Do the results of the audit (numbers of Patriot Act abuses by FBI) surprise you?
No 95%     Yes 5%     (total votes: 24,042)

ABSTRACT - Justice Dept begins using its expanded counterterrorism powers to seize millions of dollars from foreign banks that do business in US, saying tool has proved invaluable in seizing ill-gotten money that criminals hide overseas and that was once out of government's reach; State Dept officials raise concerns over practice, in part because most of seizures involve fraud and money-laundering investigations unrelated to terrorism; worry is that under guise of fighting terrorism, US may be seen as trying to extra-territorially impose its laws; diplomats from several nations, including Switzerland, have voiced private objections; information about seizures has been tightly guarded, and federal judges have sealed records on most of them. The Justice Department has begun using its expanded counterterrorism powers to seize millions of dollars from foreign banks that do business in the United States, creating tensions with the State Department and some allies.
   Law enforcement officials say the tool has proved invaluable in seizing ill-gotten money that criminals hide overseas and that was once out of the government's reach. Under the counterterrorism measures approved by Congress after the Sept. 11 attacks, prosecutors are not even required to trace the money back to the target of an investigation.

 Officials at the State Department, however, have raised concerns over the practice — in part because most of the seizures have involved fraud and money-laundering investigations that are unrelated to terrorism.  State Department officials worry "that this might be seen by other countries as arbitrary or trying to extra-territorially impose our laws" under the guise of fighting terrorism, said a Bush administration official who demanded anonymity. Diplomats from several nations, including Switzerland, have voiced private objections, officials said.

 The Justice Department has seized at least 15 foreign-based bank accounts in the United States in recent months, confiscating what prosecutors say they believe to be tainted money belonging to overseas banks in Israel, Oman, Taiwan, India, Belize and elsewhere, according to law enforcement officials who spoke on condition of anonymity. Other seizures are also being considered, officials said.  Justice Department officials acknowledged the diplomatic problems that can be created by seizing money from foreign banks, and they said they have sought to use the new power sparingly after considering all other legal options.

 The authority to seize ill-gotten foreign funds "is a very powerful tool and one that can affect our international relationships," said Bryan Sierra, a spokesman for the Justice Department.  Mr. Sierra said that to protect the law enforcement relationships the United States has developed with governments around the world, the Justice Department "scrutinizes prosecutors' use of this provision before it is exercised."

 The Justice Department has sent out guidance to prosecutors around the country about how to use the new power and has reached an informal understanding with the State Department to consult more extensively with officials there before seizing foreign money. State Department officials had complained that the Justice Department had kept them out of the loop in some cases.  "This is a process of last resort," said a senior law enforcement official. American diplomats "are worried about it, and we understand that, which is why we want to use this judiciously," said the official.

 The State Department declined to comment on the issue. But a department official who spoke on condition o anonymity acknowledged that there was still the potential for abuse in foreign seizures, despite the Justice Department's pledges to consider diplomatic issues in its decisions.  "From a diplomatic point of view, we've got concerns," the official said. "We're the ones who have to ensure diplomatic relations, and this complicates that."

 Traditionally in money laundering and terror financing cases, federal authorities have worked through international law enforcement treaties in requesting that a country that is home to a foreign bank move to freeze "dirty money" and turn it over to the United States. In countries with no treaty with the United States, American authorities say, their efforts often ran into dead ends.

 But a little-noticed provision in the sweeping antiterrorism legislation passed in October 2001, gave federal authorities in such cases the power to seize money that passes through banks in the United States without notifying the foreign government. Most overseas banks maintain what are called "correspondent accounts" in American banks, allowing them to exchange American currency and handle other financial transactions in this country. Section 319 of the Patriot Act, as the legislation that grew out of the Sept. 11 attacks is known, allows federal authorities to seize money from the foreign bank's correspondent account if they can convince a judge that the money deposited overseas at the bank was obtained illicitly.

 Information about the seizures has been tightly guarded, and federal judges have sealed the records on most of them. The Justice Department acknowledged two cases in which authorities have seized a total of more than $2 million from foreign banks, but declined to give the total number of seizures.  Law enforcement officials said the Justice Department had employed the new tool in about a half-dozen investigations, seizing money from at least 15 bank accounts. Most of those came inrecent months and involved fraud and laundering cases, officials said. Law enforcement officials said some of the seizures have involved money that they suspect was helping to finance terrorism, but they declined to discuss details. Officials also see the measure as a potentially powerful tool in seizing money from drug traffickers.

 In a case that resulted in a guilty plea in federal court this week, federal authorities seized $310,000 from four banks in the New York City area that held correspondent accounts with foreign banks in Oman, India, and Taiwan.  In seizing the money, the authorities charged that a Sudanese citizen in Brooklyn, Ahmed Abdu, had illegally wired more than $5 million to bank accounts around the world. It was the first time the seizure tool had been used by federal prosecutors in New York's Southern District.

 Mr. Abdu pleaded guilty on Wednesday to a charge of conspiring to run an unlicensed money transmitting business and faces up to five years in prison. The authorities seized the $310,000 from four banks in the New York City area that held correspondent accounts on behalf of overseas banks: Citibank, Standard Chartered Bank, Deutsche Bank, and HSBC Bank USA.  "It was a strange thing for the banks," said a financial investigator with the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in New York who spoke on condition of anonymity. "There was resistance initially, because they weren't exactly sure what to do. They'd never seen something like this before."

 The seizure power has opened up doors once closed in financial crime investigations, the investigator said. "Now we can get ahold of money where we couldn't before," he said. "But we proceed very cautiously. It's such a powerful tool, you could knock the economy of a country on its head if it were a big enough case."

 A seizure in Belize, centering on a lawyer and financial manager who was accused of embezzling money from his clients, has become a model for how the law can be applied, officials said.  The lawyer, James Gibson, was accused of bilking clients out of millions of dollars and then fleeing to Central America. Prosecutors said that Mr. Gibson, indicted by a federal grand jury in 2001, deposited some of the money in banks in Belize.

 Although the government of Belize initially agreed to freeze the money, a court there blocked the move, and prosecutors said they believed that Mr. Gibson and his wife were looting the accounts to buy yachts and other luxury items.  But after the passage of the Patriot Act, the Justice Department moved within weeks in late 2001 to seize the money from the Belizean banks' correspondent accounts in the United States, according to a report prosecutors gave Congress last week on the new law enforcement powers.  Officials said that the money seized from Belize totaled about $1.7 million, and that it would be used to compensate Mr. Gibson's victims.

