Developing a set of rules that will reliably distinguish between activities that are legitimate and those that are true threats continues to vex domestic intelligence policy. In the past week, this fundamental issue cropped up in media discussion of a leaked DHS intelligence report and also during a Senate hearing on information sharing. In thinking about the problem, and recognizing that the following certainly is nowhere near a complete solution, I suggest three potential improvements:
1) intelligence reports and threat assessments that deal with ideological motivation should expressly address the need to distinguish between ideas and illegality;
Read more »
2) Congressional oversight committees should review samples of domestic intelligence reports from different stages of the information collection, analysis and sharing process, and;
3) frontline law enforcement civil liberties training material should be made openly available.