All Things Whistleblower: A GAP Blog

FBI Says It Doesn’t Need ‘Specific Reason’ To Investigate Anyone It Wants

The recent release of an FBI handbook on domestic intelligence-gathering has shown that the FBI has relaxed certain rules on privacy to, according to them, catch domestic terrorists. Privacy advocates are greatly concerned whether this new interpretation is threatening American civil liberties.

The FBI recently released its Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. It lays out increasingly lower standards for privacy, including a low threshold of evidence to start investigating a person or group as a potential security threat. It also gives greater permissions to FBI agents in investigations, including:

• permission to use ethnicity or religion as a factor when selecting subjects for scrutiny
• permission to send confidential informants to infiltrate organizations and followings
• permission to photograph targets in public

The F.B.I. had beforehand held similar powers in cases involving criminal activity. But until 9/11 and the Bush administration, greater justification was required to use the powers in national security investigations because they receive less judicial oversight.

Mike German, a former FBI veteran who blew the whistle on that agency’s wrongful and illegal actions, and who now works for the ACLU, stated:

“[The policy] raises fundamental questions about whether a domestic intelligence agency can protect civil liberties if they feel they have a right to collect broad personal information about people they don’t even suspect of wrongdoing.

To counter German’s logical concerns, in a very Big-Brother-esque statement that should raise eyebrows, the general council for the FBI stated:

“Those who say the F.B.I. should not collect information on a person or group unless there is a specific reason to suspect that the target is up to no good seriously miss the mark…The F.B.I. has been told that we need to determine who poses a threat to the national security — not simply to investigate persons who have come onto our radar screen.”

So…the FBI doesn’t need any reason to investigate anyone? Just whoever they want to, then? Just for kicks?

Whistle Where You Work Episodes 19 & 20!

Whistle Where You Work Episodes 19 & 20 are now online. You can view them here. Below are the synopses for both episodes:

Episode 19: Conversations with FBI Whistleblower Coleen Rowley; FAA Whistleblower Peter Nesbitt

First, a long conversation with FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley, who blew the whistle on the FBI’s lack of adequate process and organization prior to 9/11. She was selected as one of Time Magazine’s Co-Persons of the Year in 2002. Her story is fascinating, and brings up numerous issues involving national security and whistleblower rights.

Then, a conversation with former Air Traffic Controller Peter Nesbitt, who exposed unsafe landing patterns (planes flying too close together) becoming too common at an airport. His supervisors retaliated against him for his brave his disclosure to the FAA.

Episode 20: Andrew Kreig; Adam Kolton; Tom Devine

First, we chat with attorney and investigative reporter Andrew Kreig about the whistleblower case making headlines in Alabama involving the Department of Justice and that state’s governor. Then, we sit down with Adam Kolton of the National Wildlife Federation to discuss the story of a public relations firm with ties to the energy industry. The firm falsely wrote letters from groups (NAACP) to key Senatorial staff asking for the impending climate legislation to be shelved. The groups had no idea they were doing so, and actually supported the legislation in different cases. Finally, GAP Legal Director Tom Devine provides us with an update on the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, and what viewers can do to support the cause. This episode was filmed in late September.

Whistle Where You Work Episodes 19 & 20!

Whistle Where You Work Episodes 19 & 20 are now online. You can view them here. Below are the synopses for both episodes:

Episode 19: Conversations with FBI Whistleblower Coleen Rowley; FAA Whistleblower Peter Nesbitt

First, a long conversation with FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley, who blew the whistle on the FBI’s lack of adequate process and organization prior to 9/11. She was selected as one of Time Magazine’s Co-Persons of the Year in 2002. Her story is fascinating, and brings up numerous issues involving national security and whistleblower rights.

Then, a conversation with former Air Traffic Controller Peter Nesbitt, who exposed unsafe landing patterns (planes flying too close together) becoming too common at an airport. His supervisors retaliated against him for his brave his disclosure to the FAA.

Episode 20: Andrew Kreig; Adam Kolton; Tom Devine

First, we chat with attorney and investigative reporter Andrew Kreig about the whistleblower case making headlines in Alabama involving the Department of Justice and that state’s governor. Then, we sit down with Adam Kolton of the National Wildlife Federation to discuss the story of a public relations firm with ties to the energy industry. The firm falsely wrote letters from groups (NAACP) to key Senatorial staff asking for the impending climate legislation to be shelved. The groups had no idea they were doing so, and actually supported the legislation in different cases. Finally, GAP Legal Director Tom Devine provides us with an update on the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, and what viewers can do to support the cause. This episode was filmed in late September.

Unsafe Nuclear Plants to be Included in Climate Bill?

The Obama administration and leading Democrats are trying to convince other lawmakers (prominent Republicans) to support the wide-ranging climate bill by offering incentives for nuclear power plant construction. Energy Secretary Steven Chu has said that America should "not stop at three or four, but should get tens of [new] reactors.”

This frightens environmentalists, and for good reason. In the United States, construction of a nuclear plant has not begun for more than 30 years. Nuclear firms say their technology is better and safer than ever, recent examples worldwide show constant delays and overboard extra costs.

More important, however, is the effect on the environment. The Hanford facility in Washington state, which GAP focuses on for years, was turned into an environmental remediation project in the 1980s, but that area still has untold amounts of problems, including widespread contamination in nearby rivers and the environment. Sickened citizens from nearby have won court cases in recent years from the operators of the plants. Long-term effects from a multitude of other Hanford issues remain unknown.