 Charles A. Intriago, a specialist in money laundering law in Miami who publishes Money Laundering Alert, said he considered the Justice Department's new power to seize foreign bank accounts "maybe the most startling provision of the Patriot Act." He said: "It's an awesome power, and it may even go too far because of the diplomatic problems it could cause."  But Mr. Intriago added that he did not fault the Justice Department for considering the new tool in a range of fraud, laundering and drug trafficking cases that are unrelated to their counterterrorism mandate.  "If Congress had wanted this tool to be limited to terrorism, it would have done so," he said. "It didn't."

There are a few ongoing controversies about the Patriot Act, the batch of laws passed to combat terrorism in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. Most serious is the charge that anti-terror laws are being misapplied to advance agendas that have nothing to do with preventing another attack on America. If so, this is a serious problem.
    Specifically, civil-liberties groups are warning that the Justice Department is abusing powers derived from the Patriot Act. The agency argues that it very clearly is utilizing Patriot Act provisions for crime-fighting beyond anti-terror activities, but that it is perfectly within the bounds of the law to do so. Of particular import is Section 319, which gives prosecutors the ability to seize foreign assets in U.S.-based accounts of foreign banks if there is probable cause that the funds were obtained illegally. On Friday, Justice Department spokesman Bryan Sierra explained to us that, "When tools are available, yes, we'll use them. There is no wording in the law that limits this provision to terrorism. And given the complex connection between terrorism and money-laundering and other criminal activity, such as drug trafficking, we think it is appropriate to use the law to track down proceeds of illegal activity generally."
    Critics say such broad powers go too far, and that federal prosecutors have a tendency to overreach. Economist Richard Rahn told us, "The government has a record of abuse with asset forfeiture already. It's a dangerous trend that undermines due process. Until actually convicted, no one should suffer the loss of their property." There are political ramifications as well. The State Department is worried that its diplomatic initiatives are undermined if prosecutors receive more power to move against foreign businesses operating in this country.
    Our concern is the seeming misunderstanding of the public's support for the Patriot Act, which was sold as a reaction to terrorism. In its wisdom, Congress gave the government more powers to confront the new threat to the nation, including the ability to seize terrorist assets. We endorsed the new law, and would support broader tactics so long as they have sunset clauses and are used for the intended purposes. We could even understand the loose use of Section 319 in cases in which there is a hunch that a terrorist connection could exist. But permanently instituting new police powers or extending them beyond the scope of the terrorist threat, risks undercutting the public's support for the laws. If prosecutors don't show restraint, Congress may decide to restrain them by changing the statutes. And that would be a setback for the war on terror.

July 21, 2003

ASHINGTON, July 20 — A report by internal investigators at the Justice Department has identified dozens of recent cases in which department employees have been accused of serious civil rights and civil liberties violations involving enforcement of the sweeping federal antiterrorism law known as the USA Patriot Act.

The inspector general's report, which was presented to Congress last week and is awaiting public release, is likely to raise new concern among lawmakers about whether the Justice Department can police itself when its employees are accused of violating the rights of Muslim and Arab immigrants and others swept up in terrorism investigations under the 2001 law.

The report said that in the six-month period that ended on June 15, the inspector general's office had received 34 complaints of civil rights and civil liberties violations by department employees that it considered credible, including accusations that Muslim and Arab immigrants in federal detention centers had been beaten.

The accused workers are employed in several of the agencies that make up the Justice Department, with most of them assigned to the Bureau of Prisons, which oversees federal penitentiaries and detention centers.

The report said that credible accusations were also made against employees of the F.B.I., the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Immigration and Naturalization Service; most of the immigration agency was consolidated earlier this year into the Department of Homeland Security.

A spokeswoman for the Justice Department, Barbara Comstock, said tonight that the department "takes its obligations very seriously to protect civil rights and civil liberties, and the small number of credible allegations will be thoroughly investigated."

Ms. Comstock noted that the department was continuing to review accusations made last month in a separate report by the inspector general, Glenn A. Fine, that found broader problems in the department's treatment of hundreds of illegal immigrants rounded up after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

While most of the accusations in the report are still under investigation, the report said a handful had been substantiated, including those against a federal prison doctor who was reprimanded after reportedly telling an inmate during a physical examination that "if I was in charge, I would execute every one of you" because of "the crimes you all did."

The report did not otherwise identify the doctor or name the federal detention center where he worked. The doctor, it said, had "allegedly treated other inmates in a cruel and unprofessional manner."

The report said that the inspector general's office was continuing to investigate a separate case in which about 20 inmates at a federal detention center, which was not identified, had recently accused a corrections officer of abusive behavior, including ordering a Muslim inmate to remove his shirt "so the officer could use it to shine his shoes."

In that case, the report said, the inspector general's office was able to obtain a statement from the officer admitting that he had verbally abused the Muslim inmate and that he had been "less that completely candid" with internal investigators from the Bureau of Prisons. The inspector general's office said it had also obtained a sworn statement from another prison worker confirming the inmates' accusations.

The report did not directly criticize the Bureau of Prisons for its handling of an earlier internal investigation of the officer, but the report noted that the earlier inquiry had been closed — and the accused officer initially cleared — without anyone interviewing the inmates or the officer.

The report is the second in recent weeks from the inspector general to focus on the way the Justice Department is carrying out the broad new surveillance and detention powers it gained under the Patriot Act, which was passed by Congress a month after the 9/11 attacks.

In the first report, which was made public on June 2, Mr. Fine, whose job is to act as the department's internal watchdog, found that hundreds of illegal immigrants had been mistreated after they were detained following the attacks.

That report found that many inmates languished in unduly harsh conditions for months, and that the department had made little effort to distinguish legitimate terrorist suspects from others picked up in roundups of illegal immigrants.

The first report brought widespread, bipartisan criticism of the Justice Department, which defended its conduct at the time, saying that it "made no apologies for finding every legal way possible to protect the American public from further attacks."

Ms. Comstock, the spokeswoman, said tonight that the department had been sensitive to concerns about civil rights and civil liberties after the 9/11 attacks, and that the department had been aggressive in investigating more that 500 cases of complaints of ethnic "hate crimes" linked to backlash from the attacks.

"We've had 13 federal prosecutions of 18 defendants to date, with a 100 percent conviction rate," she said. "We have a very aggressive effort against post-9/11 discrimination."

A copy of the report, which was dated July 17 and provided to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, was made available to The New York Times by the office of Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the House panel.

"This report shows that we have only begun to scratch the surface with respect to the Justice Department's disregard of constitutional rights and civil liberties," Mr. Conyers said in a statement. "I commend the inspector general for having the courage and independence to highlight the degree to which the administration's war on terror has misfired and harmed innocent victims with no ties to terror whatsoever.`

The report is Mr. Fine's evaluation of his efforts to enforce provisions of the Patriot Act that require his office to investigate complaints of abuses of civil rights and civil liberties by Justice Department employees. The provision was inserted into the law by members of Congress who said they feared that the Patriot Act might lead to widespread law enforcement abuses.

