 for the historically challenged) really NEEDED "those sources."

I beg to differ - if not them, who?

Japan had ALREADY invaded China, raping, pillaging and murdering civilians.

By this logic, they might just as well have anticpated an attack by Germany...

The US had ALREADY stopped exports of oil and metal to Japan for that reason.

The US had ALREADY had 1 destroyer sunk by U-boat,..see previous...

The US had ALREADY been warned, in writing by a naval power expert - YEARS before the actual sneak attack - that our next threat would be Japan, not a European power, AND that the attack would almost certainly be:

1. On a Sunday; and

2. Against Hawaii.

Hindsight is, alas, twenty-twenty. Who ordered the fleet to PH, AGAINST the wishes of its commanders? FDR. FDR had SPECIFIC intel that Pearl Harbor was about to be attacked by carrier air, and DID NOT forward that info to the commanders. Who says so? Just a tin-foil-hatter named Winston Churchill, (his memoirs) and the Red Cross War Service director of the time, Don C. Smith, as reported by the U.S. Naval Institute. Failure to forward that info was treason - it directly resulted in over 2000 deaths.

ANY competent base commander ought to comprehend the duty - and NEED - to secure the perimeter and surveille it regularly.

Both Kimmel and Short ignored the obvious, failed to take even minimal steps to monitor the perimeter (Short had B-17's; Kimmel had PBY's),

Short had a tiny handful of -17s, mostly on their way to the Phillipines, Neither had enough men or equipment to maintain a 360 degree survey, or even a "most likely sector" survey, with what was on hand when one regards the in-service and maintenance rates and their mandated training duties.

REDUCED our ability to respond (Short WITHHELD ammo from patrol units for fear the "Japanese collaborators" would capture it)

a legitimate threat...

and failed to act even when NOTIFIED of the assault (no response after Ward sunk a Jap mini-sub sneaking through the sub net behind Antares).

...do you have a CLUE as to how many false "sighted/engaged sub" reports occur? They are frequent and often - even during the war, Halsey remarked that "...too many depth charges are being expended on neutral fish and whales..."

Short and Kimmel were incompetent. Men died, ships were lost and our military capability in the Pacific was crippled because of their incompetence.

None of their previous service record indicates such incompetence - if so, why did FDR hand-pick them? On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence, including the McCollum memo, that after failing to sufficiently provoke Germany, FDR was going to get in the war "back door" by provoking Japan.

And if it weren't for the Japanese failure to launch the specified third wave, which was tasked with destroying the sub pens, tank farms and ammo dumps, we would likely have been unable to stop the Japanese advance with our sub attacks

...not much of a history buff, I see. We weren't stopping ANYTHING with sub attacks - it took YEARS to document and fix the defects in the Mark XIV influence and contact exploders...and thats what our subs were carrying.

and may well have lost the entire Pacific Theater.

The "intelligence failure" at Pearl was in its commanders. Period.

Can't act on what the boss decides not to tell you - FDR is the culprit.

 

[Tory]

Point by point

Quote:
Neither commander (of Pearl Harbor in December, 1941 for the historically challenged) really NEEDED "those sources."

I beg to differ - if not them, who?

You miss - or avoid - the point, which is that Japanese expansion was open, obvious threat to US presence in the Pacific Rim. Anyone who read a newspaper or saw a newsreel at the movies was aware of these actions; "military intelligence" was not required.


Quote:
Japan had ALREADY invaded China, raping, pillaging and murdering civilians.

By this logic, they might just as well have anticpated an attack by Germany...

And what German activity was there in the vicinity of Hawaii, Wake, or the Phillipines? Or is a grasp of geography outside the scope of your analysis?


Quote:
The US had ALREADY stopped exports of oil and metal to Japan for that reason.

The US had ALREADY had 1 destroyer sunk by U-boat,..see previous...

Relevance? Especially as Rueben James was sunk in the North Atlantic; not the South Pacific? Again, check your geography before lecturing on threat analysis.

Quote:
The US had ALREADY been warned, in writing by a naval power expert - YEARS before the actual sneak attack - that our next threat would be Japan, not a European power, AND that the attack would almost certainly be:

1. On a Sunday; and

2. Against Hawaii.

Hindsight is, alas, twenty-twenty. Who ordered the fleet to PH, AGAINST the wishes of its commanders? FDR. FDR had SPECIFIC intel that Pearl Harbor was about to be attacked by carrier air, and DID NOT forward that info to the commanders. Who says so? Just a tin-foil-hatter named Winston Churchill, (his memoirs) and the Red Cross War Service director of the time, Don C. Smith, as reported by the U.S. Naval Institute. Failure to forward that info was treason - it directly resulted in over 2000 deaths.

