Sheriff David Clarke plagiarized portions of his master's thesis on homeland security

Controversial Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, who this week announced he will be joining Donald Trump's administration as assistant secretary in the Department of Homeland Security, plagiarized sections of his 2013 master's thesis on US security, a CNN KFile review has found.

Clarke, a visible surrogate for Trump during the campaign known for his incendiary rhetoric, earned a master's degree in security studies at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. In his thesis, "Making U.S. security and privacy rights compatible," Clarke failed to properly attribute his sources at least 47 times.

In all instances reviewed by CNN's KFile, Clarke lifts language from sources and credits them with a footnote, but does not indicate with quotation marks that he is taking the words verbatim.

According to guidelines on plagiarism posted on the Naval Postgraduate School's website, "If a passage is quoted verbatim, it must be set off with quotation marks (or, if it is a longer passage, presented as indented text), and followed by a properly formulated citation. The length of the phrase does not matter. If someone else's words are sufficiently significant to be worth quoting, then accurate quotation followed by a correct citation is essential, even if only a few words are involved."

The school's honor code defines plagiarism as "submitting material that in part or whole is not one's own work without proper attribution. Plagiarism is further defined as the use, without giving reasonable and appropriate credit to or acknowledging the author or source, of another person's original work, whether such work is made up of code, formulas, ideas, language, research, strategies, writing or other form(s)."

Sources Clarke plagiarized include a 2002 ACLU report about "The Government's Demand for New and Unnecessary Powers After September 11," a 2003 ACLU report critical of the FBI's records-collection practices, a 2007 ACLU report on "fusion centers," and a 2011 ACLU report on the need to overhaul secrecy laws.

Other sources Clarke lifted words from include: the 9/11 Commission Report, a 2011 article in the Homeland Security Affairs journal, the Pew Research Center, a 2012 report by the Constitution Project, a 2003 report by the US General Accounting Office, a 2011 Brennan Center report, a 2013 Washington Post article about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, Comparative Homeland Security: Global Lessons, a textbook by Nadav Morag, and Safe Cities Project, a research paper published by the Manhattan Institute.

Clarke also lifted language from former President George W. Bush's book, "Decision Points."

Clarke announced on Thursday that he had received the appointment to the DHS "office of partnership and programs" where he will serve as a liaison with law enforcement at several levels across the country. A spokesperson for DHS later said Thursday that no announcement had been made regarding Clarke's appointment.

Clarke is known for his eyebrow-raising comments, including calling Black Lives Matter a hate group and calling the organization "Black Lies Matter." Clarke has also faced criticism for his management of a Milwaukee County Jail, where local prosecutors say an inmate died of dehydration after going a week without water.

After CNN's KFile attempted to contact Clarke for comment on this story, he took to Twitter, writing, "This @CNN hack @KFILE oppo research MO is to accuse plagiarism. I'm next. Did it to Rand Paul, Monica Crowley et al." Clarke later told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: "Only someone with a political agenda would say this is plagiarism."

In a statement, a spokesperson for the Naval Postgraduate School said standard procedure would be to launch an investigation into a thesis when allegations of plagiarism are made.

"Like all academic institutions, the Naval Postgraduate School takes the integrity of our students' work very seriously, perhaps even more than our peers given the unique nature of our mission and student body," Lt. Cdr. Clint Phillips said. "Standard procedure to any formal accusation of plagiarism is to pull the student's thesis, and perform an investigation into the validity of the claims."

"The university's academic conduct code, and our procedures in checking for plagiarism at the time of thesis submission, and following graduation, can change from year to year. In this particular case, we would be unable to determine any violation until the full investigation is complete."

Clarke, 3
In the 1990s,

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan called
for the outright abolition of the CIA on the
grounds that it had demonstrated it
uselessness for
failing to forecast the fall of the Soviet Union.
Warner was also concerned about the public
calls of