The report draws no broad conclusions about the extent of abuses by Justice Department employees, although it suggests that the relatively small staff of the inspector general's office has been overwhelmed by accusations of abuse, many filed by Muslim or Arab inmates in federal detention centers.

The inspector general said that from Dec. 16 through June 15, his office received 1,073 complaints "suggesting a Patriot Act-related" abuse of civil rights or civil liberties.

The report suggested that hundreds of the accusations were easily dismissed as not credible or impossible to prove. But of the remainder, 272 were determined to fall within the inspector general's jurisdiction, with 34 raising "credible Patriot Act violations on their face."

In those 34 cases, it said, the accusations "ranged in seriousness from alleged beatings of immigration detainees to B.O.P. correctional officers allegedly verbally abusing inmates."

The report said that two of the cases were referred to internal investigators at the Federal Bureau of Investigation because they involved bureau employees. In one case, the report said, the bureau investigated — and determined to be unsubstantiated — a complaint that an F.B.I. agent had "displayed aggressive, hostile and demeaning behavior while administering a pre-employment polygraph examination."

The report said that the second case involved accusations from a naturalized citizen of Lebanese descent that the F.B.I. had invaded his home based on false information and wrongly accused him of possessing an AK-47 rifle. That case, it said, is still under investigation by the bureau.

ASHINGTON, Sept. 27 — The Bush administration, which calls the USA Patriot Act perhaps its most essential tool in fighting terrorists, has begun using the law with increasing frequency in many criminal investigations that have little or no connection to terrorism.

The government is using its expanded authority under the far-reaching law to investigate suspected drug traffickers, white-collar criminals, blackmailers, child pornographers, money launderers, spies and even corrupt foreign leaders, federal officials said.

Justice Department officials say they are simply using all the tools now available to them to pursue criminals — terrorists or otherwise. But critics of the administration's antiterrorism tactics assert that such use of the law is evidence the administration is using terrorism as a guise to pursue a broader law enforcement agenda.

Justice Department officials point out that they have employed their newfound powers in many instances against suspected terrorists. With the new law breaking down the wall between intelligence and criminal investigations, the Justice Department in February was able to bring terrorism-related charges against a Florida professor, for example, and it has used its expanded surveillance powers to move against several suspected terrorist cells.

But a new Justice Department report, given to members of Congress this month, also cites more than a dozen cases that are not directly related to terrorism in which federal authorities have used their expanded power to investigate individuals, initiate wiretaps and other surveillance, or seize millions in tainted assets.

For instance, the ability to secure nationwide warrants to obtain e-mail and electronic evidence "has proved invaluable in several sensitive nonterrorism investigations," including the tracking of an unidentified fugitive and an investigation into a computer hacker who stole a company's trade secrets, the report said.

Justice Department officials said the cases cited in the report represent only a small sampling of the many hundreds of nonterrorism cases pursued under the law.

The authorities have also used toughened penalties under the law to press charges against a lovesick 20-year-old woman from Orange County, Calif., who planted threatening notes aboard a Hawaii-bound cruise ship she was traveling on with her family in May. The woman, who said she made the threats to try to return home to her boyfriend, was sentenced this week to two years in federal prison because of a provision in the Patriot Act on the threat of terrorism against mass transportation systems.

And officials said they had used their expanded authority to track private Internet communications in order to investigate a major drug distributor, a four-time killer, an identity thief and a fugitive who fled on the eve of trial by using a fake passport.

In one case, an e-mail provider disclosed information that allowed federal authorities to apprehend two suspects who had threatened to kill executives at a foreign corporation unless they were paid a hefty ransom, officials said. Previously, they said, gray areas in the law made it difficult to get such global Internet and computer data.

The law passed by Congress just five weeks after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has proved a particularly powerful tool in pursuing financial crimes.

Officials with the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement have seen a sharp spike in investigations as a result of their expanded powers, officials said in interviews.

A senior official said investigators in the last two years had seized about $35 million at American borders in undeclared cash, checks and currency being smuggled out of the country. That was a significant increase over the past few years, the official said. While the authorities say they suspect that large amounts of the smuggled cash may have been intended to finance Middle Eastern terrorists, much of it involved drug smuggling, corporate fraud and other crimes not directly related to terrorism.

The terrorism law allows the authorities to investigate cash smuggling cases more aggressively and to seek stiffer penalties by elevating them from what had been mere reporting failures.

Customs officials say they have used their expanded authority to open at least nine investigations into Latin American officials suspected of laundering money in the United States, and to seize millions of dollars from overseas bank accounts in many cases unrelated to terrorism.

In one instance, agents citing the new law seized $1.7 million from United States bank accounts that were linked to a former Illinois investor who fled to Belize after he was accused of bilking clients out of millions, federal officials said.

Publicly, Attorney General John Ashcroft and senior Justice Department officials have portrayed their expanded power almost exclusively as a means of fighting terrorists, with little or no mention of other criminal uses.

"We have used these tools to prevent terrorists from unleashing more death and destruction on our soil," Mr. Ashcroft said last month in a speech in Washington, one of more than two dozen he has given in defense of the law, which has come under growing attack. "We have used these tools to save innocent American lives."

Internally, however, Justice Department officials have emphasized a much broader mandate.

A guide to a Justice Department employee seminar last year on financial crimes, for instance, said: "We all know that the USA Patriot Act provided weapons for the war on terrorism. But do you know how it affects the war on crime as well?"

Elliot Mincberg, legal director for People for the American Way, a liberal group that has been critical of Mr. Ashcroft, said the Justice Department's public assertions had struck him as misleading and perhaps dishonest.

"What the Justice Department has really done," he said, "is to get things put into the law that have been on prosecutors' wish lists for years. They've used terrorism as a guise to expand law enforcement powers in areas that are totally unrelated to terrorism."

A study in January by the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, concluded that while the number of terrorism investigations at the Justice Department soared after the Sept. 11 attacks, 75 percent of the convictions that the department classified as "international terrorism" were wrongly labeled. Many dealt with more common crimes like document forgery.

The terrorism law has already drawn sharp opposition from those who believe it gives the government too much power to intrude on people's privacy in pursuit of terrorists.

Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said, "Once the American public understands that many of the powers granted to the federal government apply to much more than just terrorism, I think the opposition will gain momentum."

Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said members of Congress expected some of the new powers granted to law enforcement to be used for nonterrorism investigations. But he said the Justice Department's secrecy and lack of cooperation in putting the legislation into effect made him question whether "the government is taking shortcuts around the criminal laws" by invoking intelligence powers — with differing standards of evidence — to conduct surveillance operations and demand access to records.

"We did not intend for the government to shed the traditional tools of criminal investigation, such as grand jury subpoenas governed by well-established precedent and wiretaps strictly monitored" by federal judges, he said.

Justice Department officials say such criticism has not deterred them. "There are many provisions in the Patriot Act that can be used in the general criminal law," Mark Corallo, a department spokesman, said. "And I think any reasonable person would agree that we have an obligation to do everything we can to protect the lives and liberties of Americans from attack, whether it's from terrorists or garden-variety criminals."

January 27, 2004

resident Bush is making an oddly timed push for renewal of the Patriot Act. Since important provisions of the law do not expire until the end of 2005, his real reason for raising the issue last week in his State of the Union address seemed to be political: to create the appearance of being tough on terrorism, which is central to his re-election campaign, while undercutting the chorus of critics, spanning the political spectrum, who are calling the act a threat to civil liberties. Mr. Bush had it exactly backward. Rather than rushing to renew the law, Congress should curtail its many serious excesses.

Even Senator Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican, said the renewal request was "about a year early." He joined an array of Republicans — including Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House of Representatives, and Senator Larry Craig of Idaho — and many more Democrats in expressing concern about the act's effect on ordinary Americans.

Mr. Bush suggested that the Patriot Act simply gave law enforcement the same kind of powers to go after terrorists that it already has for ordinary criminals. But it actually expands the government's ability to monitor people in important ways. Section 215, which has provoked considerable opposition, allows the F.B.I. to order third parties, like libraries or Internet service providers, to hand over personal records about individuals. Librarians and other record holders can be arrested if they make a request public, or notify the target.

Other sections expand the government's power to conduct secret searches and wiretaps. A clear indication that the Patriot Act has expanded the government's investigative authority is that Mr. Bush's own Justice Department found in a study last fall that the act is regularly being used in nonterrorism cases. Defenders of the act say there is little evidence it is being misused. But if individuals' rights are violated, they may have no way to know that.

A federal judge has just struck down, as unconstitutionally vague, the act's ban on giving advice and assistance to groups designated as foreign terrorist organizations. But the act is not merely constitutionally suspect. There are better ways to make the country safe: inspect more of the shipping containers coming into United States ports, increase security around nuclear and chemical plants, and buy up enriched uranium before it falls into the wrong hands. But the money to do such things is in short supply after the president's tax cuts. Taking away civil liberties may not expand Mr. Bush's gaping budget deficit, but its price in lost freedom is more than we can afford.

WASHINGTON, March 8 — The Justice Department’s inspector general has prepared a scathing report criticizing how the F.B.I. uses a form of administrative subpoena to obtain thousands of telephone, business and financial records without prior judicial approval.

The report, expected to be issued on Friday, says that the bureau lacks sufficient controls to make sure the subpoenas, which do not require a judge’s prior approval, are properly issued and that it does not follow even some of the rules it does have.

Under the USA Patriot Act, the bureau each year has issued more than 20,000 of the national security letters, as the demands for information are known. The report is said to conclude that the program lacks effective management, monitoring and reporting procedures, officials who have been briefed on its contents said.

Details of the report emerged on Thursday as Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and other officials struggled to tamp down a Congressional uproar over another issue, the ousters of eight United States attorneys.

Mr. Gonzales told Democratic and Republican senators that the Justice Department would drop its opposition to a change in a one-year-old rule for replacing federal prosecutors, senators and Justice Department officials said.

Mr. Gonzales offered the concession at a private meeting on Capitol Hill with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Mr. Gonzales also agreed to let the panel question Justice Department officials involved in the removals, Congressional aides said. The officials would testify voluntarily without subpoena.

Mr. Gonzales’s willingness to give in to Senate demands appeared to underscore how the Justice Department had been put on the defensive by the criticism over the prosecutors’ ousters.

The use of national security letters since the September 2001 attacks has been a hotly debated domestic intelligence issue. They were once used only in espionage and terrorism cases, and then only against people suspected as agents of a foreign power.

With the passage of the Patriot Act, their use was greatly expanded and was allowed against Americans who were subjects of any investigation. The law also allowed other agencies like the Homeland Security Department to issue the letters.

The letters have proved contentious in part because unlike search warrants, they are issued without prior judicial approval and require only the approval of the agent in charge of a local F.B.I. office. A Supreme Court ruling in 2004 forced revisions of the Patriot Act to permit greater judicial review, without requiring advance authorization.

As problems for the Justice Department appeared to be piling up, criticism of Mr. Gonzales seemed to grow more biting as Republicans senators complained about Mr. Gonzales, some because of a letter in USA Today in which he said he had lost confidence in the ousted prosecutors and regarded the question an “overblown personnel matter.”

Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, senior Republican on the judiciary panel, said in a telephone interview that those comments were “extraordinarily insensitive” and that the prosecutors were “professionals who are going to have a cloud over them which could last a lifetime.”

“I have been trying to hold down the rhetoric and try to deal with this on a factual and analytical basis, and his letter was volcanic,” Mr. Specter said. “We don’t need that,” he added.

Earlier at the Judiciary Committee business meeting, Mr. Specter also had harsh words for Mr. Gonzales, saying, “One day, there will be a new attorney general, maybe sooner rather than later.”

Mr. Specter said later his remark did not indicate that Mr. Gonzales had any intention of stepping down.

Other Republican senators expressed strong criticism of the removals and handling by Mr. Gonzales’s aides. Senator John Ensign, Republican of Nevada, was quoted by The Las Vegas Review-Journal as saying the prosecutors’ removals had “been completely mishandled.”

The United States attorney in Nevada, Daniel G. Bogden, was one of the eight dismissed without explanation until he was told by a senior Justice Department officials that he was being replaced to make room for other appointees. Mr. Ensign said the department fired Mr. Bogden over his objections. Mr. Ensign said last month that he was told that the change was for “performance reasons,” but said he was surprised when a Justice Department official testified at a House hearing on Tuesday that Mr. Bogden’s performance had no serious lapses.

Even staunch Republican defenders of the department expressed criticism. One ally was Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, where Paul K. Charlton was among those dismissed.

“Some people’s reputations are going to suffer needlessly,” Mr. Kyl said. “Hopefully, we can get to the point where we say, ‘These people did a great job.”’

The withdrawal of objections to changing the rules for the prosecutors appears to assure passage of a measure to restore rules changed last March, when the attorney general was given authority to appoint replacement United States attorneys indefinitely, several senators said.

