FBI misuses authority according to DOJ IG Glen Fine and Washington Post

alan

New member
FBI Found to Misuse Security Letters
2003-06 Audit Cites Probes of Citizens

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 14, 2008; A03



The FBI has increasingly used administrative orders to obtain the personal records of U.S. citizens rather than foreigners implicated in terrorism or counterintelligence investigations, and at least once it relied on such orders to obtain records that a special intelligence-gathering court had deemed protected by the First Amendment, according to two government audits released yesterday.

The episode was outlined in a Justice Department report that concluded the FBI had abused its intelligence-gathering privileges by issuing inadequately documented "national security letters" from 2003 to 2006, after which changes were put in place that the report called sound.

A report a year ago by the Justice Department's inspector general disclosed that abuses involving national security letters had occurred from 2003 through 2005 and helped provoke the changes. But the report makes it clear that the abuses persisted in 2006 and disclosed that 60 percent of the nearly 50,000 security letters issued that year by the FBI targeted Americans.

Because U.S. citizens enjoy constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, judicial warrants are ordinarily required for government surveillance. But national security letters are approved only by FBI officials and are not subject to judicial approval; they routinely demand certain types of personal data, such as telephone, e-mail and financial records, while barring the recipient from disclosing that the information was requested or supplied.

According to the findings by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine, the FBI tried to work around the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which oversees clandestine spying in the United States, after it twice rejected an FBI request in 2006 to obtain certain records. The court had concluded "the 'facts' were too thin" and the "request implicated the target's First Amendment rights," the report said.

But the FBI went ahead and got the records anyway by using a national security letter. The FBI's general counsel, Valerie E. Caproni, told investigators it was appropriate to issue the letters in such cases because she disagreed with the court's conclusions.

In total, Fine said, the FBI issued almost 200,000 national security letters from 2003 through 2006, and they were used in a third of all FBI national security and computer probes during that time. Fine said his investigators have identified hundreds of possible violations of laws or internal guidelines in the use of the letters, including cases in which FBI agents made improper requests, collected more data than they were allowed to, or did not have proper authorization to proceed with the case.

Fine also pointed to the FBI's "troubling" use of the letters to obtain vast quantities of telephone numbers or other records with a single request. Investigators identified 11 such cases, involving information related to about 4,000 phone numbers, that did not comply with USA Patriot Act requirements or that violated FBI guidelines.

The latest findings reignited long-standing criticism from Democrats and civil liberties groups, who said the FBI's repeated misuse of its information-gathering powers underscores the need for greater oversight by Congress and the courts.

"The fact that these are being used against U.S. citizens, and being used so aggressively, should call into question the claim that these powers are about terrorists and not just about collecting information on all kinds of people," said Jameel Jaffer, national security director at the American Civil Liberties Union. "They're basically using national security letters to evade legal requirements that would be enforced if there were judicial oversight."

Justice spokesman Dean Boyd said in a statement that Fine's report "should come as no surprise" because the survey ended in 2006, before the FBI introduced procedural changes to better control and keep track of requests for the security letters.

FBI Assistant Director John Miller said a new automated system will keep better tabs on the letters, and they are now reviewed by a lawyer before they are sent to a telephone company, Internet service provider or other target. "We are committed to using them in ways that maximize their national security value while providing the highest level of privacy and protection of the civil liberties of those we are sworn to protect," Miller said.

Fine said that FBI employees "self-reported" 84 possible violations of laws or guidelines in the use of the letters, in 2006, which "was significantly higher than the number of reported violations in prior years." But he noted that his office already had begun its initial investigation into the letters by then, which might have contributed to the increase.

About a quarter of the reported incidents were because of mistakes made by telephone or Internet providers, including some in which they provided either the wrong information or disclosed more than the FBI requested. But many of those cases should have been caught by the FBI earlier, Fine said.

Questions:

1. Have errant individuals at FBI been punished or promoted?
2. What's involved here? A few "hot dogs" abusing authority or do we see institutional problems, a more serious situation?
3. Re "mistakes" made by companies receiving these NSL's, why the "mistakes" in the first place? These telephone and Internet providers all have legal departments, don't they, or might they be so in awe of "the feds" that the courage of their convictions, assuming that any such existed, collapsed given the arrival of NSL's? Don't major corporations know what they are doing, or might that be a dumb question?
 
According to the findings by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine, the FBI tried to work around the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which oversees clandestine spying in the United States, after it twice rejected an FBI request in 2006 to obtain certain records. The court had concluded "the 'facts' were too thin" and the "request implicated the target's First Amendment rights," the report said.

But the FBI went ahead and got the records anyway by using a national security letter. The FBI's general counsel, Valerie E. Caproni, told investigators it was appropriate to issue the letters in such cases because she disagreed with the court's conclusions.

Some oversight.

FBI Assistant Director John Miller said a new automated system will keep better tabs on the letters, and they are now reviewed by a lawyer before they are sent to a telephone company, Internet service provider or other target.

