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

Wed, Jun 10th 2015 1:38pm — Tim Cushing

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

19 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Almost Anonymous (profile), 10 Jun 2015 @ 1:51pm

Very simple explanation
Might makes right. It's the same problem we're having with police forces all over the country.

The FBI has the "might", so they don't have to do what the Inspector General wants.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 10 Jun 2015 @ 1:54pm

OIG without Power
What is the point of an Office of Inspector General without power? Seems like it is both a waste of time and money as well as being one of those 'feel good' solutions Congress likes to come up with. Either give him the powers of say a special prosecutor (or something) or spend the money on something that will work.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jun 2015 @ 1:58pm

and people still believe the USA is the land of the free, home of the brave. when you live in a country where it's security forces do the same, almost, as is done in some other countries that are decried by the USA government, it makes you wonder where the truth is and what is actually real!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jun 2015 @ 2:08pm

Nothing to Fear
"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."

That's because they know it isn't going to happen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 10 Jun 2015 @ 2:17pm

Re: OIG without Power
Exactly so. Any 'oversight' that is incapable of ordering the ones they are overseeing to comply with their wishes, and hand out real penalties for refusal or non-compliance, is nothing more than an empty gesture, utterly useless at their job.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jun 2015 @ 2:20pm

Friendly reminder: Land of Freedom and Liberty!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jun 2015 @ 2:47pm

In the fance of stonewalling
The IG must presume that absence of evidence of compliance is evidence of absence of compliance, and issue appropriately scathing reports. "We were unable to confirm that the FBI obeyed the law in the conduct of its investigations, or that it even attempted to do so. We can only presume this office is operating outside the law, and recommend that it be shuttered."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
sigalrm (profile), 10 Jun 2015 @ 2:49pm

Re: Re: OIG without Power
There's a saying I heard years ago (I don't know who to attribute it to, or I would):

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 thread ]
Gary Mont (profile), 10 Jun 2015 @ 3:42pm

The Right To Bear Arms is now The Right To Bear Butt and Bend Over
One has to wonder exactly what it is going to take to finally convince the American Public that the federal government and its agencies no longer work for the (non-billionaire) people of the United States.

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 thread ]
Pronounce (profile), 10 Jun 2015 @ 4:19pm

No Truer Words Have Been Written
"if there's anything government agencies fear more than a loss of power, it's a loss of funding."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jun 2015 @ 4:55pm

No use blaming the FBI , Blame Congress directly for doing a shit job.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 10 Jun 2015 @ 6:16pm

Too bad...
Too bad he doesn't have arrest powers. If so, then he could just throw the recalcitrant assholes in jail until they coughed up the goods. Of course, if they did that, they would probably then be facing much more serious charges than obstruction of justice!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 10 Jun 2015 @ 6:20pm

Plenty of blame to go around
Better idea: Blame both.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 10 Jun 2015 @ 6:26pm

Re: Re: Re: OIG without Power
Yeah, that sounds about right.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jun 2015 @ 6:28pm

If the IG is powerless then the FBI has gone rogue. That being said funding for that government agency should be curtailed immediately, the director of said agency should be subpenaed and held accountable for high treason. I imagine they FBI agents will just shoot the IG in the back and hope no one catches it on their phone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2015 @ 10:15am

things lead ever onwards to revolution. Though I admire those that think the current corrupt and broken system will allow itself to be fixed when it does everything in its power to stay broken
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gary Mont (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 12:27pm

Re:
Revolution is pointless.

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 thread ]
Gary Mont (profile), 11 Jun 2015 @ 3:53pm

Re: Plenty of blame to go around
What? No blame for the Employers?

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2015 @ 9:00am

Re: OIG without Power
https://www.google.ca/search?q=Oversight+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=t6R9VZagGYv 4yASXuoPYAg

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 thread ]