That IG Report On The FBI
Last week I posted on FBI Director Robert Mueller's attempt to defuse the impact of a pending Inspector General's report on the agency's improper use of "national security letters" to obtain records. He pointed out in testimony to Congress that the report covers a period before the FBI instituted reforms to stop the improprieties. Well, the report is now out, and I can see why Mr. Mueller made the effort. From an AP report published in today's NY Times:
Top-level FBI counterterrorism executives issued improper blanket demands in 2006 for records of 3,860 telephone lines to justify the fact that agents already had obtained the data using an illegal procedure that is now prohibited, the Justice Department inspector general reported Thursday.
Glenn A. Fine also reported that in one case FBI anti-terrorism agents circumvented a federal court which twice had refused a warrant for personal records because the judges believed the agents were investigating conduct protected by the First Amendment. Fine said the agents got the records using national security letters, which do not require a judge's approval, without altering or re-examining the basis of their suspicions -- the target's association with others under investigation. [Emphasis added]
While Mr. Mueller may be correct in his pointing to the fact that since the period under review in the report, the FBI has instituted changes which make such "mistakes" harder to make, I'm still sceptical about the FBI's intentions. The two examples listed in the lede to the article point more to a mind-set, a culture, if you will, than they do to mere procedural gaffes. That senior officials within the FBI signed off on each of those attempts to circumvent the Constitutional guarantees only heightens my suspicions.
The only way I can see to avoid any expansion of this illegal domestic spying is for Congress to do more than simply hold hearings and bloviate endlessly on sloppy information gathering. Some detailed laws prohibiting the use of the national security letters in lieu of a court-approved subpoena would be a nice start. Of course, that would nullify a rather wide section of the Patriot Act, so maybe consideration should also be given to the repeal of all the iterations of that abomination.
Clearly this Congress isn't up to that task. Maybe the next one will be, especially if the voters who have turned out in uncharacteristically large numbers so far continue their interests beyond January 19, 2009.
Top-level FBI counterterrorism executives issued improper blanket demands in 2006 for records of 3,860 telephone lines to justify the fact that agents already had obtained the data using an illegal procedure that is now prohibited, the Justice Department inspector general reported Thursday.
Glenn A. Fine also reported that in one case FBI anti-terrorism agents circumvented a federal court which twice had refused a warrant for personal records because the judges believed the agents were investigating conduct protected by the First Amendment. Fine said the agents got the records using national security letters, which do not require a judge's approval, without altering or re-examining the basis of their suspicions -- the target's association with others under investigation. [Emphasis added]
While Mr. Mueller may be correct in his pointing to the fact that since the period under review in the report, the FBI has instituted changes which make such "mistakes" harder to make, I'm still sceptical about the FBI's intentions. The two examples listed in the lede to the article point more to a mind-set, a culture, if you will, than they do to mere procedural gaffes. That senior officials within the FBI signed off on each of those attempts to circumvent the Constitutional guarantees only heightens my suspicions.
The only way I can see to avoid any expansion of this illegal domestic spying is for Congress to do more than simply hold hearings and bloviate endlessly on sloppy information gathering. Some detailed laws prohibiting the use of the national security letters in lieu of a court-approved subpoena would be a nice start. Of course, that would nullify a rather wide section of the Patriot Act, so maybe consideration should also be given to the repeal of all the iterations of that abomination.
Clearly this Congress isn't up to that task. Maybe the next one will be, especially if the voters who have turned out in uncharacteristically large numbers so far continue their interests beyond January 19, 2009.
Labels: Domestic Spying, Fourth Amendment, Justice Department
posted by Diane at 4:18 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home