Assistant Attorney General David Kris is joining Seattle-based Intellectual Ventures, a technology investment company headed by former Microsoft Corp. executive Nathan Myhrvold.

Kris, who oversees the National Security Division, will be the firm’s general counsel, according to the company.

Intellectual Ventures, reportedly backed by $5 billion in investment funding, is what critics call a “patent troll” that buys up patents and sues other companies for infringing them. The practice is controversial, particularly regarding patents on software that many critics say should be subject to the less stringent protection of copyright to allow technological innovation.

Kris has served in a corporate law department before. He was counsel and chief ethics and compliance officer at Time Warner Inc. before the Senate confirmed him as head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division in March 2009.

Kris will remain in his current post until March 4. A Department of Justice official said Kris picked a two-month lead time to ensure a smooth transition, and emphasized that there is a “deep bench” in the division. An acting Assistant Attorney General hasn’t been selected yet, the official said, adding that ultimately a nominee would be submitted to the Senate for confirmation.

“We’re very sad to see David go,” the official said.

The National Security Division was created after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks to coordinate anti-terrorism and other security-related law enforcement.

A Pennsylvania woman who allegedly tried to recruit terrorists online and traveled to Europe to kill a Swedish citizen faces federal charges, according to an indictment unsealed Tuesday.

Colleen R. LaRose of Montgomery County, Pa., was charged last week with conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists, conspiracy to kill in a foreign country, making false statements to a government official and attempted identity theft.

According to a Justice Department news release, five unindicted co-conspirators — including at least one other person in the United States — “used the Internet to establish relationships with one another and to communicate regarding their plans, which included martyring themselves, soliciting funds for terrorists, soliciting passports and avoiding travel restrictions… in order to wage violent jihad.”

Under the YouTube user name “JihadJane” — an account that now appears to have been suspended — LaRose posted a comment that appeared sympathetic to the jihad cause, according to the indictment.

In later communications with the unindicted co-conspirators, LaRose wrote that her physical appearance would allow her to “blend in with many people,” which “may be a way to achieve what is in my heart,” the indictment states.

Last March, LaRose also agreed to kill the Swedish resident, stating that “I will make this my goal till I achieve it or die trying.” According to the indictment, the FBI interviewed LaRose in July and she allegedly lied to them about soliciting money for terrorism and posting comments to terrorist Web sites.

LaRose also allegedly stole another person’s passport and performed online searches of the person she was instructed to kill, according to the indictment.

“This case shows the use terrorists can and do make of the Internet,” Michael L. Levy, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, said in a statement. “Colleen LaRose and five other individuals scattered across the globe are alleged to have used the Internet to form a conspiracy to provide material support to terrorism, culminating in a direct order to LaRose to commit murder overseas. LaRose – an American citizen whose appearance was considered to be an asset because it allowed her to blend in – is charged with using the Internet to recruit violent jihadist fighters and supporters, and to solicit passports and funding. It demonstrates yet another very real danger lurking on the Internet. This case also demonstrates that terrorists are looking for Americans to join them in their cause, and it shatters any lingering thought that we can spot a terrorist based on appearance.”

News release below, followed by embedded indictment.

PENNSYLVANIA WOMAN INDICTED IN PLOT TO RECRUIT VIOLENT JIHADIST FIGHTERS AND TO COMMIT MURDER OVERSEAS

WASHINGTON – David Kris, Assistant Attorney General for National Security, and Michael L. Levy, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, together with Janice K. Fedarcyk, Special Agent-in-Charge of the FBI in Philadelphia, today announced the unsealing of an indictment charging Colleen R. LaRose, aka “Fatima LaRose,” aka “Jihad Jane,” with conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists, conspiracy to kill in a foreign country, making false statements to a government official and attempted identity theft.

The indictment charges that LaRose (an American citizen born in 1963 who resides in Montgomery County, Pa.) and five unindicted co-conspirators (located in South Asia, Eastern Europe, Western Europe and the United States) recruited men on the Internet to wage violent jihad in South Asia and Europe, and recruited women on the Internet who had passports and the ability to travel to and around Europe in support of violent jihad.

The indictment further charges that LaRose and her unindicted co-conspirators used the Internet to establish relationships with one another and to communicate regarding their plans, which included martyring themselves, soliciting funds for terrorists, soliciting passports and avoiding travel restrictions (through the collection of passports and through marriage) in order to wage violent jihad. The indictment further charges that LaRose stole another individual’s U.S. passport and transferred or attempted to transfer it in an effort to facilitate an act of international terrorism.