“The administration has withdrawn its objections to my legislation,” the sponsor of the bill, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, said. She was one of the senators who met with Mr. Gonzales. Others were Mr. Specter, Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, and Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Ms. Feinstein said: “My concerns have been that the firing of people with strong performance reviews all at one time, a number of whom were involved in corruption cases, sends an adverse signal to the rest of the U.S. attorneys, as well as to the general public. They may be hired by the president, but they serve the people and they should not be subjected to political pressure.”

The bill would let the attorney general appoint a temporary replacement for 120 days. If the Senate confirms no one after that time, the appointment of an interim United States attorney would be left to a federal district judge.

Brian Roehrkasse, a Justice Department spokesman, said Thursday night: “The department stands by the decision to remove the U.S. attorneys. As we have acknowledged in hindsight, we should have provided the U.S. attorneys with specific reasons that led to their dismissal that would have help to avoid the rampant misinformation and wild speculation that currently exits.”

A Justice Department investigation has found pervasive errors in the FBI's use of its power to secretly demand telephone, e-mail and financial records in national security cases, officials with access to the report said yesterday.

The inspector general's audit found 22 possible breaches of internal FBI and Justice Department regulations -- some of which were potential violations of law -- in a sampling of 293 "national security letters." The letters were used by the FBI to obtain the personal records of U.S. residents or visitors between 2003 and 2005. The FBI identified 26 potential violations in other cases.

Officials said they could not be sure of the scope of the violations but suggested they could be more widespread, though not deliberate. In nearly a quarter of the case files Inspector General Glenn A. Fine reviewed, he found previously unreported potential violations.

The use of national security letters has grown exponentially since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. In 2005 alone, the audit found, the FBI issued more than 19,000 such letters, amounting to 47,000 separate requests for information.

The letters enable an FBI field office to compel the release of private information without the authority of a grand jury or judge. The USA Patriot Act, enacted after the 2001 attacks, eliminated the requirement that the FBI show "specific and articulable" reasons to believe that the records it demands belong to a foreign intelligence agent or terrorist.

That law, and Bush administration guidelines for its use, transformed national security letters by permitting clandestine scrutiny of U.S. residents and visitors who are not alleged to be terrorists or spies.

Now the bureau needs only to certify that the records are "sought for" or "relevant to" an investigation "to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities."

According to three officials with access to the report, Fine said the possible violations he discovered did not "manifest deliberate attempts to circumvent statutory limitations or departmental policies."

But Fine found that FBI agents used national security letters without citing an authorized investigation, claimed "exigent" circumstances that did not exist in demanding information and did not have adequate documentation to justify the issuance of letters.

In at least two cases, the officials said, Fine found that the FBI obtained full credit reports using a national security letter that could lawfully be employed to obtain only summary information. In an unknown number of other cases, third parties such as telephone companies, banks and Internet providers responded to national security letters with detailed personal information about customers that the letters do not permit to be released. The FBI "sequestered" that information, a law enforcement official said last night, but did not destroy it.

Alan Raul, vice chairman of the White House Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board and a former Reagan White House lawyer , said in an interview that the Bush administration has asked the board to review and recommend changes in the FBI's use of national security letters.

"The processes seem to be seriously in need of tune-up," Raul said. "We hope to play a role in helping the FBI get to where it knows it needs to be."

Lanny Davis, another board member and a former attorney in the Clinton White House , said his recent briefing by the FBI left him "very concerned about what I regard to be serious potential infringements of privacy and civil liberties by the FBI and their use of national security letters. It is my impression that they too regard this as very serious."

Fine's audit, which was limited to 77 case files in four FBI field offices, found that those offices did not even generate accurate counts of the national security letters they issued, omitting about one in five letters from the reports they sent to headquarters in Washington. Those inaccurate numbers, in turn, were used as the basis for required reports to Congress.

Officials said they believe that the 48 known problems may be the tip of the iceberg in an internal oversight system that one of them described as "shoddy."

The report identified several instances in which the FBI used a tool known as "exigent letters" to obtain information urgently, promising that the requests would be covered later by grand jury subpoenas or national security letters. In several of those cases, the subpoenas were never sent, the review found.

The review also found several instances in which agents claimed there were exigent circumstances when none existed. The FBI recently ended the practice of using exigent letters in national security cases, officials said last night.

The report, mandated by Congress over the Bush administration's objections, is to be presented to several House and Senate committees today. But senior officials, speaking with permission on the condition that they not be identified, said the Bush administration has already responded vigorously to the audit's findings.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales learned of the findings three weeks ago and "was incensed when he was told the contents of the report," according to a Justice Department official.

"The attorney general commends the work of the inspector general in uncovering serious problems in the FBI's use of NSLs," said Tasia Scolinos, a spokeswoman for Gonzales. "He has told [FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III] that these past mistakes will not be tolerated, and has ordered the FBI and the department to restore accountability and to put in place safeguards to ensure greater oversight and controls over the use of national security letters."

FBI and Justice Department officials have long described national security letters as an indispensable tool in combating terrorism, and Fine's report, according to one official who cited excerpts, said investigators told the inspector general that the letters "contributed significantly to many counterterrorism and counterintelligence investigations." Fine did not make an independent assessment of the efficacy of the letters as investigative tools.

FBI procedures require that any possible violation of law or regulation on national security letters be reported to the President's Intelligence Oversight Board within 14 days of discovery. Of the 26 breaches it discovered before Fine's review, the FBI referred 19 to the oversight board.

Among the responses officials highlighted last night is a tracking database under development by the FBI to ensure that its accounting of national security letters is accurate. One official said the FBI would begin deployment of the system in four of its 56 field offices by the end of the year. Meanwhile, the official said, each office will be required to "hand count" the numbers every month.

Gonzales, officials said, has ordered the department's national security division and inspections division to begin audits next month of a sampling of national security letters in every field office. About 15 offices should be audited by the end of the year, the official said.

Gonzales has also ordered that he chief counsel of every field office personally sign off on every national security letter, a practice that has been encouraged but not required until now.

The office of Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell has established a working group to consider how much of the information gathered by national security letters should be retained and whether any of it should be purged. After the Patriot Act was passed, the Bush administration eliminated the FBI's requirement that irrelevant personal information from case files be discarded after cases are closed.

Mueller has ordered improved training of agents involved in national security cases and better record-keeping. Last May, changes began with the fixing of databases.

A senior group of FBI inspectors has been asked to review the conduct of agents and their supervisors to determine if any should be disciplined for mistakes.