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY)
for the outright abolition of the Agency, on
grounds that it had demonstrated its
uselessness by
failing to forecast the fall of the Soviet Union
in 1991.
Clarke, 3
Civil liberty advocates believe that domestic
intelligence agencies working in so much
secrecy
are untrustworthy,
and that it is an
abandonment of a
core American principle that a government
working

for the people and by the people must be
transparent to the people.
An unprecedented and alarming new penchant for
government
secrecy and

abandonment of the
core American principle that a government

for the people and by the people must be
transparent to the people.
Clarke, 3,4
Withholding information allows the executive
branch
which enforces the law,
to insulate itself from public criticism,

congressional and judicial oversight, which

increases the likelihood of improper, unwise
and
illegal activity.
Withholding information allows the executive
branch

to insulate itself from public criticism and, in
some cases,

congressional and judicial oversight, which in
turn

increases the likelihood of unwise, illegal,
and
improper activity.
Clarke, 8


Information shortcomings referred to as stove piping--where
information within an agency
travels up and down in an organization with
little sharing horizontally between

organizations--prevented the reporting out of
counter terror information.
One major challenge that the Army still faces is
the stove piping of

information. With stove-piping,

information
travels up and down in an organization, with
little sharing horizontally between

organizations.
Clarke, 8
It is hard to break down stovepipes when there are so many stoves that are legally and politically entitled to have cast iron pipes of their own.
It is hard to 'break down stovepipes’ when there are so many stoves that are legally and politically entitled to have cast-iron pipes of their own.
Clarke, 8
An entire new federal agency, the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) was created to be
the
lead
agency
for problems that featured
so prominently in the 9/11 attacks, such as
border protection,

securing transportation, immigration, Customs
Service,

critical infrastructure and
organizing
assistance to critical incidents.
This department now has the lead
responsibility


for problems that feature
so prominently in the 9/11 story, such as
protecting borders,

securing transportation and other parts of our

critical infrastructure,
organizing emergency
assistance, and working with the private sector
to
assess vulnerabilities.
Clarke, 9
Prior to 9/11, no executive department had as
its first priority, the job of defending America
from domestic attack.
Before 9/11, no executive department had, as its
first priority, the job of defending America from
domestic attack.
Clarke, 10
Metadata is the envelope of a phone call or
Internet communication. For a phone call
it
could include the duration of a
call, the phone numbers involved,
and when it happened. For an email it would
include the sender and recipient, time, but not
the subject or content,
and
in both cases it could include location
information.
Metadata is the ‘envelope’ of a phone call or
internet communication. For a phone call
this
could include the duration of a phone
call, the phone number
and when it happened. For an email it would
include the sender and recipient, time, but not
the subject or content.

In both cases it could include location
information.
Clarke, 14
The Commission knew that abuses of civil
liberties could create a backlash that would
impair the collection of needed
information.
Abuses of civil liberties could create a backlash
that would impair the collection of needed

intelligence.
Clarke, 14
Former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff admits that

by its very nature, domestic and homeland
security intelligence
work
is intrusive.


By its very nature, domestic and homeland
security intelligence

is intrusive and risks infringing on civil
liberties.
Clarke, 15
A problem in getting coherent thinking on the
risk of terrorism is that

politicians find extreme and alarmist
possibilities so much more appealing than
discussions of broader context, much less of
statistical reality.

Hysteria and alarmism rarely make much sense but

politicians and the media are
drawn to them.
A problem with getting coherent thinking on the
risk of terrorism is that
reporters and
politicians find extreme and alarmist
possibilities so much more appealing than
discussions of broader context, much less of
statistical reality.
That is, although
hysteria and alarmism rarely make much sense,

politicians and the media are often naturally
drawn to them.
Clarke, 16
After 9/11, pressure grew for a larger state role
in counterterrorism.
After 9/11, pressure grew for a larger state role
in counterterrorism.
Clarke, 16,17
They contended that the creation of new
institutions like
state and local
fusion centers must be planned in a public, open
manner
with carefully thought-out and debated
implications for privacy and other key values
important in a democracy.
New institutions like

fusion centers must be planned in a public, open
manner,
and their
implications for privacy and other key values
carefully thought out and debated
.
Clarke, 17
Intelligence fusion centers grew in popularity
at the
local level as officers tried to establish a role in defending the homeland

by developing their own intelligence
capabilities.
Intelligence fusion centers grew in popularity
among state and
local law enforcement officers
as
they sought
to establish a role in defending homeland
security

by developing their own intelligence
capabilities.
Clarke, 17
In

a recent Congressional hearing however, one
DHS official
described the


fusion center as the ‘wild west,’ where officials
are
free to use a variety of technologies before
politics catches up and limits
the options.
In struggling to answer the seemingly simple
question of who is in charge of fusion centers at

a recent congressional hearing, a Department of Homeland Security official could only offer that
‘fusion centers are in charge of fusion centers.’
One analyst reportedly
described his
fusion center as the “wild west,” where officials
were
free to “use a variety of technologies before
‘politics’ catches up and limits options.
Clarke, 17
Federal authorities are happy to reap the
benefits of working with