In addition, according to the indictment, LaRose received a direct order to kill a citizen and resident of Sweden, and to do so in a way that would frighten “the whole Kufar [non-believer] world.” The indictment further charges that LaRose agreed to carry out her murder assignment, and that she and her co-conspirators discussed that her appearance and American citizenship would help her blend in while carrying out her plans. According to the indictment, LaRose traveled to Europe and tracked the intended target online in an effort to complete her task.

“Today’s indictment, which alleges that a woman from suburban America agreed to carry out murder overseas and to provide material support to terrorists, underscores the evolving nature of the threat we face,” said David Kris, Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division. “I applaud the many agents, analysts and prosecutors who worked on this important investigation.”

“This case shows the use terrorists can and do make of the Internet,” said U.S. Attorney Michael L. Levy. “Colleen LaRose and five other individuals scattered across the globe are alleged to have used the Internet to form a conspiracy to provide material support to terrorism, culminating in a direct order to LaRose to commit murder overseas. LaRose – an American citizen whose appearance was considered to be an asset because it allowed her to blend in – is charged with using the Internet to recruit violent jihadist fighters and supporters, and to solicit passports and funding. It demonstrates yet another very real danger lurking on the Internet. This case also demonstrates that terrorists are looking for Americans to join them in their cause, and it shatters any lingering thought that we can spot a terrorist based on appearance.”

“This case demonstrates that the FBI and our partners in the law enforcement and intelligence communities must continue to remain vigilant in the face of the threats that America faces, in whatever form those threats may present themselves or no matter how creative those who threaten us try to be,” said Special Agent-in-Charge Janice K. Fedarcyk of the Philadelphia Division of the FBI. “We must use all available technologies and techniques to root out potential threats and stop those who intend to harm us.”

If convicted of the charges against her, LaRose faces a potential sentence of life in prison and a $1 million fine.

This case was investigated by the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force. It is being prosecuted by Jennifer Arbittier Williams, Assistant U.S. Attorney from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and Matthew F. Blue, Trial Attorney from the Counterterrorism Section in the Justice Department’s National Security Division.

The public is reminded that an indictment is an accusation and a defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Indictment 1

The people — 145 of them, anyway — have spoken.

PollDaddy.com

B. Todd Jones (Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi)

Main Justice polled readers last month on their choice for a new Deputy Attorney General. The survey registered a decisive, er, 14-vote victory for Minnesota’s B. Todd Jones, a repeat U.S. Attorney and chairman of the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee of U.S. Attorneys.

Jones first served as U.S. Attorney in Minnesota from 1998 to 2001. He sat out the Bush administration, as a partner at Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi in Minneapolis specializing in complex business litigation and corporate criminal defense.

Jones was confirmed again as U.S. Attorney in August, and shortly thereafter Attorney General Eric Holder tapped him to chair the AGAC, a powerful policy body that meets with top department officials about once every six weeks.

Last month, Acting Deputy Attorney General Gary Grindler replaced David Ogden, who left over his differences with the Attorney General.

For more on the other candidates, read our earlier post.

The DAG candidates, from top left: Gary Grindler; David Kris; B. Todd Jones; Daniel Marcus; Thomas Perrelli; and Christine Varney. (Main Justice compilation)

In his “In the Loop Column” today, The Washington Post’s Al Kamen notes a new candidate for Deputy Attorney General: American University law school professor Dan Marcus, who was general counsel to the 9/11 Commission.

During the Clinton administration, he held several senior positions in the Justice Department, including Associate Attorney General. He appears to be something of a consensus candidate — a former senior counsel in the White House who is well-received in the law enforcement community.

Other hopefuls, according to Kamen and our own reporting, include acting Deputy Attorney General Gary Grindler, current Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli and Assistant Attorney General for National Security David Kris.

Grindler’s front-office experience gives him a leg up, and he’s more than proven his law enforcement chops. Kris, too, is a well-regarded manager and, inarguably, one the department’s top minds on national security — an obvious strength in the current climate (or any climate, for that matter). But the White House is said to favor someone with more political savvy.

Perrelli is a popular manager with strong ties to the White House. His candidacy apparently suffers for the reason above, only flipped: He may be too close to Obama, and coupled with Holder’s proximity to the President, the Justice Department could have an appearance problem.

