CAPITOL HILL - Attorney General John Ashcroft says new investigative powers
he has given the FBI are necessary to combat terrorism in the U.S. and abroad,
while critics say lifting existing restrictions will "trash a central protection
against government fishing expeditions." But does the FBI have to choose
between "political correctness"or becoming "big brother"?
As CNSNews.com reported May 29 and May 30, more than one FBI agent has said
that agency's policies and bureaucracy interfered with investigations into alleged
terrorist activities.
Active FBI Special Agent Robert Wright details one incident where "political
correctness" may have hampered an investigation. The president of a U.S.
Muslim organization, suspected by the FBI as a possible terrorist "front,"
had asked for a meeting with a Muslim FBI agent.
"[The Muslim agent] asked if I desired him to speak with the president.
I advised him that I desired him to have the meeting and to wear a concealed
recording device (wire) to record what transpired," Wright said in a sworn
statement.
But after consulting with, and receiving approval for the wire from the U.S.
Attorney supervising the investigation, Wright got some startling news.
"When I returned, my supervisor summoned me to his office and advised me
that [the Muslim agent] was not going to wear the wire and that I should forget
about it," he recalled.
Wright says that, in the following weeks, he learned that the Muslim agent had
refused to allow conversations with Muslim terrorist suspects to be secretly
recorded on at least two other occasions.
The Muslim agent had also allegedly contacted individuals he knew to be the
subject of investigations being conducted by the Dallas FBI office, without
disclosing those contacts.
"Due to the serious nature of the events surrounding this terrorism investigation,
a senior special agent of the Chicago FBI attempted on three separate occasions
to determine the proper procedure to initiate an inquiry into [the Muslim agent's]
refusal," Wright explained. "The attempts made through the FBI Chicago
security office were never responded to by FBI headquarters."
After other FBI agents began to question whether the Muslim agent was sympathetic
to certain terrorist groups, he filed an equal employment opportunity complaint,
claiming that he was the victim of discrimination based on his Muslim religion
and Arab/Middle Eastern national origin.
Wright did not know the outcome of that claim, but did say that no disciplinary
action has been taken against the Muslim agent for refusing to allow his conversations
with suspected terrorists to be secretly recorded.
Wright has chronicled the obstacles he encountered in a manuscript that he wants
to deliver to Congress.
Currently, he says the FBI has forbidden him to release the document to members
of Congress, telling him that he may instead "report any concerns he might
have to an investigative entity with appropriate jurisdiction such as ... the
relevant congressional committees that are investigating the terrorist attacks."
But Wright says when he tried to come to Washington, on his own time, to talk
to members of Congress, he was ordered not to leave the jurisdiction of the
FBI's Chicago field office without permission. When he asked for that permission,
Wright says it was denied.
David Shippers, one of Wright's attorneys, says the bureaucracy of the FBI will
never change, despite claims to the contrary by Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert
Mueller.
"It seems to me that this is just the typical method; throw it over to
the Congress, tell the Congress that they can investigate, and then tell Agent
Wright he's not allowed to divulge anything to the Congress," he said.
Shippers says that he is advising Wright to obey the FBI's restrictions for
now, but he is not happy about it.
"We'll follow their guidelines, the same guidelines that put 3,000 people
on the street, dead, in New York," he said.
Existing Guidelines Tied Agents' Hands
Ashcroft says existing guidelines, not "political correctness," tied
agents' hands in the past.
"Under the current guidelines, FBI investigators cannot surf the web the
way you or I can. Nor can they simply walk into a public event or a public place
to observe ongoing activities. They have no clear authority to use commercial
data services that any business in America can use," Ashcroft explained.
"These restrictions are a competitive advantage for terrorists who skillfully
utilize sophisticated techniques and modern computer systems to compile information
for targeting and attacking innocent Americans," he concluded.
In response, Ashcroft changed those guidelines effective May 30 to allow:
- Online research and use of commercial data mining services, independent of
particular criminal investigations; - Expanded criminal intelligence investigations,
longer authorization periods, easier approval and renewal requirements; - Entry
into any public place that is open to private citizens, unless prohibited by
the Constitution or federal statute; - Investigations of suspected terrorists,
even if they have ties to religious and political groups, using the same investigative
techniques used when investigating members of any other type of organization.
The Pendulum Swings In The Direction Of 'Big Brother'
Civil libertarians believe the FBI probably could have done more to uncover
and disrupt terrorism prior to Sept.11, but they say increasing the potential
for civil rights abuses is not the way to make the agency more effective.
"Taken as a whole, all the various changes that we've seen coming out of
Congress and the Justice Department are very much moving in that direction of
giving government too much, far more power than it needs to actually carry out
the legitimate function of trying to prevent terrorism," said Steve Dasbach,
executive director of the Libertarian Party.
Laura Murphy, director of the Washington national office of the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU), questions the message the relaxed guidelines will send.
"The government is rewarding failure," she said in a statement. "When
the government fails - as it increasingly appears to have done before September
11 - the Bush Administration's response is to give itself new powers rather
than seriously investigating why the failures occurred."
Both Murphy and Dasbach say it's important to remember the origin of the restrictions
Ashcroft is now lifting.
"They were put in place as a response to FBI abuses of surveillance back
during the civil rights movement and the anti-[Vietnam]-war movement,"
Dasbach recalled.
"They had FBI agents that were going in and weren't simply observing the
way that the attorney general is describing, but went further and actually opened
dossiers, engaged in activities to disrupt lawful organizations, and acted sometimes
as a provocateur to encourage the organizations to break the law so that they
could then, of course, come in and arrest them," he said.
Marvin Johnson, legislative counsel with the ACLU, fears that the new guidelines
will allow the FBI to freely infiltrate religious services and organizations,
eavesdrop on online chat rooms, and read online bulletin boards "even if
it has no evidence that a crime might be committed."
Authorities conducted similar surveillance and infiltration of the civil rights
groups founded by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
"Dr. King's legacy is not just the gains made toward political and social
equality," Johnson said. "His persecution by law enforcement is a
necessary reminder of the potential abuse when a government with too long a
leash seeks to silence voices of dissent."
Don't Lengthen The FBI's 'Leash,' Shorten It
Dasbach believes the FBI's "leash" is already too long. He wonders
if the bureau failed to follow up on reports of potential terrorist activities
by Wright and Minneapolis FBI Special Agent Coleen Rowley because of "political
correctness," or because the agency is simply investigating in too many
legal areas.
"They're involved in too many things, trying to do too much, and having
too many things fall through the cracks," he said. "It's just too
easy for things to slip by and not be noticed."
The USA Patriot Act, which gave federal law enforcement sweeping new authorities
to conduct wiretapping, surveillance, and searches is a good example of moving
in the wrong direction, Dasbach says.
In a previous report, CNSNews.com detailed the provisions of the bill, which
were called "unconstitutional" even by some members of Congress.
"If we scale back some of those things," Dasbach concluded, "then
I think people would be a little more comfortable, perhaps, with loosening some
of these other restrictions. But loosening these restrictions, on top of the
other powers that the FBI has been granted over the past several months really
is an ominous trend."