As if the NSL rules weren’t loose enough…

It’s been a while, but “national security letters” (NSLs) are back in the news. The letters were originally created in the 1970s for espionage and terrorism investigations, but were expanded under Bush, through the Patriot Act, to apply to almost anyone.

The WaPo had a very helpful article on NSLs in November 2005, which explained that the law now empowers the FBI to obtain secret information about Americans — including phone calls, internet visits, even credit ratings — whether they’re suspected of wrongdoing or not. Officials can probe personal information in total secrecy, literally forever. This information can be collected without the consent, or even knowledge, of a judge. And these letters are issued routinely, tens of thousands of times a year in the post-9/11 era.

There are, however, some laws and internal Justice Department regulations to regulate how the NSLs are obtained by law enforcement officials. And as it turns out, the FBI has been violating these limited regulations, too.

A Justice Department investigation has found pervasive errors in the FBI’s use of its power to secretly demand telephone, e-mail and financial records in national security cases, officials with access to the report said yesterday.

The inspector general’s audit found 22 possible breaches of internal FBI and Justice Department regulations — some of which were potential violations of law — in a sampling of 293 “national security letters.” The letters were used by the FBI to obtain the personal records of U.S. residents or visitors between 2003 and 2005. The FBI identified 26 potential violations in other cases.

Keep in mind, more than 20,000 NSLs are issued each year, and the inspector general’s report was based on a small random sampling. The WaPo reported that officials believe that the known problems “may be the tip of the iceberg in an internal oversight system that one of them described as ‘shoddy.'”

Just what Bush’s Justice Department needed — another controversy in which officials may have broken the law.

Keep in mind, since 9/11, the standards for obtaining secret information about Americans have been extremely low. As the WaPo explained today, the FBI needs only to certify that the records are “sought for” or “relevant to” an investigation “to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.” But DoJ officials, as often as 20% of the time, apparently weren’t even meeting this insubstantial threshold.

The result isn’t pretty.

… [Inspector General Glenn] Fine found that FBI agents used national security letters without citing an authorized investigation, claimed “exigent” circumstances that did not exist in demanding information and did not have adequate documentation to justify the issuance of letters.

In at least two cases, the officials said, Fine found that the FBI obtained full credit reports using a national security letter that could lawfully be employed to obtain only summary information. In an unknown number of other cases, third parties such as telephone companies, banks and Internet providers responded to national security letters with detailed personal information about customers that the letters do not permit to be released. The FBI “sequestered” that information, a law enforcement official said last night, but did not destroy it.

Raise your hand if you’re confident that the Bush administration never misused the information it received improperly.

DOJ hits my website. After the first couple of times I sent an example to Bernie’s office and asked them to tell me something reassuring. I never heard back.

The other day I say DOJ had been on BurlingtonPol again… but only because they googled Phoebe Cates, who I have a picture of there.

But I’d be willing they have one of these “national secutity letters” about the Carpetbagger, and maybe me too. It’s just easier to focus on our own people than it is to focus on any real potential terrorist. That and we’re the ones they really want to control and pacify.

Bush and Gonzalas are evil fascists. What do we expect?

  • Raise your hand if you’re confident that the Bush administration never misused the information it received improperly.

    And in light of the US Attorney scandal that highlights targeted investigations initiated by the Bush admin against Democrats; how much you wanna bet this Admin used these lax FBI wiretapping guidelines to wiretap poltical opponents (The New Hampshire wiretap case immediately comes to mind) and pull the financial records of political opponents.

    The net is getting cast wider and wider by the day……

    DEMS need to frame all these scandals (Walter Reed, US Attorney, FBI wiretap, Iraq War lies, Katrina etc) in a big picture way that is clear for all Americans to see….

    That the Republican Party not only hates democracy and rule of law but consistently puts the interests of its politcal party ahead of the interests of citizens of the United States of America.

  • Raise your hand if you’re confident that the Bush administration never misused the information it received improperly.

    oh, CB, you teh funny.

  • Lib4 says: the Republican Party not only hates democracy and rule of law but consistently puts the interests of its politcal party ahead of the interests of citizens of the United States of America.

    Although I agree with that statement, I would narrow it down to say that the current leadership of the party puts the interests of its politcal party ahead of the interests of citizens of the United States of America.

    If we paint all Republicans with this brush, we risk pissing off the Republicans who are offended at the prospect of a government with unfettered acces to their personal data. (which is a large number of Republicans).

    We need to gently remind the Republicans that this power, if left unchecked, will probably belong to the next Democratic president. Do they really want Hillary Clinton to have unfettered access to their personal information, without any oversight whatsoever? If not, they need to back the Dems right now and take that power from Bush.

  • Re-reading that it makes me sound like I think Hillary will be the next president. I don’t.

  • Back in San Francisco in the early ’60s I was involved in a lot of politics, across party lines and issues both local and national. I wanted to shout at Richard Nixon when he came to town in his campaign for the presidency, but there were 40,000 people jammed into Union Square and no way to get within shouting distance of the podium … except a “ban the bomb” line which was marching back and forth just feet in front of the podium.

    My friend and I got in that line and, when we got near the podium, stepped out just in time to shout our pre-Nixon-speech insult (“Hey, Dick, tell us another dog story!”). Years later a deputy city attorney friend told me to come down to his office. They had received an enormous stack of 8 x 10 black-and-white photos from the Justice Department (or it may have been HUAC). One of them showed me in the crowd, my head circled with a ballpoint pen, and on the reverse side my name and correct address. They had a second one of me in another setting with a different (correct) address.