fusion centers without officially taking
ownership.
Federal authorities are happy to reap the
benefits of working with
the
fusion centers without officially taking
ownership.
Clarke, 26
Another report for Congress raises questions in responding to anti-terror efforts, stemming from the conflict between individual privacy
interests and the intelligence needs of law
enforcement and national security.
Some of the civil liberties questions raised in response to anti- terrorism efforts stem
from the conflict between individual privacy
interests and the intelligence needs of law
enforcement and national security.
Clarke, 26
With the roles that technology and the
Internet play in
the GWOT, critics fear that

the potential for abuse and harm

by government officials with an increased
capacity



to assemble information, will result in increased
and unchecked government power.
While the benefits from the use of advanced
technologies for antiterrorism efforts are clear,

the
risks to individual privacy and
the potential for abuse and harm to individual
liberty

by Government officials and employees deploying
such technologies are equally established. Civil
libertarians, privacy advocates, and others worry
that the Government’s
increased capability
to assemble information will result in increased
and unchecked government power.
Clarke, 26,27
The author writes that the domestic intelligence
system appears to have been successful in
increasing security within the U.S.,
but that
the




gains are coming at the cost of ever-increasing domestic surveillance and at the risk of civil
liberties.
There is good news here: this domestic
intelligence system appears to have been
successful in increasing security within the US,

as demonstrated by numerous foiled terrorist plots
and the lack of another major successful attack on
American soil since 9/11.
But there is also bad
news: these

gains are coming at the cost of increasing domestic surveillance and at the risk of civil
liberties.
Clarke, 28



The ACLU and EPIC have argued that the use of
surveillance systems to monitor public spaces may,
nevertheless, infringe upon freedom of expression
under the First Amendment,
believing that it
might “chill” protestors from demonstrating in
public spaces.
While there is generally no reasonable
expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment
for activities visible to the public,

the ACLU and EPIC have argued that the use of
surveillance systems to monitor public spaces may
nevertheless infringe upon freedom of expression
under the First Amendment.
Clarke, 28,29
In a review of literature on fusion center
recommendations, a group of policy experts and
legal practitioners write that although

fusion centers have the potential to

strengthen the nation’s
counterterrorism efforts,
without effective limits on data collection,
storage, and use,
these
centers can pose serious risks to civil
liberties, including rights
to
free speech, free assembly, freedom of religion,

and the right to be free of
unnecessary government intrusion.



Fusion centers have the potential to
dramatically

strengthen the nation’s law enforcement and
counterterrorism efforts. However,
without effective limits on data collection,
storage and use,
fusion
centers can pose serious risks to civil
liberties, including rights
of
free speech, free assembly, freedom of religion,
racial and religious equality, privacy

and the right to be free from
unnecessary government intrusion.
Clarke, 29
The recommendation report points out that any
time


law enforcement agencies collect information on
people in the United States
it



could result in the creation of vast databases

compiled on individuals without reasonable
suspicion that
they
are linked to any
terrorism or
criminal activity. A lack of proper training,
reporting, and oversight came up in this report as
well.
Concerns about constitutional rights to privacy,
equal protection and freedom of expression are
always present when

law enforcement agencies collect information on
people in the United States.
... In addition, new
systems of collecting and disseminating reports of
suspicious activity observed by local law
enforcement officials

could result in the creation of vast databases
of information

compiled on individuals without reasonable
suspicion that
these individuals
are linked to
terrorism or any other
criminal activity.
Clarke, 29
One of the most pressing concerns involving
fusion centers is
a lack of
accountability due to
the secrecy that surrounds these centers,
which

makes public oversight
more difficult.
One of the most pressing concerns regarding
fusion centers is

accountability... Finally,
the secrecy that surrounds fusion centers

makes public oversight of their activities
more difficult.
Clarke, 40
The law modernized counterterrorism
capabilities by giving

access to tools like roving wiretaps that
allowed
investigators
to track suspects who changed cell phone numbers,
and

it authorized aggressive financial measures to
freeze terrorist assets.
Additionally, it
allowed



government to seek warrants to examine the
business records of suspected terrorists, such as
credit card
information,
apartment leases and library records.
It modernized our counterterrorism
capabilities by giving
investigators
access to tools like roving wiretaps, which
allowed
them
to track suspects who changed cell phone numbers—
an authority that had long been used to catch
drug traffickers
and mob bosses.
It authorized aggressive financial measures to
freeze terrorist assets.
And it included
judicial and congressional oversight to protect
civil liberties. One provision created a little
discomfort at home. The PATRIOT Act
allowed the
government to seek warrants to examine the
business records of suspected terrorists, such as
credit card
receipts,
apartment leases, and library records.
Clarke, 40,41
The Act amends 15 separate criminal statutes,
creates

multiple new federal
crimes and greatly expands the authority of the
government to conduct surveillance and searches.