Oh, so there IS oversight after all. I feel so much better. It's all reviewed by an FBI lawyer! Back in the dark days of 2003-2006, the FBI had no lawyers at all, so it is "no surprise" that national security letters were abused, but I'm sure the lawyers have put a stop to all of that. Whew!
 
Silver Bullet wrote:

I'm thinking it might be more interesting to site a government agency that isn't abusing their authority.

-------------------------------

Yes, it might be interesting to cite such a government agency, assuming that there were any such to cite. The question one might ask is the following. Are there any such to place on a listing of "good guys". I don't kinow.
 
Yes, it might be interesting to cite such a government agency, assuming that there were any such to cite.
The Postal Service is the only one I can think of.:p I don't know about everyone else, but I have had very good experience with them over the years. Flat rate Priority Mail kicks ass.:cool:
 
Crosshair is just being nice because postal employees might go postal on him otherwise. ;)

I'd name the National Parks Service as an agency that seems pretty well behaved. None of which has anything to do with the topic at hand: the lack of oversight enabled by these "national security letters" the FBI is issuing.

Don't like the judgment of a FISA Court? Hit the "admin override" button on it when you disagree, and it magically goes away!
 
"I'm thinking it might be more interesting to site a government agency that isn't abusing their authority."

I am sure that most of the general public feels this way.
 
Remember when we were talking about this last year and they all called us paranoid?
tinfoil%20(550%20x%20374).jpg

Looking back on it with the allegations confirmed...

It's still not funny.
 
GoSlash27 posted a picture that didn't copy (see post #9), along with the following.

Remember when we were talking about this last year and they all called us paranoid?

Looking back on it with the allegations confirmed...

It's still not funny.
__________________
REVOL UTION
"I don't mind playing a key role in the revolution, but it has to be more than just a 'Ron Paul' revolution."-Dr. Ron Paul
"the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism"-Ronald Reagan
"I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed'' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible."-Sen. Barry Goldwater

----------------------------------

A paranoid person has been described as a person who claims that others are "out to get them". Interesting, in view of FBI Hi Jinks, which leads to the following question. How does one describe the claimant when circumstances show their claims to be correct.
 
But national security letters are approved only by FBI officials and are not subject to judicial approval; they routinely demand certain types of personal data, such as telephone, e-mail and financial records, while barring the recipient from disclosing that the information was requested or supplied.

Does anyone know how long these gag orders remain in effect? Is there a time limit, or are some government surveillance actions never to be subject to public review?
 
GoSlash27, quoting my post asks:
Quote:
How does one describe the claimant when circumstances show their claims to be correct?

In real life or on the internet?

Whichever of the above mentioned you choose.
 
Alan,
Well in real life they generally refer to the claimant as "vindicated".
On the internet (particularly where politics is involved) they're more likely to refer to the claimant as an anti-American terrorist sympathizer. Possibly a closet communist.

At least that's been my experience thus far...:D
 
Not to worry. When it's Hillary's thumb on that "admin override" button, we'll see a renewal of skepticism about government without oversight.
 
I think he was kidding, alan. ;)

This thread does seem oddly devoid of soothing voices telling us that the government is acting responsibly, and there is adequate oversight, and anyone who is not a terrorist has nothing to worry about.
 
NO ONE - and I do mean NO ONE - should be surprised at this at all... :barf: :mad:

In general, the blind naysayers are utter fools. They lack the motivation and intellectual honesty to investigate things for themselves. I cannot speak for those who ridiculed you on this as I've not read the threads and I have no knowledge of their belief systems, but it's not at all uncommon; too common, actually.

The law is being used to put everything in place (as I've been barking about for years) and highly educated persons refuse to see for self. I was laughed and ridiculed when I questioned the defenses of the US homeland. Well, WTC I and 9/11 hasn't "vindicated" me amongst these idiots; they claim that they "knew it was possible all along". BS! They are liars. MANY of the blind naysayers are. That said, it does take a helluva lot of understanding to decipher much of the material you may present. They don't have it because they don't study it. So I understand where they may be coming from.

Others are cowards. They cannot rest well with the idea that persons in powerful positions collectively wish them harm. :rolleyes:

It shall be a very rough ride - and ever-increasing - from here on out. Most of it will be "self-generated" some will come from outside sources.
 
But national security letters are approved only by FBI officials and are not subject to judicial approval; they routinely demand certain types of personal data, such as telephone, e-mail and financial records, while barring the recipient from disclosing that the information was requested or supplied.

The jackboot prints on the Constitution really don't look good.

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
...
4. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

You can't talk about what the government is doing with these "national security" letters, and they're clearly rifling through the modern equivalent of "papers and effects" without showing probable cause. This is the kind of thing that made the Founders think we needed a powerful citizen militia...

Federalist 29, Hamilton:
if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an
army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties
of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at
all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready
to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This
appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing
army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.

They wanted to keep the fedgov scared of abusing the rights of the people. In retrospect, that would have been a good idea, it seems....
 
Back
Top