Our dark horse: Christine Varney, Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust. She’s also said to be an internal candidate, and she’s very ambitious. On the merits, she also has strong management experience and a lot of political clout, but her lack of law enforcement bona fides is an obvious strike.

Honorable mention: B. Todd Jones, the U.S. Attorney for Minnesota. (And also a name uttered on the Fifth Floor.) He was U.S. Attorney during the Clinton administration, which makes him a more traditional pick: It’s a long-standing practice to pluck DAGs from the 94 prosecutor offices. And he’s chairman of the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee of U.S. Attorney, a key policy role.

Tips are welcomed. Vote below for your pick on our current batch of candidates.

The Justice Department wants to bar the public from a federal district court hearing in D.C. on Jan. 7 in the Blackwater criminal case because the proceeding may result in the disclosure of classified information, reports the Blog of Legal Times. The department’s justification for the request came in a court affidavit filed today.

According to the blog, Justice Department officials “filed a motion Dec. 3 in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia so that the court can determine the use, relevance and admissibility of classified information in the prosecution of five Blackwater security guards, who are charged in the shooting deaths of 17 Iraqi civilians.” Much of the Blackwater litigation has been conducted under seal and in closed courtrooms.

David Kris, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s National Security Division, said today in an affidavit that the Jan. 7 hearing should be held in camera. Kris was acting on behalf of Holder pursuant to the Classified Information Procedures Act. Kris said his request is based on his knowledge of the evidence and based on discussions he has had with other Justice officials. (Click here for Kris’ affidavit.)

The House Judiciary Committee endorsed legislation today that would reauthorize two of three expiring Patriot Act provisions that expanded the government’s powers in counter-terrorism investigations.

The panel voted 16 to 10 along party lines to allow the “lone wolf” provision to sunset at the end of the year and reauthorize the records and “roving wiretap” powers. The panel also voted to put more restrictions on so-called national security letters, which are used by the FBI to obtain evidence without a court order.

Here’s what The USA Patriot Amendment Act of 2009 as reported out of committee would do to the expiring Patriot Act provisions:

• Lone wolf: The bill would not extend authority allowing the government to track a target who has no discernible affiliation to a foreign power, such as an international terrorist group. The provision only applies to non-U.S. persons. It has never been used by the government.
• Records: The legislation would continue to allow the government to compel third parties — including financial, travel and telephone companies — to provide access to a suspect’s records. But the bill would place some new restrictions on this authority. Republicans have been especially critical of language in the bill that would make it much more difficult for the government to obtain periodical or book records from libraries or bookstores if the documents would identify patrons. The panel failed to adopt an amendment yesterday from Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.) that would have eliminated the language on obtaining book records from periodical or book records from libraries or bookstores.
• Roving wiretaps: The bill would continue to allow the government to monitor phone lines or Internet accounts that a terrorism suspect may be using. But the legislation would add more controls. The bill would restrict the roving wiretap to a specific individual, foreign agent or foreign power. Civil liberties groups have expressed concern that this authority doesn’t hold the government accountable if it monitors unintended targets.

Panel Republicans sharply criticized the legislation as harmful to national security. Republicans also expressed frustration that Conyers did not hold a full committee public hearing after the bill was introduced Oct. 20.

A House Judiciary subcommittee held a hearing with National Security Division Deputy Assistant Attorney General Todd Hinnen on the expiring provisions before the legislation was introduced. The full panel held a closed-door hearing with National Security Division chief David Kris on the sunsetting powers last Thursday.

“I am disappointed we did not have a public hearing on this bill,” House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said yesterday when the bill markup began. “The committee should not take up such important legislation without first fully examining the bill and receiving substantive input from the administration’s national security experts.”

The committee’s minority members held a forum on the legislation Tuesday. Bush administration officials Rachel Brand, who headed the Office of Legal Policy; and Will Moschella, who was an Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs, spoke against the bill at the Capitol Hill meeting.

“The bill before us may not be perfect. Few bills are,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) said said yesterday when the bill markup began. “But it greatly protects the privacy and freedom of Americans and preserves at the same time critical surveillence powers.”

The Justice Department has said it supports the reauthorization of all the expiring Patriot Act provisions, but it has declined to comment on any changes to the powers. The legislation endorsed by the Senate Judiciary Committee extends all the sunsetted provisions, while putting tighter controls on the powers.