It

contains extensive revisions
that expand law enforcement’s
investigative powers to obtain and analyze
personal information
and allows for greater
authority for tracking and intercepting
communications for both foreign and domestic law
enforcement collection. The NSA, whose mission had
traditionally been devoted
to
foreign intelligence gathering, is increasing
their focus on
domestic communications.
It amends 15 separate criminal statutes,
creating

multiple new federal terrorism
crimes, and greatly expands the authority of the
government to conduct surveillance and searches.

// The Patriot Act

contains extensive revisions to FISA
that expand law enforcement agency’s
investigative powers to obtain and analyze
personal information.
It more easily allows
investigators
to maneuver between



foreign intelligence gathering and domestic
criminal information collection.
Clarke, 44
White House Spokesman Josh Earnest indicates
that
this
kind of surveillance has been critical

in protecting the nation from terror threats as
it allows counterterrorism
officials
to discover whether known or suspected terror
suspects

have been in contact with persons in the United States
who may be involved in terror
activities.
Josh Earnest , a White House spokesman, told
reporters aboard Air Force One
that the
kind of surveillance at issue “has been a
critical
tool
in protecting the nation from terror threats as
it allows counterterrorism
personnel
to discover whether known or suspected
terrorists

have been in contact with other persons

who may be engaged in terrorist
activities, particularly people located inside
the United States.”
Clarke, 45
The central dilemma faced by liberal democracies
in attempting to effectively combat terrorism

has to do with the reality that confronting a
serious terror threat requires measures that strengthen the power of
government over the individual, and that in
turn
reduces

the freedoms and protections that people have
traditionally enjoyed before 9/11 happened
Given all of the above, the central dilemma
faced by liberal democracies in attempting to

combat terrorism effectively has to do with the fact that combating a serious terrorist threat effectively
requires measures that strengthen the power of
government over the individual and that, in
one
way or another, reduce

the freedoms and protections that individuals
enjoy.
Clarke, 54
There had




been much less attention paid to the role that
local
police played
in homeland security and protecting critical
national infrastructure
in the United States
prior
to 9/11.




Once inside our borders, it is the police-not the
FBI or CIA-who have the best tools for detecting
and prosecuting
crimes like forged documents,
identity theft, illegal narcotic sales, and other
minor crimes along with jail and prison
radicalization.
While enormous amounts of ink have been spilled
defining the new responsibilities and
relationships that should obtain between federal
agencies (FBI, CIA, NSA, and the Pentagon),
there
has
been much less attention paid to the role that
police
must play
in homeland security and protecting critical
national infrastructure.
This is unfortunate,
because terrorism’s equivalent to fare jumping
in
the
New York City subways are illegal border
crossings, forged documents, and other relatively
minor crimes that terrorists use
to fund their
operations.

Once inside our borders, it is the police—not the
FBI or CIA—who have the best tools for detecting
and prosecuting
these crimes.
Clarke, 54
The




intelligence information is

out there but it is
fractured among the many layers of law
enforcement that characterize America’s federal
system of government.
In the UK, the local police
department, Special Branch, and national
intelligence agencies are in constant contact
with
each other.
What is missing today in U.S.
domestic intelligence
is an is an “all channels network” where expertise and intelligence and
information

can be disseminated quickly and effectively
throughout the law enforcement community from coast-to-coast and from chief

executives down to street officers.
Furthermore, in America’s federal law-enforcement
system,
the police may not have access to the
kinds of day-to-day relationships that develop in
the U.K., where local police departments, Special
Branch, and national

intelligence agencies are in constant contact.
// The practices—the know-how—are

out there, but they are
fractured among the many layers of law
enforcement that characterize America’s federal
system of government.
What is needed now is an “all-channel



network” where expertise and intelligence

can be disseminated quickly and effectively
throughout the law-enforcement community, from coast to coast, and from

police chiefs
to officers at the street level.
To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, we must all learn
how to hang together or we will most assuredly all
hang separately.
Clarke, 56
For liberal democracies, the counterterrorism
strategy chosen must, regardless of
which
approach is decided on, either as a law

