Jon Roland

Can We Trust the FBI?

Sun Oct 14 22:25:06 2001


Can We Trust the FBI?

By Jim Nesbitt
Dallas Morning News, October 14, 2001
Sunday Reader Section

Newhouse News Service

Critics fear anti-terrorism bill will unchain investigative agency with
history of abuses.

A crucial, unspoken issue hovers over the deal being cut in Congress on an
anti-terrorism bill aimed at granting broader surveillance and arrest powers
to federal law-enforcement agencies:

Can the scandal-ridden FBI, America's premier investigative agency, be
trusted not to abuse new mandates as it investigates the Sept. 11 attacks on
the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and scours the nation for other
terrorist cells?

Although much of the congressional debate has focused on striking a balance
between maintaining civil liberties and enhancing national security, defense
attorneys and criminal-justice academics say there has not been enough focus
on the agency's track record, a history that has eroded public trust.

That legacy includes the bloody assaults at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and near
Waco, Texas, in the early 1990s. More recent scandals involved a Russian
mole (Robert Hanssen) in the bureau's counterespionage unit, an abortive
case against an atomic scientist (Wen Ho Lee) suspected of leaking nuclear
secrets to the Chinese and the botched handling of thousands of pages of
investigative notes that delayed the execution of Timothy McVeigh.

All of this, its critics say, indicates that the FBI is still dominated by a
"cowboy culture" too willing to disregard the rights of citizens and too
arrogant to admit its mistakes and accept change.

"We can't trust the bureau with the powers that it has, let alone trust it
with expanded powers," said Gerry Spence, the flamboyant Wyoming defense
attorney who exposed FBI abuses while winning acquittal for white separatist
Randy Wayne Weaver, whose wife and son were killed during a 1992 standoff at
Ruby Ridge.

Even the agency's staunchest supporters, such as Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.,
say that new FBI Director Robert Mueller will have to address the arrogance
that permeates the upper echelons of the agency.

"A lot of the criticisms are unjust," said Mr. Sessions, a former federal
prosecutor who is now a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee involved in
the anti-terrorism legislation. "But the criticism that they are too
bureaucratic, too arrogant and too unwilling to admit mistakes is correct"

FBI and Justice Department officials declined to comment for this story. But
former FBI agents and other supporters say that America has little choice
but to entrust the agency with enhanced powers, given the dire threat posed
by terrorism that knows no boundaries.

At least for now, expediency and national security trump agency reforms and
civil liberties, they say.

"There's no other agency in the United States, much less the world, capable
of carrying out this investigation,'' said Clint Van Zandt, a retired FBI
special agent who served as a hostage negotiator at the 1993 Branch Davidian
standoff near Waco and as a criminal profiler.

"In a time like this, you may need Justice to peek below her blindfold a bit
and recognize there are bad guys out there and tip the scales a bit toward
keeping society safe.... It can tip back after the crisis has passed."

But extraordinary investigative powers are rarely rescinded after a national
crisis is over, said Dick DeGuerin, the Houston defense attorney who
represented the Branch Davidians early in their 51-day standoff with the
FBI, a confrontation that ended in a fiery assault on the compound that left
at least 80 adults and children dead.

"I'm afraid that in the national hysteria that has followed these terrible
events, the FBI and its apologist leaders and supporters have used this fear
and hysteria to gain powers that we, the public, will be sorry they have
once this is over," Mr. DeGuerin said.

History of abuses

James Fyfe, a Temple University criminal justice professor and former New
York City police officer, said: "We're right now in a terrible crisis, but
this, too, will pass, like World War II passed, and what well be left with
is a vaguely worded law that will be used against citizens in ways that
weren't imagined by the people who wrote them."

As proof, he cites federal legislation passed in the 1930s and '40s enabling
the FBI to follow and infiltrate subversive organizations, ostensibly groups
suspected of acting as fronts for the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. But in
practice, the FBI used these laws to keep tabs on union leaders, politicians
and other public figures that then-Director J. Edgar Hoover wanted tracked.

For decades, the bureau spied on civil-rights groups he thought had
Communist ties. And in the 1960s and 70s, it mounted a counterintelligence
campaign against groups opposing the Vietnam War.

At Waco and Ruby Ridge, FBI officials showed a willingness to waive rules
restricting the use of deadly force, to mislead Justice Department superiors
about key elements of the case and to withhold evidence.

During the Branch Davidian siege, top FBI officials pressured then-Attorney
General Janet Reno to end the standoff with an armored-vehicle assault by
repeatedly emphasizing the threat against children living in the compound.

The FBI denied using incendiary tear-gas devices during the final assault on
the Branch Davidians' compound. Six years later, however, the FBI reversed
itself and admitted using such devices. That triggered a wide-ranging
special investigation headed by former U.S. Sen. John Danforth in which the
bureau ultimately was cleared of wrongdoing.

