A novel approach to ending legally dubious wiretaps

Ever since we learned about the Bush administration’s legally dubious efforts in conducting warrantless surveillance of Americans, people concerned with civil liberties, limited government, and checks and balances have wondered how to restrain the White House’s power grab.

Oddly enough, I suspect no one thought of this novel approach.

Telephone companies cut off FBI wiretaps used to eavesdrop on suspected criminals because of the bureau’s repeated failures to pay phone bills on time, according to a Justice Department audit released Thursday.

The faulty bookkeeping is part of what the audit, by the Justice Department’s inspector general, described as the FBI’s lax oversight of money used in undercover investigations. Poor supervision of the program also allowed one agent to steal $25,000, the audit said.

More than half of 990 bills to pay for telecommunication surveillance in five unidentified FBI field offices were not paid on time, the report shows. In one office alone, unpaid costs for wiretaps from one phone company totaled $66,000.

Of course, why didn’t I think of that? What better way to stem the administration’s surveillance efforts than to get the FBI to stop paying its phone bills?

Now, I’m being flippant about this, which probably isn’t entirely appropriate. I imagine most of the eavesdropping was legitimate and necessary. What’s more, some of this was probably far afield from the NSA wiretap scandal.

But not all of it.

[A]t least once, a wiretap used in a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act investigation — the highly secretive and sensitive cases that allow eavesdropping on suspected terrorists or spies — “was halted due to untimely payment.”

“We also found that late payments have resulted in telecommunications carriers actually disconnecting phone lines established to deliver surveillance results to the FBI, resulting in lost evidence,” according to the audit by Inspector General Glenn A. Fine.

A lengthier AP feed noted that the Justice Department’s inspector general offered 16 recommendations to improve the FBI’s tracking and management of the funding system, four of which were rejected because they “would be either unfeasible or too cost prohibitive.”

Given what we know about the Bush administration’s competence, or lack thereof, this really isn’t helpful. Indeed, just a few weeks ago, the president was lecturing lawmakers at some length about the importance of closing “dangerous gaps in our intelligence,” and the importance of surveillance efforts in “stopping new attacks on our country.”

All this talk would sound far more impressive if the administration had kept up on its phone bills.

Legislation to make government wiretapping free of charge (which really means general public ratepayers eat the cost) hitting Congress’ desks in 3. . .2. . .1. . .

  • I guess the next thing we’ll find out is that they forgot to pay the lease at Gitmo and they’re getting kicked out.

  • So these so called ‘patriots’ will go so far as to bend-over backwards to help the government break the law to spy on Americans, but they will shut such programs down over a few schekles of gold and silver? Guess we know where their priorites are.

  • Hmmm…. Y’know, the most potent thing that I find in this story is that it exposes just how needless the wiretaps were to begin with. If the wiretaps were really that important, with an agent sitting there, or even just checking in on a regular basis, you’d think that the agent would be making a call somewhere when he found that he was cut off from crucial communications…

    The fact that this isn’t happening demonstrates that these wiretaps probably aren’t really all that important– despite what the government claims. And, truthfully, to me it makes sense. Most phone calls, even from the worst criminals, are probably wholly innocuous, especially in this day and age, when there is an entire internet to wander around and get in trouble in.

    That being said, isn’t it maybe time to revisit just how important it is for the government to be able to sit and listen to you order pizza? Frankly, all of our communications are being gobbled up by the NSA anyway, as they pass through the various switches. So it’s probably totally superfluous for the FBI to be retaining this power.

  • “the president was lecturing lawmakers at some length about the importance of closing “dangerous gaps in our intelligence”…

    So impeach the gap, already.

  • Congress, as the one paying the bill, should simply ask for an intimized statement from the relevant phone companies.

  • Most of us learned pretty early in life that if you don’t pay, you don’t get service from anyone, especially the phone company, and that is apparently true even in times of war or national emergency. Thanks CB for reminding us that there are always some constants in life, and no one is above the law as far as the utility providers are concerned.

  • You’d think…

    The Justice Department, presented with the gift of Security Letters out of the US PATRIOT Act (it’s actually a acronym for something), ought to have promlogated strict rules to prevent their misuse by the FBI. Nope, too much work. So the FBI used them for any damn thing (finding out Lindsay Lohan’s bra size?).

    Bushites want incompetent government, and they got it.

  • I know that irony is dead to Republicans, but to have the “Is our children learning?” president talk about “dangerous gaps in our intelligence,” is too rich for my taste.

  • I had no idea that wiretaps were so profitable for the telecoms. I had always assumed that they had to cooperate with the Feds for free.

    This sheds some new light on why the telecoms were so cooperative with the illegal NSA surveillance of… just about everything. Obviously the telecom executives were motivated by something more than patriotism.

    NO AMNESTY FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS SURVEILLANCE!

  • So much for all the hype about telecom patriotism…willing to go against the law in order to help this administration in it’s efforts to combat terrorism…until it affects their finances…their bottom line.

    Makes the idea of telecom amnesty more of a joke doesn’t it? Now it can be clearly demonstrated that their only concern for agreeing to illegal wiretapping was in order to get those lucrative government contracts. If it costs them money then screw patriotism. Their true motivation revealed. Bribed to break the law and will continue to cooperate as long as the bill is paid and they get their money. Ha ha ha. This is ironically funny.

  • Doesn’t this undermine the “they we doing it because they we patriotic” argument? Not that it was very compelling to begin with.

  • Ever since we learned about the Bush administration’s legally dubious efforts in conducting warrantless surveillance of Americans

    No. Not “legally dubious”.

    Illegal.

    Unconstitutional.

  • What I’m thinking is about the “limited scope” of the wiretapping, about how much my monthly bill is, and so how the hell to you run up $66,000?

    …and were the bills paid on the surveillance program that the president approved?

    Or were these the ones about which there was no disagreement?

  • No money, no goods; that’s what free market is all about, dummies. You’d have thought conservatives would have know that. I haven’t laughed that hard in a long time.

  • You couldn’t make up this stuff. This administration and its minions are beyond belief.

  • bubba:

    This isn’t paying for the wiretaps themselves. Although, when they need phone company personnel, they’re expected to compensate the hourly rate later.

    This is paying for all the phone lines into the various FBI offices, where they can keep their recording equipment safe and sound, and have someone able to copy tapes or pass copies easily to the relevant agents.

    When a tap is made now a days, they actually create another phone line that shunts the data from a data center to another – hopefully it’s not using a leased line, as those are expensive – and someone has to pay for all of those phone lines.

    This probably includes agents’ cel phones and office phones as well as wiretaps, but the taps would probably be easier to ‘forget’.

  • If a simple oversight function like paying a bill gets overlooked, why should we trust that any other basic rule is adhered to?

    I’ve long felt court oversight was weak at best, and without it, we should assume abuse is common.

  • Comments are closed.