The FBI for three years underreported the number of times it required businesses to turn over personal customer information under the Patriot Act, a Justice Department audit said.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales left open the possibility of pursuing criminal charges against FBI agents or lawyers who improperly used the USA Patriot Act in pursuit of suspected terrorists and spies.

The FBI's transgressions were spelled out in a damning 126-page audit by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine. He found that agents sometimes demanded personal data on people without official authorization, and in other cases improperly obtained telephone records in non-emergency circumstances.

The audit also concluded that the FBI for three years underreported to Congress  how often it used national security letters to ask businesses to turn over customer data. The letters are administrative subpoenas that do not require a judge's approval.

"People have to believe in what we say," Gonzales said. "And so I think this was very upsetting to me. And it's frustrating."

"We have some work to do to reassure members of Congress and the American people that we are serious about being responsible in the exercise of these authorities," he said.

Under the Patriot Act, the national security letters give the FBI authority to demand that telephone companies, Internet service providers, banks, credit bureaus and other businesses produce personal records about their customers or subscribers. About three-fourths of the letters issued between 2003 and 2005 involved counterterror cases, with the rest for espionage investigations, the audit reported.

Shoddy record-keeping and human error were to blame for the bulk of the problems, said Justice auditors, who were careful to note they found no indication of criminal misconduct.

Still, "we believe the improper or illegal uses we found involve serious misuses of national security letter authorities," the audit concluded.

FBI Director Robert S. Mueller said many of the problems were being fixed, including by building a better internal data collection system and training employees on the limits of their authority. The FBI has also scrapped the use of "exigent letters," which were used to gather information without the signed permission of an authorized official.

"But the question should and must be asked: How could this happen? Who is accountable?" Mueller said. "And the answer to that is, I am to be held accountable."

Mueller said he had not been asked to resign, nor had he discussed doing so with other officials. He said employees would probably face disciplinary actions, not criminal charges, following an internal investigation of how the violations occurred.

The audit incensed lawmakers in Congress already seething over the recent dismissals of eight U.S. attorneys. Democrats who lead House and Senate  judiciary and intelligence oversight panels promised hearings on the findings. Several lawmakers - Republicans and Democrats alike - raised the possibility of scaling back the FBI's authority.

"It's up to Congress to end these abuses as soon as possible," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee. "The Patriot Act was never intended to allow the Bush administration to violate fundamental constitutional rights."

Rep. Pete Hoekstra, top Republican  on the House Intelligence Committee, said the audit shows "a major failure by Justice to uphold the law."

"If the Justice Department is going to enforce the law, it must follow it as well," said Hoekstra, of Michigan.

The American Civil Liberties Union said the audit proves Congress must amend the Patriot Act to require judicial approval anytime the FBI wants access to sensitive personal information.

"The attorney general and the FBI are part of the problem, and they cannot be trusted to be part of the solution," said ACLU's executive director, Anthony D. Romero.

Both Gonzales and Mueller called the national security letters vital tools in pursuing terrorists and spies in the United States. "They are the bread and butter of our investigations," Mueller said.

Gonzales asked the inspector general to issue a follow-up audit in July on whether the FBI had followed recommendations to fix the problems.

Fine's annual review is required by Congress, over the objections of the Bush administration. It concluded that the number of national security letters requested by the FBI skyrocketed in the years after the Patriot Act became law. Each letter issued may contain several requests.

In 2000, for example, the FBI issued an estimated 8,500 requests. That number peaked in 2004 with 56,000. Overall, the FBI reported issuing 143,074 requests in national security letters between 2003 and 2005.

But that did not include an additional 8,850 requests that were never recorded in the FBI's database, the audit found. A sample review of 77 case files at four FBI field offices showed that agents had underreported the number of national security letter requests by about 22 percent.

Additionally, the audit found, the FBI identified 26 possible violations in its use of the letters, including failing to get proper authorization, making improper requests under the law and unauthorized collection of telephone or Internet e-mail records.

The FBI also used exigent letters to quickly get information - sometimes in non-emergency situations - without going through proper channels. In at least 700 cases, these letters were sent to three telephone companies to get billing records and subscriber information, the audit found.

During the hearing on his nomination as attorney general, Alberto Gonzales said he understood the difference between the job he held — President Bush’s in-house lawyer — and the job he wanted, which was to represent all Americans as their chief law enforcement officer and a key defender of the Constitution. Two years later, it is obvious Mr. Gonzales does not have a clue about the difference.

He has never stopped being consigliere to Mr. Bush’s imperial presidency. If anyone, outside Mr. Bush’s rapidly shrinking circle of enablers, still had doubts about that, the events of last week should have erased them.

First, there was Mr. Gonzales’s lame op-ed article in USA Today trying to defend the obviously politically motivated firing of eight United States attorneys, which he dismissed as an “overblown personnel matter.” Then his inspector general exposed the way the Federal Bureau of Investigation has been abusing yet another unnecessary new power that Mr. Gonzales helped wring out of the Republican-dominated Congress in the name of fighting terrorism.

The F.B.I. has been using powers it obtained under the Patriot Act to get financial, business and telephone records of Americans by issuing tens of thousands of “national security letters,” a euphemism for warrants that are issued without any judicial review or avenue of appeal. The administration said that, as with many powers it has arrogated since the 9/11 attacks, this radical change was essential to fast and nimble antiterrorism efforts, and it promised to police the use of the letters carefully.

But like so many of the administration’s promises, this one evaporated before the ink on those letters could dry. The F.B.I. director, Robert Mueller, admitted Friday that his agency had used the new powers improperly.

Mr. Gonzales does not directly run the F.B.I., but it is part of his department and has clearly gotten the message that promises (and civil rights) are meant to be broken.

It was Mr. Gonzales, after all, who repeatedly defended Mr. Bush’s decision to authorize warrantless eavesdropping on Americans’ international calls and e-mail. He was an eager public champion of the absurd notion that as commander in chief during a time of war, Mr. Bush can ignore laws that he thinks get in his way. Mr. Gonzales was disdainful of any attempt by Congress to examine the spying program, let alone control it.

The attorney general helped formulate and later defended the policies that repudiated the Geneva Conventions in the war against terror, and that sanctioned the use of kidnapping, secret detentions, abuse and torture. He has been central to the administration’s assault on the courts, which he recently said had no right to judge national security policies, and on the constitutional separation of powers.

His Justice Department has abandoned its duties as guardian of election integrity and voting rights. It approved a Georgia photo-ID law that a federal judge later likened to a poll tax, a case in which Mr. Gonzales’s political team overrode the objections of the department’s professional staff.

The Justice Department has been shamefully indifferent to complaints of voter suppression aimed at minority voters. But it has managed to find the time to sue a group of black political leaders in Mississippi for discriminating against white voters.

