DOJ Inspector General Says FBI Actively Preventing Him From Doing His Job
from the no-accountability dept
Rogue agency? The FBI seems to fit the description:
The Justice Department's inspector general said Tuesday that his staff is routinely blocked from getting access to documents it needs for audits and reviews of the department and its law enforcement agencies…Yeah. Not even an organizational chart. The FBI, which can't seem to decide whether it likes law enforcement or counterterrorism better, won't even hand over that info. It's incredibly hard to investigate an agency that stonewalls its superiors with as much fervor as it does FOIA requesters.
In the last few years, the FBI has denied access to records that should be provided under federal law, including grand jury materials, an organizational chart and electronic surveillance information, [Inspector General Michael] Horowitz testified.
As it stands now, the FBI routes the Inspector General through its legal counsel. Then a whole lot of nothing happens until the Attorney General's office gets involved and demands the release of information. This stonewalling goes on for years.
He said the refusal to grant routine requests stalls investigations, including a recent one on FBI material witnesses, such that officials who are under review have sometimes retired or left the agencies before the report is complete.It's another one-way street of information by a government agency. FOIA requesters and the DOJ's Inspector General get nothing. The FBI gets everything it demands, via subpoenas, FISA court orders and National Security Letters. In addition, the FBI actively interjects itself into state-level FOI requests, ordering local law enforcement agencies to withhold information on cell tower spoofers and other "sensitive" equipment -- even going so far as to help them with parallel construction.
There's nothing defensible here. The Inspector General should be able to see whatever it asks for. Anything deemed sensitive can be redacted from the eventual report. But handling requests for information the way the FBI does insulates it from accountability -- an essential element of its "bargain" with the public. Everything it has -- from its power to its budget -- derives from the people. And in return, the people are getting nothing back, even those at the supposed top of the accountability chain.
The Attorney General needs to rein the agency in, rather than intercede only when asked to by the OIG. There's obviously a problem here but it appears those with the actual power to fix it are simply letting the agency slide. The FBI -- especially in its new counterterrorism capacity -- has too much power to be allowed this much leeway.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: doj, fbi, inspector general, investigations
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
#problemsolved
#missionaccomplished
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That depends on what definition you use. For example: "Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens are meant to participate equally – either directly or, through elected representatives, indirectly – in the proposal, development and establishment of the laws by which their society is run." The US qualifies under that definition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That section effectively forced non-slave states to respect the property rights of slaveholders from slave states as well as respecting contracts of indentured servitude written up in states where such things were legal.
A more recognised section would be from Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 3 which reads, in yet another repealed part:
The "three fifths of all other Persons" in that quote are slaves. Once again, no mention by name but the intent was there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sinking ship
This is just another example of Rattus rattus domesticus fleeing the sinking ship of state. "While I tried, but my hands were tied."
How many government criminals are going to run, claiming it was all the other guys fault, before someone actually gets held accountable for their actions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Attorney General Holder does not believe in oversight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Inspector
If he was a real inspector then he would have put the fear of God up them and they would never have responded like this.
A real inspector would have the power to sack their senoir management - bring in an outside consultant to run them - or even just shut them down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i will repeat this truism until my dying day...
even our 'public' institutions are more secret than open...
because, um, MOTHERFUCKIN' EAGLES, bitchez...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mistake number one...
Bring 30 or 40 well-equipped friends from the Ferguson, MO police department... the "git 'r' done" squad!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mistake number one...
It would be interesting if the OIG had an armed force of its own, and the FBI knew that they had the authority to come into FBI headquarters and take what they needed, and arrest anyone who didn't cooperate. I think they would get a very different response.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why choose?
Why choose when you can perfectly well counterterrorize the public with judicious law enforcement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's one thing for them to stonewall, but a flat out statement that his 'authority' is useless, and they'll do whatever they please, that is quite another thing altogether, and much harder for the government to ignore, like it currently 'ignores' how multiple government agencies believe themselves above all the laws, and act accordingly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In fact, if War Measures Laws were in force, their actions would not even elicit a reprimand from the White House....
.....oh yeah, that's right.
None of the actions of Any Government Agency since 9/11 has elicited even a reprimand from the White House.
Go figger eh.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
.....oh yeah, that's right.
None of the actions of Any Government Agency since 9/11 has elicited even a reprimand from the White House.
If p then q does not imply that if q then p. Just sayin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
True. No argument offered. It was merely an observation.
However, when only one explanation fits all the observed events, it is wiser to give that explanation at least a cursory examination, than to dismiss it out of hand, simply because it is not the explanation expected.
In my opinion only of course. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, but of course this is not one of those times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your response is True, only if you ignore the first half of the comment which discusses the secret initiation of War Measures, which is of course, what I was referring to when I wrote: "However, when only one explanation fits all the observed events..."
If however, you ignore that and respond only to the part (not being reprimanded by the White House), as being what I meant by one explanation, then your response: (Yes, but of course this is not one of those times.), is quite accurate.
Slightly underhanded and misleading, but correct nonetheless. :)
You might want to leave that sort of thing to Whatever. He actually gets paid for it.
Note:
Apologies for all the brackets, but quotation marks and html are suddenly not working in the editor.
Quotes give me È, and html brackets give me ' and ".
Since Shift+Period (closing html bracket) gives me a quote character, I cut and pasted it above in the text, and used round brackets instead of using italics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Slightly underhanded and misleading, but correct nonetheless.
It's a bit arrogant and dickish to assume that someone challenging you is being dishonest about it. If you want a potentially productive conversation, assume good faith and think about what the other person's perspective might be that leads them to their conclusion. And if you don't understand it, ask questions rather than slinging accusations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you were also referring to the first part of the post, then all you're saying is:
That (if p then q) just because secretly enacted War Measures Laws would explain why the USG appears to be acting outside the law with impunity, it does not necessarily mean (if q then p) that the USG acting outside the law with impunity necessitates the secret enactment of War Measure laws.
Translated: "Might be. Might not be."
Hardly what I would call material for "a potentially productive conversation".
I did not state that this was written in stone.
I thought I'd made it quite clear that I offer conjecture based on extrapolation of current facts; not biblical revelations, and that I don't bother including the "may be" and "could be" phrases that apologize for propaganda and misinformation.
p equals q better than anything else I've seen offered.
That q does not absolutely prove p is a given, simply due to the secret nature of the entire subject matter.
I'm not at all sure what you mean by productive conversation, especially when the follow up negates the entire idea out of hand without even a hint as to rationale behind the claim.
"Yes, but of course this is not one of those times."
Translated: "Can't happen here. (Tongue in cheek)"
Perhaps we should simply agree to disagree, as this appears to be your sole basis for response to date.
I am more than willing to forgo any future discussions of this sort, and, I suspect, you are as well, since, unless you're gathering brownie points from some fan-group, it accomplishes nothing.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
GE, nasch says:
If you want a potentially productive conversation, assume good faith
This is taken from the TD nasch exception clause, but its only half of that clause, which, on a compmete reading states:
If you want a potentially productive conversation, assume good faith WITH ANYONE OTHER THAN nasch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What do you think they've been doing up to now? This is what happens when OIG investigates the FBI. You think it would be different if they started another investigation to investigate the first investigation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SOP
I'm certain similar conditions were put into place during the reigns of every other dictatorial fascist government throughout human history, where fear of public uprising existed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]