Declassified NSA Docs Shed Light On Cold War (And Modern) Operations

AHuxley writes "With the U.S. trying to understand the domestic role of their foreign intelligence and counterintelligence services in 2013, what can a declassified look back into the 1960s and 1970s add to the ongoing legal debate? Welcome to the world of Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel and the work done by the National Security Archive at George Washington University. Read how prominent anti-war critics and U.S. senators were tracked, and who was on the late-1960s NSA watch list, from Rev. Martin Luther King to civil rights leader Whitney Young, boxer Muhammad Ali, Tom Wicker, the Washington bureau chief and Washington Post columnist Art Buchwald, and Sen. Howard Baker (R-Tenn.). The NSA was aware of the legality of its work and removed all logos or classification markings, using the term 'For Background Use Only.' Even back then, NSA director at the time, Lew Allen noted: "appeared to be a possible violation of constitutional guarantees" (from page 86 of this PDF). What did the NSA think about signals intelligence sites in your country? See if your country makes the 'indefinite' list on page 392."

Re:Some things never change

[ISoldat53]

I wonder how much the NSA monitors our own diplomats and political leaders and government bureaucracy? It would explain why so many in government think this is such a good idea.

J Edgar Hoover, Anyone?

[Atypical Geek]

Tracking and blackmailing rich and powerful people is not new. Hoover's personal files were used to do just that*. It was the entire point of COINTELPRO. The NSA is simply following the path of other alphabet soup agencies to consolidate power for themselves and their political masters.

* For example, we know that Jackie O. had a lesbian fling because an item of her correspondence obtained for Hoover's personal safe was misfiled. Can you think of any reason for the FBI having a love letter like that other than blackmail?

On Legality

[gr8_phk]

Someone once suggested to me that so long as these activities remain illegal, they are less likely to be abused. Think about that. If it's illegal you're going to think about every line you cross and try to justify it against your goals. Abuse would not only be a problem, it would be a problem caused by illegal activity. Once you legalize these activities I think they are more likely to be abused.

So when are they going to be convicted for this?

[Bruce66423]

Given that the people who beat up civil rights workers in the 60s can be pursued for their offences of 'depriving of their civil rights', why can't these people? OK - stupid question in the real world...