enforcement or war
continuum, not lose sight of what is being
protected,

the very existence of a liberal democratic
state
based in the rule of law. The liberal democratic state must
provide for the maximum number and type of rights
and freedoms for its inhabitants.
For a liberal democracy, the counterterrorism
strategy chosen must, regardless of
its placement
along the war-fighting/law

enforcement
continuum, not lose sight of what is being
protected:
namely,
the very existence of the liberal-democratic state. // The liberal-democratic state must also endeavor to
provide for the maximum number and type of rights
and freedoms for its inhabitants,
such as freedom
of speech, assembly, and religion; the right to
due process; and the right to equality before the
law.
Clarke, 56
There are strict limitations on what MI5 can and
cannot do when investigation individuals.


-An individual’s right to privacy cannot be
overridden without very good cause.
There are strict limitations on what MI5 is
allowed to
do when investigating an individual.
There are laws (covering MI5 and others) which
ensure that
an individual's right to privacy cannot be
overridden without very good cause.
Clarke, 56
The authorizations are reviewed by independent
commissioners to ensure that they comply with the
law.
The authorizations are reviewed by independent
Commissioners to ensure that they comply with the
law.
Clarke, 56
In order to intercept telephone communications,
interfere with property or conduct “intrusive
surveillance” a warrant must be obtained which
authorizes precisely what actions will be taken.
These warrants last


for up to six months.
In order to intercept telephone communications,
interfere with property or conduct “intrusive
surveillance” a warrant must be obtained which
authorizes precisely what actions will be taken.
Such warrants are issued by the
Secretary of State [Home Secretary] and remain
valid until the operation is complete, or

for up to six months (whichever is the shorter).
Clarke, 56
-In urgent cases warrants may be signed by a
senior official
in
the Home Office but only after
the Secretary of State has granted
permission.
These warrants last from two to five days.









-The warrant and authorization system, together
with the independent review process, is a legal
safeguard, which ensures that MI5 does not use any
intrusive techniques without

good reason.
In urgent cases warrants may be signed by a
senior official
within
the Home Office, but only where
the Secretary of State has given express
permission to the official.
These warrants last for between only two and five days (depending on the type of action)
unless they are confirmed by the Secretary of
State. “Directed surveillance” is deemed less
intrusive (a person being watched in public is a
lesser invasion of privacy) and this kind of
action can be authorized by officers within MI5.
Nevertheless, such authorizations are still
subject to independent review by the
Commissioners.

The warrant and authorization system, together
with the independent review process, is a legal
safeguard which ensures that MI5 does not use any
intrusive techniques without
very
good reason.
Clarke, 57
Emergency regulations must be geographically
specific, cannot amend basic guarantees of human
rights and must be limited in time.
Moreover, emergency regulations must be
geographically specific, cannot amend basic
guarantees of human rights, and must be limited in
time
(UK Civil Contingencies Act, Part 2,
Sections 20–23, n.d.).
Clarke, 57
The Terrorism Act passed in 2000, gave the UK
a
piece of non-emergency legislation


but also provided for
stronger guarantees for
rights of suspects and greater allowance for
judicial scrutiny.
Detainees




suspected of terror involvement can



appeal their status to a special immigration
appeals commission
that at least ensures some
sort

of judicial oversight.
With the passage of the Terrorism Act in 2000, the UK had a permanent
piece of nonemergency legislation for dealing
with terrorism. The act incorporated some elements
from previous emergency legislation

but also provided
stronger guarantees for the
rights of suspects and greater allowance for
judicial scrutiny.
Following the 9/11 attacks,
Parliament passed the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and
Security Act 2001. This law afforded the executive
the power to detain, without charge, non-UK
citizens

suspected of terrorist activities but who could
not be deported to their countries of origin for
fear that they would be mistreated—although it did
allow for detainees to

appeal their status to a special immigration
appeals commission,
thus ensuring some degree

of judicial review.
Clarke, 57
The war-fighting approach allows for the use of
any and all means of intelligence gathering
with
little attention paid
to safeguarding
rights to privacy and
other civil liberties.
Moreover, this strategy allows for the use of
any and all means of intelligence gathering

without the need
to safeguard
rights to privacy or
other civil liberties, as it usually targets
noncitizens in the territory of foreign countries.
Clarke, 57
The law enforcement approach

