FBI's Continuing Credibility Problem

If you've been following the news, you may have noticed that the FBI has a credibility problem: It's leadership is worthless, and the staff can't do their jobs. They have to be reminded how to do simple things.

Here's an example

* * *



The basic problem for the FBI is to explain how their trash appeared before the District Court.

Normally, special agents in charge -- otherwise known as "SACKS" -- are the ones who are responsible for leading people called ASACs. Typically the SAC will lead an ASAC assigned to something called evidence.

In the real world, one of the jobs of the FBI when responding to a FOIA is to route the response through the DOJ Staff counsel's office. You see where this is going don't you: DOJ OPR has an issue, but appears to have been denied the issue.

Small problem. Unlike the DoJ Staff counsel cess pool linked with the rendition, war crimes, and the FISA violations -- but the AG and President have denied the DOJ OPR from reviewing the issue -- the FBI has a problem: The DoJ Staff counsel, responsible for coordinating the FOIA responses has some supervisory oversight: The Policies for the FBI responses are linked with the DOJ Staff counsel.

* * *

Put aside the theory. Also in the FBI is a small manual called the Manual on Administrative Operating Procedures; the guide explains who to do things like, well you know: Follow Administrative procedures.

Fast forward to the FBI's office in DC. Couple of issues come up with the arguably reckless response from the FBI:

___ Which piece of cess-pool-agent or US Attorney approved the submittal to the court

___ Was there a serious review of the evidence prior to submitting the document

___ How does the FBI Assistant Director explain the apparent problem of someone in the FBI not quite comprehending how to handle evidence

___ Has information been redacted to hide something or have the explanation been recklessly applied because the FBI didn't believe that anyone would notice

___ To what extent has the DOJ OPR been denied the opportunity to review the evidence, DoJ Staff counsel policies on FOIAS, and the other evidence related to the 9-11 evidence

___ What was the reason that the FBI director, FBI General Counsel, and the Assistant FBI director permitted this kind of cess pool to appear before a Federal District Court

___ Does the Asst FBI director not have a capacity to comprehend the importance of providing specific information to the Federal District Court

___ To what extent does the FBI have a problem with training, evidence management, and the ability of its agents to follow simple instructions


___ What use is it to give directions to the FBI on what they should or should not do on matters related to evidence, warrants, or other things in their MAOP, but the agents (apparently) have a hard time understanding simple directions

___ Is this a pattern: Clear requirements are ignored; agents are not able to do their jobs; the FBI assistants and staff counsel have a hard time understanding simple directions; or the FBI agents have a hard time understanding what "taking evidence" means and "not taking evidence on the basis of non-sense excuses"

___ Please identify the contractor, by name and Congressional district where they are located, who processes the FOIAs

___ Please share with the public the award fees paid to the contractors associated with reprocessing of FOIAs to include explanations for any fees less than 100%

___ In your response, please include the oversight plan for the contractor, personnel, and other details related to overseeing the FOIA compliance program within the FBI

___ Identify the specific person within the FBI charged with signing the FOIA, ensuring the comments and remarks are valid, and that the Court is given correct information, not the worthless drivel your staff has approved

___ In your response, discuss the Brady Implications: The demonstrated inability to do something simple has important implications for defendants, and the public confidence in whether records, files, and other data is properly checked. As you well known Brady requires the FBI to turn over to the defendant any information that the government may have that is of use to the defendants for their defense. Yet, the demonstrated mess the FBI has before the district court suggests that this rather benign review, checklist, and other thing called staff work appears to have been lost on the DOJ Staff list of priorities, in between their disregard for the Constitution, Geneva, and surfing the internet looking at non-official websites unrelated to case law, the Constitution, or anything remotely resembling official business. Why should anyone believe that the FBI can adequately review the FBI I-drive, review the evidence a defendant might need, or competently ensure that Brady is followed.

* * *

One of the reasons the US has a problem getting HUMINT for counterintelligence is that the FBI personnel are reckless. They don't know how to engage in simple things like processing paperwork, following instructions, or comprehending how to effectively interface people.

If the FBI would like to have a "solution" to its management problem, and apparent inability to follow simple instructions, it would be appropriate if the FBI discontinue permitting agents to surf the internet. Like the lazy DOJ Staff counsel who cannot comprehend what the definition of "war crimes," "Geneva" or "FISA requirements," the FBI agents are similarly spending too much time on things unrelated to official business.

DOJ has a leadership problem. The Attorney General doesn’t quite comprehend what it means when the German war rimes prosecutor has targeted him.

If you happen to know someone who works with the FBI, DOJ, or has some oversight responsibly over the FBI, you may want to ask them in November 2006 what the stats of the Title 28 AG reporting requirements are; and whether the FBI-DOJ are fully cooperating with the contractors providing inputs to the committee for the march 2007 inputs.

Of course, nothing would imply that a specific FBI agent is worthless; rather, the inference is reasonable: The DOJ, like the Congress, is a cess pool. Perhaps if you are good enough to follow your own instructions, and demonstrate you can competently comply with the laws; foreign fighters might believe you are serious about advancing the principles of American democracy. Until then, foreign fighters are left with the only option this Congress says is permissible to resolve disputes: The battlefield.

No tears here for the agents and DOJ Staff counsel who are lawfully forced to appear before the Congress, explain themselves, and called to account for your reckless disregard for your simple procedures. Mind you, you've got a bigger problem on your hand: Where to hide the war crimes evidence; and how to keep your poodle Keisler hidden from Addington, Yoo, Gonzalez, Bybee and the rest of the alleged war crimes on the radar of the German war crimes prosecutor.

Start doing your jobs, and maybe foreign fighters might believe that America's laws mean something. Until then, don't whine when Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Taliban target your friends.