But critics such as Mr. DeGuerin and Mr. Spence say the Danforth
investigation seemed more interested in punishing someone who made the
agency and the Justice Department look bad than finding out the truth.
Although it cleared the FBI, Mr. Danforth's team filed charges against
whistle-blower Bill Johnston, the federal prosecutor who said agency use of
the incendiary devices was common knowledge in federal law-enforcement
circles a full two years before the FBI made its public admission.

The charges against Mr. Johnston, who eventually was sentenced to two years'
probation and community service for withholding evidence, were the only ones
filed by Mr. Danforth's team. But Mr. Johnston, who says his problem was
with Ms. Reno, expresses confidence in Mr. Mueller and Attorney General John
Ashcroft.

"It does matter who's at the top, it really does,"he said. They set the tone
and can either be complacent or demanding and that does trickle down to the
agents on the street"

Change in rules

At Ruby Ridge, where a U.S. marshal also was killed, a top FBI official
authorized a crucial change in the rules of engagement that allowed snipers
on the agency's hostage-rescue team to fire at any armed adult in sight
instead of restricting use of deadly force to situations in which a suspect
threatened an agent's life. An FBI sniper killed Mr. Weaver's wife.

"I've never been in a case in which the FBI was involved that there wasn't
something they did, something illegal," Mr. Spence said. "They've either
fabricated evidence, hid evidence or lied on the witness stand. They're not
evil men. They want to do their job in any way they can, and they are
insensitive to the rights of American citizens. They just want to win."

Mr. Sessions, Mr. Van Zandt and others say such concerns are overblown.

The enhanced surveillance powers in the bill would allow agents to catch Up
with modern technology and monitor suspected terrorists as they hopscotch
from coded e-mail to land-line phones to a series of quickly changed cell
phones. Under the old wiretap rules, agents can tap only a specific phone
number.

The bill also would allow the FBI and CIA to exchange information on
suspected terrorists, knocking down a restriction that arose from domestic
surveillance of antiwar protesters and other American citizens. Mr.
Ashcroft's request for unlimited detention power over suspected terrorists
has been scaled back to a week.

Frequent congressional review would be one way to make sure the new powers
are not abused.

"You can't trust law enforcement in and of itself," said Mr. Van Zandt "You
need oversight But you need oversight that's flexible in times of peril."

Mr. Van Zandt, who opposed the FBI assault near Waco and said during
congressional testimony that the agency "did it wrong," ridiculed the
"cowboy culture" label used by critics such as Sen. Charles Grassley, R-
Iowa.

"Now they're saying, "Where are all the cowboys when you need 'em?'" Mr. Van
Zandt said. "You can't have it both ways."

Mr. Sessions believes the FBI can be trusted with these expanded powers, but
also thinks Mr. Mueller must change the habits of the agency's top managers
even as he presses investigation of the biggest, most pressure-packed case
in its history The last two FBI directors — Louis Freeh and William Sessions
— left under a cloud.

"It can be changed in two ways, Jeff Sessions said. "People can change their
ways or people can be removed. Perhaps both."

But Mr. Spence has his doubts.

"The only way to change an agency is to change its soul, and the FBI has no
soul," he said. "The ought not be in the game of destroying American rights
to save us."

Highlights of anti-terrorism legislation

Highlights of the bill passed by the Senate:

Increases penalties for committing terrorism and harboring or funding
terrorists or terrorist organizations.

Makes terrorism a justification for federal officials getting a
wiretapping order. The order would follow a suspect to any phone the
person uses.

Allows federal officials to get nationwide search warrants for terrorism
investigations.

Allows the attorney general to detain foreigners suspected of terrorism.
The attorney general then has to start deportation proceedings, during
which the foreigner must stay in federal custody, or charge the person
with a crime. If neither is done within seven days, the foreigner must be
released.

Enhances data sharing between the FBI, the State Department, the
Immigration and Naturalization Service and foreign governments in
terrorism investigations.

Makes illegal the possession of substances that can be used as biological
or chemical weapons for any non-peaceful purpose.

Includes a provision designed to curtail international money laundering
in an effort to thwart the financing of terrorism.

Authorizes nationwide search warrants for computer information, including
billing records, in terrorism investigations.

Increases the number of federal agents working on America's northern
border.

Highlights of changes proposed by the House:

Adds a Dec. 31, 2004, expiration date for wiretapping and surveillance
changes; gives president the option to extend the laws until Dec. 31,
2006.

Deletes money-laundering segment.

SOURCE: Associated Press



===================================================================
Our efforts depend on donations from people like you. To help see
http://www.constitution.org/whatucando.htm
Constitution Society, 7301 RR 620 N #155,276, Austin, TX 78726
512/531-0767 Date: 10/14/01 Time: 20:43:48
http://www.constitution.org/  mailto:jon.roland@constitution.org
===================================================================

• Re:

  Can We Trust the FBI?

  — boots 7.5, Mon Oct 15 11:03