is based on an entirely different philosophy in
that it views
the “enemy” not





collectively, but
as individuals




carrying out specific criminal acts.
The law enforcement approach, at the other end
of the continuum,

is based on an entirely different philosophy and
modus operandi. The goal here is not to kill the
enemy to deny them the ability to conduct hostile
acts.
In fact, the law enforcement approach,
unlike the war-fighting approach, does
not, at
least for purposes of prosecution, generally view
the “enemy”

collectively, but rather
as individuals. These individuals may or may not
be organized into terrorist groups, but in any
case they are not treated as a collective
threatening the state, but rather as distinct
individuals

carrying out specific criminal acts for which
each has to be prosecuted independently.
Clarke, 58
The law enforcement approach means spending much
of the

time operating within the borders of a
democratic state and
are subject to the
legal restrictions designed to protect
the basic rights of the population.
Those taking the law enforcement approach to
combating terrorism generally spend most
of
their

time operating within the borders of the
democratic state and thus
are subject to
legal restrictions designed to safeguard
the basic rights of the population in those
countries.
Clarke, 61
The shroud of secrecy surrounding the recently
leaked surveillance
programs hamstrung those
members in

what they could disclose and many felt that

their only recourse was to file secret letters of
concern or protest.

Jane Harman,
a former Ranking Member of the House Intelligence
Committee
indicated that you can’t talk to
anybody about what you learn in
briefings and
there is no way then for staff to do research,
which would make for more successful oversight.
The few members of Congress who were briefed
on these controversial
programs felt so
handcuffed by restrictions on

what they could do with the highly classified
information they received, they thought

their only recourse was to file secret letters of
concern or protest.
Representative
Jane Harman, who as
a former Ranking Member of the House Intelligence
Committee
regularly received classified
briefings
from executive agencies, described the
current practice of congressional notification:
Clarke, 63
Hiding information from Congress and judicial
oversight

allows the Executive Branch to keep itself
free

from public criticism and


increases the likelihood of
illegal and improper activity.
Withholding information

allows the executive branch to insulate itself

from public criticism and, in some cases,
congressional and judicial oversight, which in
turn

increases the likelihood of unwise,
illegal, and improper activity.
Clarke, 64
As stated previously in this thesis, Congress
has the authority and

must take the lead in challenging
laws and practices that allow little
transparency in

our national security and domestic intelligence
operations
Congress

must take the lead in challenging the
laws and practices that have allowed excessive
secrecy to become the dominant feature of

our national security culture.
Clarke, 64
The Executive branch does not have the right
to tell members of the Intelligence
Oversight
Committee that

they cannot share what they learn in
briefings with other members of Congress.
The executive does not have the authority to
tell members of the Intelligence Commitees
or
the Gang of Eight

they cannot share what they learn in these
briefings with other members of Congress.
Clarke, 65
A bipartisan report in February 2003, by senior
members of the Senate Judiciary Committee
expressed
great
frustration with the Justice Department’s refusal
to submit to Congressional oversight.
A bipartisan report issued in February 2003 by
senior members of the Senate Judiciary Committee
expressed
deep
frustration with the Justice Department’s refusal
to submit to congressional oversight.
Clarke, 81
In another instance, DNI James Clapper said he
declassified
aspects of NSA
surveillance and intelligence programs to

dispel some of the myths

about government surveillance activities.
Clapper said he declassified the details of
the NSA's

surveillance and intelligence collection
programs
"in hope that it will help
dispel some of the myths and add necessary
context to what has been published"

about government surveillance of Americans'
phone records and foreigners' Internet use
Clarke, 83
In a written statement by Judge Reggie B. Walton,

the chief judge of the FISC, he acknowledged
that

the court lacks the tools to independently verify
how often
government surveillance breaks court
rules that aim to protect privacy.


The chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court
said
the court lacks the tools to independently verify
how often
the
government’s surveillance breaks the court’s
rules that aim to protect Americans’ privacy.
Clarke, 83
This is in stark contrast to what the executive
branch has been saying in trying to reassure the
public about

the court’s oversight role. They have been
saying



that the court provides central checks and
balances on
government spying and that people

should feel comfortable with that.



The court’s description of its practical
limitations contrasts with repeated assurances
from the Obama administration and intelligence
agency leaders

that the court provides central checks and
balances on
the government’s broad spying
efforts. They have said
that Americans
should feel comfortable that the secret
intelligence court provides robust oversight of
government surveillance and protects their privacy
from rogue intrusions.