David Kris addresses the ACS. (Steve Bagley for Main Justice)

Assistant Attorney General David Kris made the case for the National Security Division’s robust powers on Thursday.

At a conference sponsored by the liberal American Constitution Society, Kris told a few jokes. But he also gave a serious argument: The Department of Justice works better when it has more power.

As the  audience hunched over box lunches, Kris defended the three-year-old division, which was created by a Patriot Act revision in 2006. He praised the post 9/11 tearing down of what had become known as the “wall” between intelligence gathering under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and criminal prosecution.

The FISA wall “made it harder to identify law enforcement methods,” Kris said. “If law enforcement is off the table and you’re looking elsewhere, you’re going to have to resort to solutions that may not be as appealing from a civil liberties standpoint.”

Before 9/11, the FBI and CIA were often working at cross purposes, Kris said.  ”You’d have these two separate, but equal squads not coordinated. It made it difficult for the government to connect the dots.”

Kris said he’s worked hard to break down barriers among intelligence and law enforcement agencies. After he was sworn in as head of the division in April, Kris said his mantra, repeated in staff meetings, was “synergy!”

Kris said the division provides oversight that should assuage civil liberties concerns.  ”It’s not really a very serious rallying cry, but it does make sense: bring in the lawyers,” Kris said.

Senate Democrats joined their House counterparts today in questioning the Obama administration’s broad support of three expiring Patriot Act provisions that expand the government’s powers in counter-terrorism investigations.

David Kris (Harvard Law)

Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats pushed National Security Division Assistant Attorney General David Kris to comment today on proposed legislation that puts stipulations on the reauthorization of Patriot Act powers that sunset at the end of the year, The Associated Press reported. Panel Chair Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) introduced legislation yesterday that reapproves the provisions, but allows Congress and the public to better monitor the use of the powers.

Kris said the Justice Department does not have an official position on the bill beyond the administration’s support of reauthorizing the expiring provisions, according to The AP. The Assistant Attorney General said in his written testimony that the Justice Department is “ready and willing to work with members … to craft legislation that both provides effective investigative authorities and protects privacy and civil liberties.” National Security Division Deputy Assistant Attorney General Todd Hinnen also refused to take a position on possible changes to the provisions, which frustrated Democrats at a House Judiciary Constitution, civil rights and civil liberties subcommittee meeting yesterday.

Here’s a summary of the provisions:

• Lone wolf: Allows government to track a target without any discernible affiliation to a foreign power, such as an international terrorist group. The provision only applies only to non-U.S. persons. It has never been used in a FISA application.
• Business records: Allows investigators to compel third parties, including financial services and travel and telephone companies, to provide them access to a suspect’s records without the suspect’s knowledge. From 2004 to 2007, the FISA court issued about 220 orders to produce business records.
• Roving wiretaps: Allows the government to monitor phone lines or Internet accounts that a terrorism suspect may be using, whether or not others who are not suspects also regularly use them. The government must provide the FISA court with specific information showing the suspect is purposely switching means of communication to evade detection. The government has applied for roving wiretaps an average of 22 times a year since 2001.

Leahy said, according to The AP, that the administration’s position keeps “the cards … rather stacked” in favor of the government.

Kris responded, according to the news wire, “We’re willing to look to see if these tools can be sharpened.”

Like the House Republicans, Senate Republicans supported the Justice Department’s position on the provisions. Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said there is no indication that “there have been any abuses to date,” according to The AP.

Democrats have long been skeptical of whether the Bush administration abused the Patriot Act powers and national security letters, which the FBI uses to obtain evidence without a court order. The Leahy bill and legislation introduced by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) would put more restrictions on the letters.

DOJ Inspector General Glenn Fine said in his written testimony to the committee today that the Office of Inspector General found the FBI initially did not “take seriously enough its responsibility to ensure that these letters were used in accord with the law, Attorney General Guidelines, or FBI policies.” But the FBI has taken steps to correct it use of the letters, he said.

“We … believe that as Congress considers reauthorizing provisions of the Patriot Act, it must ensure through continual and aggressive oversight that the FBI uses these important and intrusive investigative authorities appropriately,” Fine wrote in his testimony.

A Justice Department official Tuesday gave the Obama administration’s case for reauthorizing three expiring Patriot Act provisions that expand the government’s powers in counter-terrorism investigations. But House Judiciary Committee Democrats weren’t entirely convinced.

