ShareThis Page

ACLU urges curbing FBI's growing power

| Monday, Sept. 16, 2013, 8:57 p.m.

WASHINGTON — Shortly after James Comey took over as FBI director, the American Civil Liberties Union is calling on the Obama administration and Congress to rein in the increasing power of the agency.

In a critical 63-page report that will be issued on Tuesday, the ACLU says the FBI's power has expanded too dramatically during the past 12 years, transforming the bureau into a “secret domestic intelligence agency.”

“The excessive secrecy with which it cloaks these domestic intelligence gathering operations has crippled constitutional oversight mechanisms,” the report says. “Courts have been reticent to challenge government secrecy demands and, despite years of debate in Congress . . . it took unauthorized leaks by a whistleblower to finally reveal the government's secret interpretation of these laws and the Orwellian scope of its domestic surveillance programs.”

The ACLU report compiles examples of the changes to law and policy since the 9/11 attacks, which the group says “unleashed the FBI from its traditional restraints and opened the door to abuse.”

A spokesman for the FBI said he could not comment on the report because officials had not seen it.

The changes highlighted in the report include the FBI's racial and ethnic mapping program; the use of secret National Security Letters, which requested account information from telecommunications companies, financial institutions and credit agencies and required no judicial approval; warrantless wiretapping; and the recent revelations about the government's use of Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act to track all American telephone calls.

In its report, the ACLU asks Congress, the president and the attorney general to examine the FBI's policies and programs, and recommends 15 changes for the agency.

“The list of abuses is long and demonstrates that Congress must do a top-to-bottom review of FBI politics and practices to identify and curtail any activities that are unconstitutional or easily misused,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU's National Security Project. “The time for wholesale reform has come.”

The ACLU report lists examples of the FBI conducting surveillance on protesters and religious groups with “aggressive tactics that infringe on their free speech, religion and associational rights.”

The bureau's increased intelligence-collection powers have led to a data explosion that agents cannot keep up with, making it harder for the agency to focus on suspects and groups that should be investigated, the ACLU concluded in its report.

“Rather than aiding its terrorism prevention efforts, the FBI's expanded investigative and intelligence powers have overwhelmed agents with a flood of irrelevant information and false alarms,” said Michael German, senior policy counsel at the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office and a former FBI agent.

As an example, the report cites questions surrounding the FBI's three-month investigation of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, a suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing.

“FBI agents cannot be expected to be fortune tellers,” the report said. “But reviewing the facts of this matter is important to determine whether current FBI practices are effective. Its investigation of Tsarnaev was one of over 1,000 assessments the Boston Joint Terrorism Task Force completed in 2011. . . . This torrid pace may have diminished the quality of the Tsarnaev assessment.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.