We opposed Mr. Gonzales’s nomination as attorney general. His résumé was weak, centered around producing legal briefs for Mr. Bush that assured him that the law said what he wanted it to say. More than anyone in the administration, except perhaps Vice President Dick Cheney, Mr. Gonzales symbolizes Mr. Bush’s disdain for the separation of powers, civil liberties and the rule of law.

On Thursday, Senator Arlen Specter, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, hinted very obliquely that perhaps Mr. Gonzales’s time was up. We’re not going to be oblique. Mr. Bush should dismiss Mr. Gonzales and finally appoint an attorney general who will use the job to enforce the law and defend the Constitution.

The Justice Department's inspector general told a committee of angry House members yesterday that the FBI may have violated the law or government policies as many as 3,000 times since 2003 as agents secretly collected the telephone, bank and credit card records of U.S. citizens and foreign nationals residing here.

Inspector General Glenn A. Fine said that according to the FBI's own estimate, as many as 600 of these violations could be "cases of serious misconduct" involving the improper use of "national security letters" to compel telephone companies, banks and credit institutions to produce records.

National security letters are comparable to subpoenas but are issued directly by the bureau without court review. They largely target records of transactions rather than personal documents or conversations. An FBI tally showed that the bureau made an average of 916 such requests each week from 2003 to 2005, but Fine told the House Judiciary Committee that FBI recordkeeping has been chaotic and "significantly understates" the actual use of that tool.

Fine, amplifying the criticisms he made in a March 9 report, attributed the FBI's "troubling" abuse of the letters to "mistakes, carelessness, confusion, sloppiness, lack of training, lack of adequate guidance and lack of adequate oversight."

His account evoked heated criticism of the bureau from Republicans and Democrats alike, including a comment from Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.) that it "sounds like a report about a first- or second-grade class."

Testifying with Fine, FBI General Counsel Valerie E. Caproni attributed the shortcomings to poor controls instead of deliberate misconduct and offered profuse apologies. Asked by Rep. Melvin Watt (D-N.C.) whether the public should "be concerned about that kind of disregard of the law and internal process," Caproni replied: "I think the public should be concerned. We're concerned. And we're going to fix it."

She attributed the "F report card" from Fine partly to the bureau's inexperience in conducting its national security work in secrecy, away from a judicial system that threatens to expose any flaws. "That imposes upon us a far higher obligation to make sure we have a vigorous compliance system," she said. She noted, for example, that the FBI never told its agents to retain signed copies of the national security letters used.

"This was an example of the incredibly sloppy practice that was unacceptable," Fine interjected. His report also noted that some lawyers at FBI field offices -- who work for the special agents in charge, rather than for legal officials at FBI headquarters -- felt pressured to go along with requests for letters that they knew were not adequately documented.

Fine's estimate of the incidence of serious abuses was extrapolated from his investigators' scrutiny of 293 national security letters, out of 44,000 letters -- containing 143,074 data requests -- that the FBI has reported issuing during the three-year period he reviewed. Of those letters studied, he found "about seven where there were illegal uses" to obtain information the FBI was not entitled to have. Caproni questioned the validity of the extrapolation but acknowledged that 1 percent of the letters examined by Fine were tainted by "unquestionably serious violations."

Fine said, however, that he found no evidence that FBI agents "intended to go out and obtain information that they knew they could not obtain and said, 'We're going to do it anyway.' I think what they did was complete carelessness" prompted partly by a desire to take "shortcuts."

Fine's extrapolated tally of 3,000 likely illegal or improper letters did not include three other categories of wrongdoing disclosed in his report: One was a headquarters unit's use of 739 "exigent circumstances" letters to obtain telephone records from AT&T, Verizon and MCI on an emergency basis using false statements or improper documentation. The second was an improper use of 300 national security letters to obtain information for a single classified project. And the third was the FBI's use of improper letters to obtain the financial records of 244 people from banks.

Although the FBI's policy is to hold such records for at least 20 years, even if the target of the data collection proves not to have any terrorist connections, Caproni said that if no legal authority can be found during an audit now underway, the records will be destroyed.

Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) expressed surprise at how widespread the use of national security letters had become, asking: "Do we have that many potential terrorists running around the country? If so, I'm really worried." He said the inspector general's report shows that "the FBI has had a gross overreach," and added that its officials "can't get away with this and expect to maintain public support for the tools that they need to combat terrorism."

Comments

       Why on earth does this surprise anyone? The FBI will use the powers that it is given and stretch them as much as they possibly can because they have very little oversight. Most of these powers are things that the FBI doesnt really need to have in the first place. Congress, if you do not want these powers to be abused then do not give them out in the first place.
By james.crozier | Mar 20, 2007 4:55:30 PM | Request Removal

       Why dont I believe anyone claiming innocence at the FBI?
By onestring | Mar 20, 2007 5:07:53 PM | Request Removal

       Why arent these fascistic lawbreakers being brought to justice? Answer: the Republicans--**Rep. Lamar Smith R-Tex., the top Republican on the committee, stressed that the problem is enforcement of the law, not the law itself. He called national security letters a critical tool in fighting terrorism and keeping our country safe,** No violation of the Constitution is a crime, as long as it is executed to turn our country into a prisoncamp run by Halliburton and the rest of the Bush $$$ syndicate.
By lichtme | Mar 20, 2007 5:12:03 PM | Request Removal

       Considering all that has happened, how do We know the Inspector Generals findings are not tainted? Which Executive Branch employees are not puppets? The Inspector Generals findings have little merit because integrity was thrown out the window December 7, 2006.
By egalitaire | Mar 20, 2007 5:15:23 PM | Request Removal

       With great power comes great responsibility. Unfortunately, with great power mainly comes the temptation to abuse it and the American public. When there is no oversight, when there is no one that you need report to or the person that you report to has just as much reason to sweep things under the rug - then you have abuse. I understand safety - but I also understand abuse. This whole administration has abused power and the public trust again and again and again. I have very little faith left. Right now, I would settle for some integrity, some competence and some transparency and a willingness to say you know what, I made a big mistake and here is what I am going to do to fix it. Instead, this is probably going to be another `Mistakes were made` moment - followed by some firings of some low level people who make no difference at all and things will go on as usual. GJKBear in SATX.
By gjkbear | Mar 20, 2007 5:37:19 PM | Request Removal

       We are becoming the Soviet Russia of the 60s and 70s. Why any American would be willing to let the government spy on them is just beyond me. After six years of bushcheneyrove, I have absolutely no trust in this administration to do the right thing. Time after time, they have abused the trust that we used to give them. We need our legislators to play hardball, and that starts with demanding testimony under oath from each and every government servant who is abusing the laws of the land - rove, cheney and gonzales must answer to the people, and must do it under oath. They are proven liars, and we deserve the truth of just what our government has been up to in our name.
By gvaness | Mar 20, 2007 5:43:39 PM | Request Removal