Todd Hinnen (Main Justice)

Todd Hinnen, National Security Division Deputy Assistant Attorney General, told House Judiciary Committee members that roving wiretaps, the authority to access business records and the ability to track “lone-wolf” terrorists, or those without visible ties to a foreign terrorist organization, are still needed to probe suspected terrorists. The Justice Department said last week it supported the reauthorization of the three provisions that expire at the end of the year.

Here’s a little bit more about the provisions:

• Lone wolf: Allows government to track a target without any discernible affiliation to a foreign power, such as an international terrorist group. The provision only applies only to non-U.S. persons. It has never been used in a FISA application.
• Business records: Allows investigators to compel third parties, including financial services and travel and telephone companies, to provide them access to a suspect’s records without the suspect’s knowledge. From 2004 to 2007, the FISA court issued about 220 orders to produce business records.
• Roving wiretaps: Allows the government to monitor phone lines or Internet accounts that a terrorism suspect may be using, whether or not others who are not suspects also regularly use them. The government must provide the FISA court with specific information showing the suspect is purposely switching means of communication to evade detection. The government has applied for roving wiretaps an average of 22 times a year since 2001.

Hinnen said, however, the administration is open to congressional amendments to the Patriot Act provisions, if they don’t hamper the ability of  law enforcement authorities to be effective.

House Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers (D-Mich.) said he did not support reauthorizing the provisions without making some changes to them. He and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said they were particularly concerned with the “lone wolf” provision, which has never been used.

“Now is the time to consider improving the Patriot Act, not just extending the provisions,” Conyers said at the House Judiciary constitution, civil rights and civil liberties subcommittee hearing.

Republicans said they supported the Justice Department’s position. The subcommittee ranking member, Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), even called Hinnen a “breath of fresh air.”

Conyers, however, was not as pleased with Hinnen, who has worked at the Justice Department since January.

“You know, you sound like a lot of people who come over here from DOJ, and yet you’ve been there for only a few months,” Conyers said at the hearing. “Do you think that’s a good thing or a bad thing?”

Hinnen reassured Democrats throughout his testimony that the Justice Department will be in close communication with Congress as it moves forward on Patriot Act legislation.

House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-Texas) introduced a bill in March to reauthorize the provisions.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) introduced legislation Tuesday that would also reauthorizes the provisions, but allows Congress and the public to better monitor the use of the powers.

“This hearing is only the beginning of a process working closely together to create legislation that will maintain the operational effectiveness of these important [provisions] and protect the privacy and civil liberties of the American people,” Hinnen said in his testimony before the panel.

The Obama administration is still unsure of what to do with the group of Guantanamo Bay detainees accused of involvement in the September 11 attacks. But government lawyers today said today they’d prefer to prosecute terrorism suspects in civilian courts.

David Kris (Harvard Law)

Carol Rosenberg, of the The Miami Herald, has this piece on today’s Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, which featured a panel of government lawyers, including David Kris, chief of the Justice Department’s National Security Division. (Click here for his prepared testimony.)  The hearing was held to determine how to amend the Military Commissions Act to make it “Supreme Court proof,” as Rosenberg put it. Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said the full Senate would take up the legislation next week.

”Military commissions should be a viable, ready alternative for national security reasons for those who violate the laws of war,” Pentagon General Counsel Jeh Johnson said. But, “it is the administration view that when you direct violence on innocent civilians in the continental United States, it may be appropriate that that person be brought to justice in a civilian public forum in the continental United States.”

Kris said military and civilian prosecutors were analysing the proposed commissions prosecutions on a case-by-case basis to see which venue was the best fit.

Johnson, resurrecting a Bush-era policy, said a Guantanamo detainee could be acquitted of a crime by a jury but still be held indefinitely “provided they continue to be a security threat.” He put it on federal judges weighing habeas corpus petitions in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia  to decide whether the government could defend indefinite detention, regardless of whether the captives were found innocent of a crime.

Last week, The Wall Street Journal reported that a DOJ task force considering ways to try prisoners by military commission asked the Office of Legal Counsel which constitutional rights, if any, would apply if the trials were held in the U.S.

David Barron, the acting assistant attorney general, wrote in a May 4 memorandum that there is a “serious risk” that federal courts would take a constitutional due process approach when evaluating the trials. While the courts were unlikely to require strict adherence to the Bill of Rights, Barron wrote, they would likely consider the use of coerced statements to punish defendants a violation of due process.