With the focus temporarily shifted from the November elections and onto our dwindling rights, I'd like to tell you of my FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) experience.
In March 2006, I sent a FOIA request to the Department of Homeland Security, requesting information to an incident that happened to me in 2003. Briefly, in my regular mail I received a U.S. first class letter that had a strip of green DHS tape across the envelope flap. Lacking the imagination of suspecting nefarious government intrusion, I assumed it had something to do with the anthrax scare two years before. Without a clue, I threw the tape and envelope away. When the news broke of other citizens having their international mail opened by the DHS, and the wire tapping revelation, I became pretty enraged and decided to look into the matter.
More below the fold...
In my first request to FOIA, I included my name, other identifying information and the general time period of the incident. I didn't give any details of the envelope/tape because I wondered as to the extent of the intrusion and I didn't want the disclosure limited. The response from the DHS to my request was the first indication that the FOIA was just a shell game. In a nutshell, the letter stated, "DHS does not maintain a central index of records categorized by individual name." The department suggested that I provide more information, including the "DHS component agency" that I believed created or controlled the records I was seeking.
Okay then. My name was useless. My date of birth, place of birth, address and timeframe was useless. And further, the DHS forgot to include a "component agency" on that darn strip of green tape. I was a blind mouse in the government's maze.
I requested advice from the ACLU, but was told by letter, "we are waiting to see the result of our litigation and FOIA requests before we take on new matters of similar nature." A friend with some knowledge of the federal government, but not the right kind as it turned out, suggested that I send another request listing some agencies. If those agencies didn't pan out, try again with a different list. In May, I wrote a second letter using my brand-spanking new DHS/OS/OP ID number for expedited service (!!), and included the component agencies: FBI, Treasury and Immigration and issues: ERISA, 401K, financial institutions (I recollected the piece of mail in question was from my 401K management company and concerned a wire transfer).
About 2 weeks later, I got a phone call from the FOIA officer at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). She asked what the heck I wanted. What followed was a very strange communication with an inescapable conclusion. I wish I had recorded it, but the call was unexpected. So, by memory, the conversation:
After I told her about the U.S. first-class letter incident, which prompted my FOIA request to the DHS, she asked why would I want to know what the government was doing. (Huh?) "Well," I said, "with the recent exposure of the government spying and all, I want to know why they were interested in me and my mail. Also, were they tapping my phones, were they in my house and were they in my mailbox?" She said it's doubtful that they went into my mailbox. I responded by asking how else would they find a specific piece of mail? The officer said in return that I wouldn't believe the spying capabilities of the government and what they can do. Feeling incredulous as to why I wanted the information, I asked, "if she had a similar thing happen, wouldn't she want to know the reason?" She laughed and answered, "Yes, I would."
What came next was a stunning admission that left me speechless. Without mincing words, the officer told me:
You will never get an answer on your FOIA request. "They" have told us not to give out any information. You will never know.
Unfortunately, I didn't have the wits to ask who "they" were: her supervisors, Chertoff and his minion, or all the President's men. I also don't know if the refusal was specific to me, or the public in general, nor do I know why she volunteered this information. In thinking back, it could have been a ruse to get me to go away, but I think it's more likely she's an unhappy government worker--she didn't have kindest words about our government or the Department of Homeland Security during our 15-minute conversation.
The USCIS FOIA officer referred my case back to the original DHS FOIA office. I wrote one more letter June, giving all of the details of the incident. In their response, the letter covered the history of my requests and said the information I provided was "too broad to ensure that our search of appropriate systems of records can find them with a reasonable amount of effort." Of course, I was invited to continue my search, but I know the game is up.
Way back in February 2006, prior to the hearing with Alberto Gonzales by the Senate Judiciary Committee into government spying, I faxed a letter to the committee with the details of my situation. Senators Feinstein and Kennedy questioned Gonzales on the issue of first-class mail, but Gonzales declined to give an answer:
FEINSTEIN: Senator Kennedy asked you about first-class
mail, has it been opened, and you declined answering.
Let me ask this way: Has any other secret order or
directive been issued by the president or any other
senior administration official which authorizes
conduct which would otherwise be prohibited by law?
Yes or no will do.
GONZALES: Senator, the president has not authorized
any conduct that I'm aware of that is in contravention
of law.
FEINSTEIN: Has the president ever invoked this
authority with respect to any activity other than NSA
surveillance?
GONZALES: Again, Senator, I'm not sure how to answer
that question.
The president has exercised his authority to authorize
this very targeted surveillance of international
communication of the enemy. So I'm sorry, your
question is?
FEINSTEIN: Has the president ever invoked this
authority with respect to any activity other than the
program we're discussing, the NSA surveillance
program?
GONZALES: Senator, I am not comfortable going down the
road of saying yes or no as to what the president has
or has not authorized. I'm here to...
FEINSTEIN: OK. That's fine.
GONZALES: OK.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
I have not suffered a loss of physical freedom or financial harm, but the knowledge of our government lurking in the shadows and examining personal details of my life is difficult to accept. I've been through a gamut of emotions--disbelief, outrage, indignity, but mostly I feel sad that the America I knew is now gone.