       This FBI action is the kind used against Edward Abboud, the Arab-American writer who wrote a book critical of US foreign policy with Israel. FBI agents in Columbus, OH, used the suggestion of Abboud as a terrorist to gather information about his family, and to use that information to create social and financial chaos. The FBI refuses to release information on the event. This event was in part responsiblel for Abbouds tirades against former Gov Taft, who refused to investigate the social damage caused by racists within the =FBI.
By edrichardson | Mar 20, 2007 6:20:48 PM | Request Removal

       pleaswe curtail the fbi - the mights warriors of allah dont want them around.
By burakahusseinobamalovesislam | Mar 20, 2007 6:32:34 PM | Request Removal

       When in its history has the FBI not broken the trust America has given it. From Hoovers obsession with Hollywood to Ruby Ridge and Waco, these people have always made their own rules.
By metroman76 | Mar 20, 2007 7:18:50 PM | Request Removal

       Broken trust? In this Republican administration? Prithee pity and pardon me, isnt this the party of the Moral Majority? Another debacle, brought to you by an administration of losers, incompetents, and cowards.
By mikeasr | Mar 20, 2007 7:57:48 PM | Request Removal

       Burak...islam - you know if you keep signing your name that way, the FBI might just profile YOU. I think you just might have ties to Islam. All it would take is some neighbor or a blogger to turn you in and you would be wondering what country you live in and screaming that your freedoms are being violated. Could be FBI, could be CIA. You could be taken to Gitmo, held indefinitely and not given access to a lawyer. So, watch the warriors of Allah phrases [not nearly as creative as the winnegagos of Death]. This is about your freedoms and mine. The FBI the CIA could always wiretap our phones, they just used to have to prove something to a judge at FISA court first. They don`t have to do that anymore if they think YOU are a terrorist - and you seem to think that is just hunky dory OK. GJKBear in SATX.
By gjkbear | Mar 20, 2007 8:26:42 PM | Request Removal

       Another day more corruption im allmost getting use to it.
By smorrow | Mar 20, 2007 8:41:18 PM | Request Removal

       There shouldnt be any sort of threat or warning. Abuse should be punished immediately.
By scroot | Mar 20, 2007 8:53:21 PM | Request Removal

       Lets face it burak is just a right wing conservative masquerading as a dreaded terrorist to make his point. Which apparently is that we cant reign in the FBI or the terrorists will get us. The two problems with that theory is that 1 We wont be the home of the free if the fbi can do whatever it likes and 2 surprise! terrorists can always attack, even if every last constitutional liberty is taken away from us. Get a grip, Burak, and admit who you are instead of playing pretend its dishonest. Im a patriot and a Liberal and proud of it. Come on out and play.
By jlk | Mar 20, 2007 8:58:25 PM | Request Removal

       Four hours after this article appears, and still no neo-con fascists attempting to defend the FBI? Oh, yeah, now I know why. Rush Slimebaugh hasnt pontificated on this yet, so the neo-con fascists havent yet had their script and marching orders written.
By critter69 | Mar 20, 2007 9:01:17 PM | Request Removal

       Congress should demand that the FBI notify everybody whose records were unjustifiably demanded and expunge those FBI records. Those, who had the idea to demand the records without enough justification, should lose their jobs with a note about this in the personnel file. The companies who gave the records without the legal backup, violated the customers privacy rights and should make financial amends to those customers.
By meyer | Mar 20, 2007 9:43:23 PM | Request Removal

       Its about time that the Bush administrations crimes and misdemeanors get focus and attention--but it had to be Congress and a VERY SLOW PROCESS, months to years behind the crimes, to bring it to light-- MY question is: where were the Post and the NYT editorials when this was ACTUALLY first happening--what happened to the days when the newspapers informed the public and had editorials to help the public understand the significane of what was happening--the press has been asleep at the wheel the nice way of putting it and derelict in its mission--youve SLID a long way, baby from the Viet Nam era, the Pentagon Papers, the Nixon debacle, etc.
By ruthhstraussmd | Mar 20, 2007 9:48:27 PM | Request Removal

       The worst is yet to come. Everyone in the Bush administration will resign, just like with Nixon. `` faye kane, homeless smartmouth ``` blog.myspace.com/fayekane
By fayekanegallery | Mar 20, 2007 9:50:17 PM | Request Removal

       It just goes to show that with a Republican WH, Congress and Senate, they knew they could get away with anything and there would be no accountability, no oversight, no checks and balances. Just cry out Dont worry about all the things we are doing wrong. If you have nothing to hide, dont worry about it. Too bad the White house presumably, is now saying that if you have something to hide, you refuse to go under oath, I guess. Maybe its a we can peek into your life but you cant peek into ours.
By psherman | Mar 21, 2007 1:24:05 AM | Request Removal

       Long long ago the U.S. helped Iraq to get its oil production on its feet. In 75 years Iraq produced a lot of oil. At that time only the U.S. and Germany had knowledge about nukes. Then Iraq grew mature and built an army and got scientists of its own. Saudi Arabia and Israel got afraid of what ones was simply a nation that produced oil. Those growing fears whether real or not are the roots of the war that is going on in Iraq. All preparations for this war were made by the countries mentioned. The U.S. deep in debt could only do what it was told by Saudis and mosad including the prewar lies and the 9/11 atrocities and the manipulation of main stream media, all this is still going on. Questions are how to get rid of the U.S. national debt and how to regain control over your beautiful country ?? The answer is stop spending money you dont have. This government is spending huge amounts of money they dont have, so if you want to make your country healthy again you must DISMISS THIS EXECUTIVE PART OF YOUR GOVERNMENT AT ONES, NOW, NO DAY LONGER IN CHARGE, DISMISS IT NOW BEFORE IT IS TO LATE. ==== When this first thing is done you have to get rid of your personal debts. That means pay it off and get rid of institutes that make a living from lending money to people that cannot afford a loan. That is the toffest part. Try to live with the money you earn and save a little bit every week. When you do this for the next 10 years your nation might get back on its feet.
By jw.holtkamp | Mar 21, 2007 3:31:49 AM | Request Removal

       It really is disturbing how much larger Big Brother has grown since Bush began feeding him.
By gbrown | Mar 21, 2007 7:08:51 AM | Request Removal

       The FBI has nothing to worry about. It got away with Waco, right?
By aerocentral01 | Mar 21, 2007 7:24:14 AM | Request Removal