Also, a plan floated by the Bush administration for several years which involved building new nuclear plants and importing/recycling other countries’ spent fuel – GNEP, or the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership – has been repeatedly dismissed in several reports, including two by GAP (click here and here to read).

Nuclear technology is even close to being, and maybe will never be, completely safe. Congress should turn its attention to clean and safe alternative energy sources, such as wind and solar.

Civil Liberties Groups Urge Probe of Homeland Security Privacy Office

A coalition of 21 organizations and seven people sent a letter to lawmakers asking them to investigate the Department of Homeland Security office in charge of protecting Americans' privacy, saying it is enabling, rather than curbing, government surveillance and intelligence programs. The Privacy Coalition includes groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, Electronic Privacy Information Center, and Bill of Rights Defense Committee.

The letter criticized the DHS Privacy Office, specifically mentioning that it had reviewed privacy effects of practices such as: suspicion-less searches of computers at border checkpoints, whole body imaging at airports, and closed-circuit television surveillance. But the office has done little to scale them back.

The letter from the Privacy Coalition comes after some groups have criticized the Obama administrations support for renewing the USA Patriot Act. Many civil liberties groups have argued the President has not made changes to privacy-threatening security measures put in place by George W. Bush.

GAP has long called for better protection of civil liberties. Click here to read an op/ed in the Los Angeles Times by GAP Homeland Security Director Jesselyn Radack.

A New Threat to Food Safety

In an interesting and alarming piece, a columnist at the Washington Examiner looks at a threat to food safety that we don’t often think of: terrorism.

The Government Accountability Office recently released a report addressing the challenges of overseeing the import of food, especially the possibility of a deliberately introduced food-borne pathogen.

We are quickly learning that as the amount of imported food American consume increases, so does the risk of contamination – for example, the Salmonella outbreak in 2008 was linked to jalapenos grown in Mexico and distributed in the United States.

While legislation granting the Food and Drug Administration new powers to regulate imported foods is currently enjoying bipartisan support in Congress, and will hopefully help prevent food-borne illness, there has been little discussion of improving food safety from outside, intentional threats.

Ask Holder: Is DOJ Really Going to Put a Financial Whistleblower Behind Bars?

This post was written by GAP Homeland Security Director Jesselyn Radack for her Daily Kos Blog.

This morning, whistleblower advocacy groups called for Attorney General Holder to personally consider whether DOJ should be locking up whistleblower Brad Birkenfeld.  Birkenfeld took immense professional and personal risks to voluntarily disclose UBS's multi-billion dollar tax fraud conspiracy to law enforcement officials, handing DOJ its case against UBS on a silver platter.

What was Birkenfeld's reward for blowing the whistle? He is facing jail time while his colleagues who did nothing to cooperate have gotten off practically scot-free.  Holder should review this case and protect Birkenfeld, lest Holder plans to give up on any possible future financial whistleblowers who will learn that a "whistleblower reward" is a prison jumpsuit.

Today's letter from the National Whistleblower Center (NWC), the Government Accountability Project (GAP) and the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) points out the tragic consequences of DOJ punishing rather than protecting financial whistleblowers and should spur Holder to personally review Birkenfeld's case.

With $5-7 trillion U.S. dollars hidden in offshore accounts causing $100 billion in treasury revenue losses, the harm in sending Birkenfeld to jail is astronomical.  Holder ought to pay attention when he reads the consequences the letter points out:

Denying Mr. Birkenfeld whistleblower status, and sending him off to a long prison term, radically undermines the ability of the U.S. government to detect, prosecute and prevent illegal off-shore banking practices.  Without exaggeration, on the day Mr. Birkenfeld enters a federal penitentiary, every criminal using offshore secret banks to hide their ill-gotten gain will celebrate.  The Department of Justice will, unintentionally, be party to a well-publicized worldwide event that will send a chill down the spine of any international banker who, like Mr. Birkenfeld, feels guilty about the practices they participate in and wants to help stop these insidious practices that undermine the rule of law.

Due to the destructive impact of Mr. Birkenfeld’s sentencing, honest U.S. taxpayers will continue to bear the burden of the $100 billion lost to the Treasury annually because of secret banking. Victims of crimes funded by laundered funds, often funneled through secret banks, will shudder. These secret accounts are used to hide "blood money": money stolen from development projects designed for the most impoverished; bribe money obtained by crooked politicians, undermining the rule of law; profits from illegal arms deals to terrorist organizations.

 

At Birkenfeld's sentencing in August, DOJ itself fully acknowledged Birkenfeld's voluntary disclosures and made clear that DOJ would not have opened the UBS case without his information:

The United States opened an investigation based on information provided by Birkenfeld...This substantial assistance has been timely, significant, useful, truthful, complete and reliable.

Birkenfeld's information didn't just serve to expose thousands of illegal accounts; the case has yielded fines and penalties of $780 million. Yet, after taking and using all of the information he provided, DOJ still prosecuted Birkenfeld.  And, while Birkenfeld's reward is a jail sentence, Birkenfeld's criminal colleagues - like Martin Leichti, Birkenfeld's ex-boss, who was allowed to return to Switzerland - are enjoying the benefits of hiding their criminal behavior: freedom and wealth.

So, as the letter asks, so do I:

Will the Department of Justice imprison the international banker who had the courage to voluntarily step forward and blow the whistle on one of the world’s most powerful corporations?  Or will the Department of Justice use the Bradley Birkenfeld case as an historic opportunity to promote whistleblowing in the fight against corrupt international banks?