ACLU Letter to the Inspector General Renewing Request for an Investigation Into the Department of Justice's Involvement in the National Security Agency's Domestic Spying Program (5/15/2006)
Mr. Glenn A. Fine Inspector General United States Department of
Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Fine:
We are writing to renew our
request that you open an investigation into the involvement of the Department of
Justice (DOJ) in the warrantless electronic spying on Americans by the National
Security Agency (NSA) with the support of DOJ. Your involvement is even more imperative
now that officials in the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) have been
denied the required security clearances to conduct an OPR investigation into the
program.
The need for such an investigation
is made all the more necessary in light of the revelations that the NSA has been
compiling a massive database of the telephone call records of tens of millions
of Americans by obtaining consumer data from some of the major
telecommunications companies, in violation of federal laws. See Title III of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act, 50 USC §§ 1841-46; the Stored Communications Act,
47 USC § 222; and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC §§ 2702,
2707. Questions abound about
whether the administration has misstated the facts and overstated its legal
authority to conduct both this monitoring program and the warrantless
wiretapping program revealed in December 2005. These programs warrant a full internal
investigation by OIG.
The inspector general’s office
must undertake its own investigation; otherwise there will be no review of the
programs’ legality, whether it was ethical for DOJ attorneys to participate in
the programs, or of the appropriate use of the department’s resources. Should the programs go unexamined, the
rule of law would be undermined.
The president has refused to
follow federal laws requiring a court order for such surveillance, and he has
refused to fully inform all members of select congressional committees as
required by law, 50 U.S.C § 413.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, in turn, has refused to appoint a
special counsel, even though all of the legal requirements for such an
appointment have been met. www.aclu.org/safefree/general/23184leg20051221.html
(the appointment of a special counsel is warranted, under 28 C.F.R. part 600.1,
because federal criminal law requires court orders for electronic surveillance
of Americans; Attorney General Gonzales has a conflict of interest regarding the
decision to investigate given his involvement in this affair; and an
investigation is in the public interest).
And now the administration has refused to give OPR access to materials
essential to its investigation.
The president should not have the
power to place entire programs and policies off limits, simply by declaring them
too secret even for government investigators to review. No president can be allowed such
expansive power.
Even though the department has
asserted, in essence, that OPR has exclusive jurisdiction to investigate DOJ
employee misconduct, OIG has overlapping jurisdiction to investigate DOJ
personnel and programs to detect and deter abuse and misconduct, and promote the
integrity of the Justice Department’s primary mission, enforcing federal
law. Additionally, OIG personnel
are well positioned to conduct such an investigation because they already have
security clearances beyond the usual Top Secret clearance held by all Justice
Department attorneys, including those in OPR.
OIG has a responsibility to
investigate violations of federal law, abuses of power, and wasteful government
activities, under 5 U.S.C. App. As
you know, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requires the attorney
general and department employees, including agents of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, when undertaking a foreign intelligence/anti-terrorism
investigation to comply with federal statutes regarding electronic surveillance
of people in this country, physical searches of Americans’ homes, and monitoring
of the call records of American residents.
All of these require certifications by the attorney general, as the top
law enforcement officer in the country, and approval by the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court. Plainly, the
attorney general’s implementation of or non-compliance with the legal
requirements of FISA is within OIG’s jurisdiction.
In addition, section 1001 of the
USA Patriot Act requires OIG to investigate abuses of civil liberties by
officials and employees of the Justice Department. The Patriot Act modified FISA but did
not remove the requirement that the attorney general obtain court orders to
allow the NSA or other agencies to engage in electronic eavesdropping or
monitoring of Americans. The
deliberate and secret refusal to follow federal laws that include such
protections for Americans’ civil liberties is inherently abusive. This conduct warrants a thorough and
complete investigation by OIG.
Investigative reports also
indicate that the wiretapping program is wasting precious anti-terrorism
resources to spy on innocent Americans.
The administration refuses to disclose even to Congress how much money is
being spent on the illegal secret monitoring programs, but according to a
January 17, 2006 article in The New York Times, “F.B.I. officials
repeatedly complained to the spy agency that the unfiltered information was
swamping investigators.” In
addition, the press reported that “[I]n bureau field offices, the N.S.A.
material continued to be viewed as unproductive, prompting agents to joke that a
new bunch of tips meant more ‘calls to Pizza Hut,’ one official, who supervised
field agents, said.”
These reports indicate that the
department’s complicity in the NSA’s illegal programs has led to the waste of
FBI resources in addition to unwarranted intrusions into the private lives of
Americans. Your office has
unambiguous authority and responsibility to investigate whether such a program
is wasteful as well as how the constitutional and statutory civil liberties of
American residents have been violated.
We respectfully suggest that such
an investigation should include a determination of the extent to which the NSA
spy program has resulted in the FBI opening investigations of and compiling
dossiers on innocent Americans – Americans about whom there is no probable cause
to believe are conspiring with al Qaeda or other hostile foreign powers. The investigation should also determine
whether, in pursuing the program or the fruits of the program, FBI agents
followed the Attorney General Guidelines – including provisions relating to
standards for examining the lives of ordinary Americans, no matter whether such
probes are called “preliminary inquiries” or “investigations.”
OIG should also investigate
whether the clearance process for department employees is being used as a
pretext by administration officials to obstruct OPR’s investigation. If the decision to bar the OPR
investigation is allowed to stand, it will seriously undermine the power not
just of OPR but of OIG to investigate any matter in which national security is
claimed, allowing any administration to keep breaches of federal law secret from
the department’s own internal investigative bodies. It would have the untenable effect of
placing the new Assistant Attorney General for National Security and all
attorneys in that directorate off-limits from investigation by OIG and OPR.
President Bush’s program to spy on
Americans without court orders is being allowed to operate without a
professional internal investigation of the laws and rules violated, without any
judicial oversight to protect the rights of individuals under our Constitution
and statutes, and without any meaningful oversight hearings conducted by a
Congress controlled by the same party as the president.
In the absence of such checks on
presidential power, our laws and our rights will mean nothing more than what the
president says and says secretly.
In the infamous words of President Nixon, “when the president does it
that means that it is not illegal.”
President Richard M. Nixon Interview with David Frost, May 19, 1977,
republished in The New York Times, May 20, 1977, p. A16. Congress repudiated that argument when
it enacted FISA to prevent any president from claiming an inherent, unlimited
power to spy on Americans in the name of gathering foreign intelligence. It is this very law that the president
and some DOJ employees have violated.
What is at stake is whether our
nation shall be governed by the rule of law rather than by the dictates of men
and women at the Justice Department acting at the behest of the president and in
defiance of the laws they have sworn to faithfully execute. Surely, the Office of Inspector General
will not subordinate itself to the will of administration officials who wish to
keep these violations of the law concealed. Using the clearance process to shut down
an investigation by OPR is simply an excuse for the administration’s obstruction
of any and all serious inquiries into its failure to follow FISA and uphold our
fundamental freedoms under the First and Fourth Amendments.
These and related questions are
plainly within the purview of OIG, and I urge you to thoroughly investigate
them. Thank you for your
consideration.
Sincerely,
Anthony D. Romero Executive Director American Civil Liberties Union
|