FBI Successfully Stonewalls Inspector General Into Irrelevance By Withholding Timely Section 215 Documents
from the you-can't-oversee-what-you-can't-actually-see dept
The FBI doesn't just stonewall FOIA requesters. It also stonewalls its in-house investigator. Remember all those deferrals to "lawful authority" and "rigorous oversight" the agency makes when not commenting on controversial surveillance programs? Those really don't mean anything if you lock out the oversight and prevent his office from verifying whether surveillance is being carried out in accordance to laws and FBI policies.
Inspector General Michael Horowitz has been fighting a courageous, but losing, battle against FBI secrecy. As the head of the DOJ's OIG office, you'd think FBI officials would throw a small amount of deference his way. But no. They don't. It has obstructed his investigative work "for years," leading to this sort of thing:
[Horowitz] 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.The FBI won't even release an organizational chart to him. Horowitz took these complaints to Congress earlier this year in hopes of prompting FBI document production by threatening its annual budget.
Section 218 of the Appropriations Act does not permit the use of funds appropriated to the Department of Justice to deny the OIG access to records in the custody of the Department unless in accordance with an express limitation of Section 6(a) of the IG Act. The IG Act, Section 6(a), does not expressly or otherwise limit the OIG's access to the categories of information the FBI maintains it must review before providing records to the OIG. For this reason, we are reporting this matter to the Appropriations Committees in conformity with Section 218.This, surprisingly, failed to have any effect -- not because the FBI might have deduced Horowitz was actually serious about obtaining the long-delayed documents, but because if there's anything government agencies fear more than a loss of power, it's a loss of funding.
Marcy Wheeler points out that -- during the ruckus surrounding the expiration of Section 215 -- the FBI again passed several of its self-imposed deadlines for document delivery.
The OIG has sent four letters to Congress to report that the FBI has failed to comply with Section 218 by refusing to provide the OIG, for reasons unrelated to any express limitation in Section 6(a) of the IG Act, with timely access to certain records in ongoing OIG reviews. Those reviews are:
- Two FBI whistleblower retaliation investigations, letter dated February 3, 2015, which is available here;
- The FBI documents related to review of the DEA’s use of administrative subpoenas, letter dated February 19, 2015, which is available here;
- The FBI’s use of information derived from collection of telephony metadata under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, letter dated February 25, 2015, which is available here; and
- The FBI’s security clearance adjudication process, letter dated March 4, 2015, which is available here.
As of March 31, 2015, the OIG document requests were outstanding in every one of the reviews and investigations that were the subject of the letters above.Of particular importance is the delay of documents related to the FBI's use of Section 215 collections. Obviously, having the chance to review this before the vote on reauthorization would have been preferable. If there were any questions about the FBI's involvement, or its use of the collected data, these observations could have potentially played a key role in the provision's renewal, not to mention contributed to the debate surrounding the USA Freedom Act.
Obviously, the FBI preferred to keep legislators in the dark about its participation in Section 215. An ill-informed legislature is more prone to rely on fear-mongering and other baseless assertions. With nothing stating otherwise, the FBI is free to operate under the illusion that its use of the program is by-the-book and that the program itself is effective and useful.
Horowitz is one of the few government officials willing to stand up to the FBI. Unfortunately, it hasn't resulted in better behavior by the agency. Apparently, the FBI feels it does best with minimal oversight and isn't inclined to let anyone -- not even its in-house inspector -- in on its domestic surveillance tactics.
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, michael horowitz, patriot act, public debate, section 215
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Very simple explanation
The FBI has the "might", so they don't have to do what the Inspector General wants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OIG without Power
Oversight should not be a placebo to the people, it should work in the spirit of checks and balances. Oversight is the check and should have sufficient power to balance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OIG without Power
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OIG without Power
If you're given responsibility, but no authority, then your job is to take the blame when things go wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: OIG without Power
If you're theoretically put in charge of something, but have no actual ability to affect it, then that means you're not supposed to change anything, but merely act as a scapegoat should things go wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OIG without Power
o·ver·sight
ˈōvərˌsīt/
noun
noun: oversight; plural noun: oversights
1.
an unintentional failure to notice or do something.
"he said his failure to pay for the tickets was an oversight"
synonyms: mistake, error, omission, lapse, slip, blunder;
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing to Fear
That's because they know it isn't going to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the fance of stonewalling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Right To Bear Arms is now The Right To Bear Butt and Bend Over
The Federal Agencies and the USG itself have done absolutely everything short of shooting people in broad daylight, to shut out any kind of public exposure of their secretive and semi-legal activities for the last ten years and more and yet the American Public still acts amazed when they ask a pertinent question of these once-upon-a-time employees and the USG or its agents simply tell them to go fuck themselves.
Its really no wonder that the USG treats the American People with disdain and utter contempt.
It is also no wonder why the rest of the world's population holds the American People in contempt and views American Society with disgust.
We The People have none to blame but themselves.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Truer Words Have Been Written
And there are very few morals exercised in acquiring both. Without oversight and the ability to act out of the public's view U.S. government officials have no qualms about doing anything to acquire both.
Cthulhu is an appropriate euphemism for our government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Plenty of blame to go around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Plenty of blame to go around
After all, don't these agencies work for We The People?
If so, then the full blame must fall on the employers, for not making sure their employees behave correctly.
Amirong?
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too bad...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is the journey of a point on a wheel, returning to its origin.
Revolution simply trades one gang of criminals masquerading as statesmen for another gang of criminals masquerading as statesmen.
With Revolution, nothing actually changes except the names of the men and women using your lives as fodder for their own personal aggrandizement.
Evolution is necessary.
Compose governments of people earning less than 50,000 per annum, who are given a publically accessible expense account and an appropriate living space for the duration of their term, but are paid at the end of their term according to their accomplishments while in office, and you have the beginning of real change.
Of course this is impossible.
Politicians and their Corporate owners would never allow it and the population has no voice in the matter. :)
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]