On three separate occasions, dating back to January, employees of contractors working for the State Department accessed -- and did God knows what with -- presidential candidate Barack Obama's passport records, which ordinarily include not only information on a person's international travels but also a good deal of private personal information. It could be relatively innocent; it could be a Nixonian effort to find dirt on Obama. Yet the State Department's Inspector General, who is responsible for looking into such things, was not notified until today -- and before he was notified, and therefore before he had a chance to investigate what really happened and why, lower-level State Department employees made the determination that the employees had not violated the Privacy Act of 1974, and therefore that the matter did not need to be referred to the Attorney General's office.
That's not the sort of decision that's normally made at such a low level, especially when the person whose privacy was violated is prominent -- for instance, a sitting Senator and Presidential nominee like Obama. The cover-up, and the regularity with which it happened, and the fact that Obama's office was not told about any of the incidents until today, all suggest that it's possible -- of course not probable, nor likely, but in a town like D.C., definitely possible -- that some skulduggery is behind this.
The statute that almost certainly was violated (whether the State Department thinks so or not) is the federal Privacy Act of 1974, passed in the aftermath of Watergate, the relevant provision of which (5 United States Code section 552a(i)(1)) reads as follows:
Criminal Penalties. (1) Any officer or employee of an agency [note: also includes agency contractors and their employees], who by virtue of his employment or official position, has possession of, or access to, agency records which contain individually identifiable information the disclosure of which is prohibited by this section or by rules or regulations established thereunder, and who knowing that disclosure of the specific material is so prohibited, willfully discloses the material in any manner to any person or agency not entitled to receive it, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000. ...
(3) Any person who knowingly and willfully requests or obtains any record concerning an individual from an agency under false pretenses shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000.
Why is it so important to pursue a criminal investigation, if there is any suggestion that a violation occurred? Because, in the course of that investigation, the poor, low-level saps who actually did the deeds almost certainly will tell everything they know -- which probably is that they were merely satisfying their own prurient curiosity, but which might be that they passed the information on to someone who would must rather remain anonymous. And both Obama and the American people have the right to know definitively which one it is.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
CNN has an article stating that the contractor who accessed Barack Obama's and John McCain's files is a Barack Obama supporter.
Of course, this information is nowhere on HuffPo.
A passport breach? You mean, people are looking into the backgrounds of our next possible presidents? Outrageous! /sarcasm
There's illegal wiretapping, mail reading, warrentless searches, etc., but don't you _dare_ get curious about the next leader of your country. Hypocrites.
Occam"s Razor would indicate that the simplest explanation, that some temporary workers abused their access to satisfy curiosity (much as hospital workers peered into the medical records of Brittany Spears and George Clooney), is most likely the case here. A full investigation needs to be conducted. But it seems, despite a great deal shrill rhetoric, that the system of safeguarding privacy actually worked in this case. After all, if government employees have legitimate access to private information, there is no way to prevent them from looking at it. What the system can do is make sure that anyone that looks without a valid reason is punished and possibly prosecuted. In this case 2 people were fired and a third was apparently otherwise disciplined.
It sounds like the supervisor for these workers addressed the situation. But he or she was not politically sensitive enough to realize this could an election issue and therefore neglected to notify their superiors about what happened. If it turns out that one of the people that accessed these files was Karl Rove"s nephew, ok then it might be appropriate to be outraged. After all, its not as though the Bush Whitehouse had requested and accessed the confidential FBI files of prominent Democrats from the Clinton Administration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_FBI_files_controversy
1974!!! That's ancient history. The current US National Administration need not concern themselves with an ancient law code. The make up laws as they continue to roll along.
OKAY, NO "AD HOMINUN" Usage. THERE is a GIVEN THERUM that exists to address this
Un warrented Activity:: "The more alleged impropriety involved in the aquisition of certain information
by the party of the First Cause will ,in turn, eventually experience the equal Measure of of alleged
impropriety exercised by the Party of the Second Cause" . This may be simplified as " dirt raking in the
Theatre of Imformation - gathering 'begats' dirt raking. " Consequentually, this "THEORUM" will be
realized by both running Democratic - Party Candidates, if something is not done to QUELL the
Nonsense, prior to it 'Snowballing'. Readers, wheter we like it or Not, we as a Working -- Democratic
Republic are on a Global Stage with all of our neighboring countries looking on.
Therefore, as the oldest,devout working Democratic System Alive,we owe a Patterning ,of sorts, to
the Rest of the GLOBAL COMMUNITY. My Friend, whether these Countries be ALLIES,AXIS, or
uncommitted, 3rd World emerging , Oligarchies, Constitutional states, Monarchies, Theocracies,
Trucial States, Commonwealth Protectorates, Bond -Serving, Slave - states, or Free, Tribal unities In -
Flux. They LOOK "Above the U.N." for answers... when it comes to ethical Treatment of its Citizenry or
Populus, Integrety in their Electorial Processes, Truth in Its Constitution, Certification and Equitable
Treatment in its Bill of Rights, an ABSOLUTE by which to Frame their OWN Constitutions By. It Falls
our Lot, my fellow Voter,and Citizen that we except Legal Censure of this form of Political "Skull--
Duggery" therby Stemming the Tide of its irreverent alligations, psudo -- smears, and unorthodox ,
clandestine Imformation gathering power and tentacular denegration !
Huh? I thought the Republic Party abolished privacy so they can catch all the terrorists running around.
The operative term is "disclosure." Without making the private information public, there is no breach of privacy.
The statute does seem to hinge on disclosure -- though "disclosure" in this context means any disclosure, including mentioning it to a friend, etc. It doesn't need to be made public in the normal sense, just published (in the legal sense) to any other person or organization.
The disclosure requirement is extremely important, though, because it is grounds for the Inspector General and/or Attorney General to carefully examine whether, and to whom, disclosure was made. The Attorney General, for instance, clearly has legal grounds to obtain a search warrant to review the employees' cell phone and text message records, emails, etc. -- which should establish, one way or another, whether anyone in the political arena either instigated the breach or received the information afterward.
Interestingly, a former special prosecutor who handled a nearly identical case a decade ago said yesterday that a Privacy Act crime could occur even without disclosure. I don't see that, but if anyone knows, he would -- so I'll be open to being educated as this unfolds.
This smells to me exactly like the way that Watergate started out. First, we heard the news that there was a burglary at the Watergate Hotel and one of those arrested was connected to the White House. Bernstein and Woodward, luckily for this nation followed the money and "Deepthroat" ane eventually we found out that NIXON himself had authorized the burglary and then tried to cover up and thank God, we were rid of this vermin.
I honestly thought that the American people would never allow another Republican in the White House again after this disgrace. ALL the Republican Senators were trying to help NIXON escape justice. Exactly the way the Bush White House and the Senate Republicans are now going to put their WHITE WASH on everything and try to cover it all up. I bet you that BUSH himself knew about this and was himself looking for dirt to use against someone.
Is it not TIME AT LAST to ABOLISH the TREASONOUS REPUBLICAN PARTY?
If you agree with me, please VISIT www.realdemocracyinamerica.com
Bill O' Reilly, Please try to AMBUSH me. I would love to see you REPUBLICAN APOLOGIZER get fired along with this administration. How much they paying you Bill?
Loading comments…
Posted March 20, 2008 | 10:01 PM (EST)