Domestic spying on peace groups in California by the state office of homeland security, the LAT reports. And this interesting detail:

... Past and present members of the attorney general's office said they were troubled by a meeting at the security office last September in which federal and state officials discussed ways to prevent Islamic militants from recruiting prison inmates. In attendance were officials from the FBI, the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and various local law enforcement agencies, according to documents obtained by The Times.

One account of the meeting is provided in a whistle-blower complaint filed by a former high-ranking official in the attorney general's office, Edward Manavian.

The complaint says homeland security information analyst William Hipsley proposed monitoring private conversations in state prisons between inmates and Islamic clergymen and, citing a potential national security threat from Iran, getting a list of Iranians living in California.

State law makes it a felony to eavesdrop on conversations between a person in custody and his attorney, doctor or religious advisor.

This excerpt jumped out at me because in the course of researching various state and local CT programs a few years ago I met Manavian who strikes one as a total law and order type, hardly of the type one would traditionally expect to become a whistleblower. A former cop and counter-narcotics officer, he directed the CATIC (California Anti Terrorism Information Center) out of the California AG's office; the CATIC itself drew criticism for allegedly compiling intel reports on other domestic protests a few years ago. The fact that he's blowing the whistle on these alleged abuses really stands out.

Secondly, the fact that the California homeland security office allegedly considered compiling a database of all Iranians in the state is also striking. Is ethnic background alone enough to warrant such scrutiny by the government? Manavian has gone on the record in the past saying specifically it's not enough to warrant law enforcement scrutiny. From the Oakland Trib in May 2003:

The center [CATIC] draws $6.7 million a year in state funds to prevent terrorism. Analysts must obey one federal rule to limit the intelligence they gather, analyze and disseminate: It must have a criminal predicate, a "reasonable suspicion" that criminal acts will be committed.

"If there's no criminal predicate we would not issue the information on anyone. That's the rules and we abide by that," said CATIC director Ed Manavian.

And Manavian does not seem to be the only one voicing concerns.

Allen Benitez, assistant chief of the attorney general's criminal intelligence bureau, had told one of his bosses in a memo April 18 that the security office was gathering information on "political groups" and protests. He voiced concerns that such tracking "may not be allowed under the law."

(This post has been updated).

Posted by Laura at July 1, 2006 10:27 AM