    This was 1960, when surveillance techniques were much less than they are today (e.g., during that same visit I managed to waltz into Nixon’s presidential suite at the St. Francis and enjoy 15 minutes of hors d’oeuvres before they tossed me out). I convinced myself at the time that I had nothing to fear, that if they were collecting info on small-fry like me, at a public gathering, they were headed for incapacitating information overload. I can’t shake that feeling in these days of exploding ability to record and store information … there can’t possibly be enough bodies to interpret it all. “We have nothing to fear but … fear itself.”

  • As is usual, Glenn Greenwald nails it:

    That the FBI is abusing its NSL power is entirely unsurprising (more on that below), but the real story here — and it is quite significant — has not even been mentioned by any of these news reports. The only person (that I’ve seen) to have noted the most significant aspect of these revelations is Silent Patriot at Crooks & Liars, who very astutely recalls that the NSL reporting requirements imposed by Congress were precisely the provisions which President Bush expressly proclaimed he could ignore when he issued a “signing statement” as part of the enactment of the Patriot Act’s renewal into law. Put another way, the law which the FBI has now been found to be violating is the very law which George Bush publicly declared he has the power to ignore.

    It was The Boston Globe’s Charlie Savage who first drew attention to the Patriot Act signing statement in a typically superb article, back in March, 2006, which reported:

    When President Bush signed the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act this month, he included an addendum saying that he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act’s expanded police powers.

    The bill contained several oversight provisions intended to make sure the FBI did not abuse the special terrorism-related powers to search homes and secretly seize papers. The provisions require Justice Department officials to keep closer track of how often the FBI uses the new powers and in what type of situations. Under the law, the administration would have to provide the information to Congress by certain dates.

    Bush signed the bill with fanfare at a White House ceremony March 9, calling it ”a piece of legislation that’s vital to win the war on terror and to protect the American people.” But after the reporters and guests had left, the White House quietly issued a ”signing statement,” an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law.

    In the statement, Bush said that he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that, despite the law’s requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would ”impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive’s constitutional duties.”

    Bush wrote: ”The executive branch shall construe the provisions . . . that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch . . . in a manner consistent with the president’s constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information . . . ”

    The statement represented the latest in a string of high-profile instances in which Bush has cited his constitutional authority to bypass a law.

    When a country is ruled by an individual who repeatedly and openly arrogates unto himself the power to violate the law, and specifically proclaims that he is under no obligation to account to Congress or anyone else concerning the exercise of radical new surveillance powers such as NSLs, it should come as absolutely no surprise that agencies under his control freely break the law. The culture of lawlessness which the President has deliberately and continuously embraced virtually ensures, by design, that any Congressional limits on the use of executive power will be violated.

  • Lib4 says: the Republican Party not only hates democracy and rule of law but consistently puts the interests of its politcal party ahead of the interests of citizens of the United States of America.

    Although I agree with that statement, I would narrow it down to say that the current leadership of the party puts the interests of its politcal party ahead of the interests of citizens of the United States of America.


    I disagree

    The modern Republican Revolution (post Watergate Conservatives) has always put its interests ahead of this nations, starting with the Iranian hostages and the October Surprise, Iran Contra, the Clinton Impeachment, The Iraq War/terrorism used for electoral gain…nothing has stopped them from trying to expand their power at the cost of destroying 100’s of years of a carefully crafted Democratic principles.

    While I agree with your sentiment of framing the wiretapping aspects of the case as “do you want Hillary or a Democrat to have that unfettered power”

    I truly believe this Republican revolution needs to be completely exposed and ended once and for all b/c if not for the 2006 midterm elections, the ideals(??) of conservative governance would have continued and reached a nexis that would have destroyed this nation forever. The time is now to stop the inherent abuse of power that is engrained in the foundations of the modern conservative movement.

  • RacerX makes a good point, many hard-working middle-class Americans consider themselves Republicans. We must make this distinction-
    that the Bush Administration are not Republicans, nor are they Conservatives.

    They are Fascists. We must call them that every chance, especialy in public.

    Lib4 has it, if we are going to defeat these Authoritarians, we need to paint a big, simple picture so JoeBob Beercan gets it.

    Not a simple task, considering that all major media in the USA is controlled by the same CorPirate fascists.
    Will the Dems be able to shake off their Corporate masters and tell the truth?
    Will they want to?

  • Al B Tross asks: Will the Dems be able to shake off their Corporate masters and tell the truth?
    Will they want to?

    I think they will not want to, but we will be able to make them. Times have changed, and the DLC is a doomed dinosaur. The internet is allowing a huge number of people to focus their collective power onto the tools of the “CorPirate” interests (nice name there). They are big, but they cannot withstand the focused energy of the netroots forever.

    Keep throwing the rotten tomatoes through the tubes.

    On a related note, this is very interesting:

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0703/S00102.htm

    Two FBI Whistleblowers Confirm Illegal Wiretapping of Government Officials and Misuse of FISA

    State Secrets Privilege Was Used to Cover Up Corruption and Silence Whistleblowers

    The National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC) has obtained a copy of an official complaint filed by a veteran FBI Special Agent, Gilbert Graham, with the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (DOJ-OIG). SA Graham’s protected disclosures report the violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in conducting electronic surveillance of high-profile U.S. public officials…

  • Comments are closed.