Fusion center

The National Network of Fusion Centers was established after the September 11 attacks to allow collaboration across jurisdictions in order to respond to criminal and terrorist activity.

Reports by the US House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security have found fusion centers to be a national asset, though they have at times raised concerns about the ability to evaluate their effectiveness.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Department of Homeland Security have separately raised concerns about the threats fusion centers pose to privacy rights such as excessive secrecy, little oversight, and mission creep.

A fusion center is a collaborative effort between law enforcement agencies to share resources, expertise, and information in order to detect criminal and terrorist activity.

[3] A fusion center is typically organized by combining representatives from different federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies into one physical location.

[7] A number of fusion centers operate tip hotlines and also invite relevant information from public employees, such as sanitation workers or firefighters.

The mission of the NFCA is as follows: "To represent the interests of state and major urban area fusion centers, as well as associated interests of states, tribal nations, and units of local government, in order to promote the development and sustainment of fusion centers to enhance public safety; encourage effective, efficient, ethical, lawful, and professional intelligence and information sharing; and prevent and reduce the harmful effects of crime and terrorism on victims, individuals, and communities."

The TEWG eventually evolved into Fusion Centers throughout the nation.The fusion center concept was created as a result of the September 11 report, in an attempt by the Department of Homeland Security to create better communication and cooperation between state, local, and territorial law enforcement with federal law enforcement entities including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Homeland Security and several others.

[citation needed] With domestic and foreign threats constantly changing, the strategies used by each Fusion Center have to be defined, and altered, which calls for a specific plans and guidelines as to how to best protect the homeland.

She reached out to congressmen, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Department of Defense, and the Red Cross, but the resources were not available to provide any assistance.

[11] Matthew Chandler, a spokesperson for the DHS, said that "In preparing the report, the committee refused to review relevant data, including important intelligence information pertinent to their findings," and that the "report fundamentally misunderstands the role of the federal government in supporting fusion centers and overlooks the significant benefits of this relationship to both state and local law enforcement and the federal government.

[15] David Rittgers of the Cato Institute has noted: a long line of fusion center and DHS reports labeling broad swaths of the public as a threat to national security.

The North Texas Fusion System labeled Muslim lobbyists as a potential threat; a DHS analyst in Wisconsin thought both pro- and anti-abortion activists were worrisome; a Pennsylvania homeland security contractor watched environmental activists, Tea Party groups, and a Second Amendment rally; the Maryland State Police put anti-death penalty and anti-war activists in a federal terrorism database; a fusion center in Missouri thought that all third-party voters and Ron Paul supporters were a threat; and the Department of Homeland Security described half of the American political spectrum as "right wing extremists.

"[16]A 2007 ACLU report raised concerns with four areas of fusion center aspects, the first of which was that they suffered from "ambiguous lines of authority", meaning that the fusion process "allows the authorities to manipulate differences in federal, state and local laws to maximize information collection while evading accountability and oversight through the practice of 'policy shopping'."

[18] An ACLU spokesperson compared the fusion centers initiative with Operation TIPS because of the involvement of private Terrorism Liaison Officers.

[21] According to the Department of Homeland Security:[22] [T]he Privacy Office has identified a number of risks to privacy presented by the fusion center program: In early April 2009, the Virginia Fusion Center came under criticism for publishing a terrorism threat assessment which stated that certain universities are potential hubs for terror related activity.

"[25][26] A lawsuit alleges that a Washington State Fusion Center employee added members of the Port Militarization Resistance to the domestic terrorists list on unsubstantiated grounds.