A more intelligent line of inquiry would be "Why did we BUILD the base at Pearl Harbor if NOT to provide close support to bases in Guam, Wake and the Phillipines? And if you are referring to the "East wind - rain" message, there was no hard data to forward. Rumors are not actionable information.


Quote:
ANY competent base commander ought to comprehend the duty - and NEED - to secure the perimeter and surveille it regularly.

Both Kimmel and Short ignored the obvious, failed to take even minimal steps to monitor the perimeter (Short had B-17's; Kimmel had PBY's),

Short had a tiny handful of -17s, mostly on their way to the Phillipines, Neither had enough men or equipment to maintain a 360 degree survey, or even a "most likely sector" survey, with what was on hand when one regards the in-service and maintenance rates and their mandated training duties.

Just what purpose, pray tell, DO patrol planes serve if not patrolling? An unprotected base is an incompetently commanded base. You also ignore the clear alert from the Ipana Point radar, which was ignored.

Quote:
REDUCED our ability to respond (Short WITHHELD ammo from patrol units for fear the "Japanese collaborators" would capture it)

a legitimate threat...

"Legitimate?" What's next, lurid tales of arrows cut in the cane field to guide the bombers? Puleeeeze.... There was no Japanese 5th column and no sabotage on Hawaii. And if they did exist and COULD overpower an Army patrol, what does THAT tell you about command performance?

Quote:
and failed to act even when NOTIFIED of the assault (no response after Ward sunk a Jap mini-sub sneaking through the sub net behind Antares).

...do you have a CLUE as to how many false "sighted/engaged sub" reports occur? They are frequent and often - even during the war, Halsey remarked that "...too many depth charges are being expended on neutral fish and whales..."


Let's see: Numerous reports of Japanese military activity, war alerts, breakdown in negotiations - and THEN a sub is reported sunk while following a ship through the anti-sub net into a naval base. Yeah, it's probably a whale.......


Quote:
Short and Kimmel were incompetent. Men died, ships were lost and our military capability in the Pacific was crippled because of their incompetence.

None of their previous service record indicates such incompetence - if so, why did FDR hand-pick them? On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence, including the McCollum memo, that after failing to sufficiently provoke Germany, FDR was going to get in the war "back door" by provoking Japan.

Right - a sitting President and PAST SECRETARY OF THE NAVY is going to sacrifice his entire Pacific fleet and it's primary base of operations to provoke what would be a SECOND front, IF this plot worked. What a stellar strategy! Man, I did not know you could buy that much Reynolds Wrap on one roll.......


Quote:
And if it weren't for the Japanese failure to launch the specified third wave, which was tasked with destroying the sub pens, tank farms and ammo dumps, we would likely have been unable to stop the Japanese advance with our sub attacks

...not much of a history buff, I see. We weren't stopping ANYTHING with sub attacks - it took YEARS to document and fix the defects in the Mark XIV influence and contact exploders...and thats what our subs were carrying.


Well, ONE of us isn't....... Despite the well-documented defects in our torpedoes, the facts are that: 1. Submarines did the most damage to the Japanese merchant marine, virtually eliminating it; and 2. they were the only force which was consistently on-station engaging the Japanse Fleet. Coral Sea and Midway were major battles, but they were BATTLES; not campaigns. You also overlook the stunning Japanese counter-strike at Savo, shortly after Midway, in which surface craft were AGAIN caught napping. Once again, we were left with only the Silent Service to maintain a credible presence and contain Japanese operations.


Quote:
and may well have lost the entire Pacific Theater.

The "intelligence failure" at Pearl was in its commanders. Period.

Can't act on what the boss decides not to tell you - FDR is the culprit.
Today 06:28 PM

Unless there has been a sea-change in duties, a commander is ALWAYS responsible for keeping his command mission-ready. Lack of preparation, lack of basic protection and failure to act when a threat is imminent, and even when an attack is reported is not due to "the boss not telling you;" it is the failure to do what you are EXPECTED to do as a commander. Short and Kimmel failed - abjectly.

 

[Farnham]

During the 1960s and 1970s, the military collected information on more than 100,000 Americans. Such monitoring, while not illegal, would be a departure for the Guard.

Google Executive Order 12333 and see if such is the case now. See also "Domestic Use Statement," "Posse Comitatus," and "Intelligence Oversight and US Army Counterintelligence."

It's been over ten years since I had that number hammered into my happy-go-lucky PFC brain at Dam Neck, and still I remember it. I'm betting that the Guard guys know it as well. If they ignored it, I hope they go down hard.

I now return you to the Pearl Harbor debate already in progress.

S/F

Farnham

 

[Art Eatman]

The night after the attack on Pearl Harbor was cold and clear and there was a lotta moon at Austin, Texas. Some great-uncles were down from Hereford, visiting my grandparents. We took the dogs and a .22 and went meddling around in the backwoods of my grandfather's place.

And with that non sequitur this thread is gone bye-bye...

Art