Oh, Patriot Act, how I have missed you in the news. Buried in the past under a stifling wave of celebrity nonsense and countless debates about Sen. Obama's "blackathnicity," I was getting worried you stopped manhandling my civil rights. A Department of Justice report released this month brings this oft-debated piece of law back into the spotlight with the revelation that sloppy, even possibly illegal, actions have been committed in relation to the National Security Letters (NSL) provision of the Patriot Act.
NSLs are basically search warrants issued by the FBI to organizations — usually phone companies, libraries or other consumer information holders — that demand all available information desired by the government on a person. The difference with a NSL and a search warrant is that the FBI answers to no one in sending these letters. Under the Patriot Act, any FBI field supervisor can throw one of these at an organization, with absolutely no judicial oversight or authorization and receive information unhindered. All he needs is FBI certification that the NSL requests information relevant to an ongoing investigation. Additionally, the recipient of the NSL cannot let it be made public to anybody that he or she was on the receiving end of one of these, by gag order that is renewable every year at the FBI's discretion. The FBI only needs to get approval from the FBI to get information the FBI deems the FBI needs and that only the FBI has access to. Oh, OK, sounds like a good system of checks and balances. Hey, at least the NSLs have to cite an ongoing investigation and circumstances, which explain the need for said information. Oh, wait…
Turns out the FBI bypassed even those meager restrictions. According to the Inspector General, 22 out of 293 NSLs did not cite ongoing investigations, and some even requested data outside the FBI's authority under law. Keep in mind this is after reviewing only 293 NSLs, out of the 143,000 issued between 2003 and 2005. If the ratio holds true, that is almost 11,000 instances of breaches in protocol. Under whose standards is that acceptable? Especially when it comes down to the handling of the raw data of the personal lives of Americans. Hold on, it gets even better.
Seven hundred so-called exigent letters were also issued to telephone companies by the Bureau. This is by far the most alarming discovery. Exigent letters were written by FBI employees that did not have authorization to even sign NSLs. The letters stated there were pressing circumstances of national security at hand and that the necessary NSL would soon follow after the Bureau received the data requested by the exigent letter. In a portion of those letters, neither was true. The telephone companies never received subpoenas, and the so-called pressing circumstances were found to be nonexistent. The FBI's response? "Whoops, we promise not to use those again." Real comforting.
Republicans, Democrats and the American public alike should be outraged. This is a gross example of big government violating civil liberties. The report did find that there was no evidence in the letters sampled of malicious or intentional abuse, but that is only mildly comforting. The simple fact that these procedures carry neither outside judicial review nor consequences for mishandling is mind-boggling. I understand that there are times where information is required by the FBI in an expedient manner, but it is clear that often the Bureau does not put enough weight on the public's privacy. No civil or criminal consequences exist for the improper use of NSLs, so why should the FBI change its ways? Pundits argue that if additional funding were given to national security, this misuse could be avoided.
Admittedly, the burden on the FBI to make the transition from law enforcement to counterterrorism is a large one, but tax payers cannot be expected to throw gobs of resources at the FBI when it only answers to itself — that's just asking for corruption. It is heartening to see that both Democrats and Republicans are finally standing up and moving in the right directions. With the proposals of increased judicial oversight and pressure from both sides of the aisle, maybe one of these days, I can take off my tinfoil hat.
Charles Lim ([email protected]) is a sophomore with no declared major.
