Posted on 09/27/2006 10:58:59 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
Congressmen who visit the U.S.-Mexico border unannounced are being monitored by the Department of Homeland Security, and at least one U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent has been suspended for speaking to a congressman without first getting supervisory clearance, according to documents obtained by the Daily Bulletin.
Congressional representatives interviewed by the Daily Bulletin said they were unaware until recently that Border Patrol agents were required to file Significant Incident Reports -- normally used for shootings and other serious border incidents -- when congressional representatives made unannounced visits this summer along the U.S.-Mexico border.
A second document obtained by the paper reveals that one agent was suspended for 10 days without pay for speaking with Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, who made an unannounced visit to the border in May.
"Preventing Congress from speaking freely to federal employees violates at least two federal statutes, and agents are fearful of telling the truth," said King, who recounted several visits to the Mexican border when Border Patrol agents would not speak with him for fear of reprisal.
"Filing these reports is a form of intimidation. If anyone is going to be punished, then they should be punished for not speaking to a member of Congress, rather than for telling the truth."
Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, who also has made unannounced visits to the border, said he is concerned congressional oversight of border matters has suffered as a result of the Homeland Security monitoring. Poe echoed King's assertion that forcing agents to file reports is a form of intimidation, and said Congress is prepared to call for hearings and issue subpoenas to investigate the matter.
"Members of Congress should not be under surveillance by Homeland Security because we ask the tough questions (of) border agents, and border agents should not be intimidated into having to report our visits and conversations with them like we are criminals," Poe said. "Members of Congress are not the enemy because we want to find out the truth at the border."
Michael Friels, a spokesman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, denied that the incident reports were meant to keep tabs on congressional representatives, adding that the reports were simply an effort to keep U.S. Customs and Border Protection leadership informed about congressional visits.
"I think a (Significant Incident Report) is a matter of awareness," Friels said. "It's to ensure our agency is aware of high-profile visitors, media activity and significant arrests -- anything our leadership needs to know in order to have appropriate situational awareness."
Friels said that he could not comment on the Aug. 21 suspension of a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent who spoke with King because the matter is "still pending an administrative process."
In a May 10 memo, "SIR for Visiting Congressmen," Clint Stoddard, special operations supervisor and a Tucson (Ariz.) Sector commander with Customs and Border Protection, notified all supervisors to set new standards for reporting Border Patrol agents who have any encounters with visiting congressmen. The policy is in effect nationwide.
"Recently, Iowa Congressman King visited the border area," the memo states. "An IIR (local report) was done on one of two contacts with our agents. A request was made by HQOBP (Headquarters of Office of Border Patrol) to elevate these types of contacts to an SIR (Significant Incident Report). Sensitivities are such that this type of information is critical in the D.C. area. Much is going on in the way of legislation proposals and such.
"Please ensure that unannounced visits such as these are promptly reported as an SIR."
"The clear intent of this policy is to discourage employees with firsthand knowledge about the porous state of our borders from sharing that information with members of Congress," said TJ Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, the union representing about 11,000 Border Patrol agents. "In order for our democracy to function properly, citizens and lawmakers must have access to the unvarnished truth."
Withholding information from congressional leaders violates the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Bonner added.
Under Title 6 of the United States Code, section 254, employees of the Border Patrol and several other agencies who willfully deceive congressional leaders face stiff penalties and termination. Bonner added that intimidating agents from speaking to congressional representatives is just as egregious.
"The Undersecretary for Border and Transportation Security may, notwithstanding any other provision of law, impose disciplinary action, including termination of employment, pursuant to policies and procedures applicable to employees of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, on any employee of the Bureau of Border Security who willfully deceives the Congress or agency leadership on any matter," the act states.
"They're asking border agents to violate their own policy," Bonner said.
Friels rejected that assertion, saying Customs and Border Protection officials want to make sure operations are adequately staffed while these visits take place.
"We want to coordinate these visits so we can continue our border security operations. They (agents) have a specific duty, whether it's patrolling the border or a CBP officer at a port of entry," he added.
A Tucson Border Patrol agent, whose name is being withheld for fear of reprisal, was suspended on Aug. 21 for 10 consecutive days without pay for speaking with King while on duty, according to a suspension letter obtained by the paper.
Office of Border Patrol officials, who had heard that congressional leaders were making unannounced visits to the border, discovered the identity of the agent while performing an Internet search, when they found a photograph of the agent with the congressman.
"On May 6, while on official duty, you met with your friend, Congressman King, and three other individuals," the letter stated. "You took them to an area west of your office and gave them a tracking demonstration, and you spent approximately three hours with these individuals. You did not have prior supervisory permission to perform these activities while in an on-duty status."
King said he is "seeking a positive resolution to that matter."
Numerous field agents interviewed by the Daily Bulletin over the past month said directives from U.S. Border Patrol headquarters have also kept them from filing accurate reports about incidents along the southwest border.
"It feels like we just can't speak the truth," said an Arizona Border Patrol agent, speaking on condition of anonymity. "They want to know what we say and who we say it to. If we say something that doesn't fit with the agency line, then we're reprimanded."
Not surprising.
If you are military or Law Enforcement, you do not have the First Amendment Right, and there WILL be a penalty for voicing your evaluation.
So are we dealing with two different countries here, or what? A congressperson can't talk to a border guard? Actually with the way the Dems are...that's probably a good idea.
WTF????
If you are military
Ain't that the truth. If you are in the military you better be agreeing with your superiors say when you speak or there will be heck to pay. Your evals will suffer if you don't.
This may be pertinent, it seems to me that the DHS is attempting to control information with the goal of affecting pending legislation.
18 U.S.C. 1913, forbids federal agencies from lobbying "Directly or indirectly in any manner a member of congress to favor or oppose any legislation".
Your thoughts?
http://www.whistleblowers.org/html/about_the_national_whistleblow.htm
As you can see above, the `whistleblower' statute protects the FBI. Why not the Border Patrol as well?
ping
The people who run the border patrol are traitors.
"was suspended for 10 days without pay for speaking with Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa,"
That's the problem - this poor guard had the misfortune of speaking frankly to a Republican. We have to keep reminding ourselves that only the Dems are allowed the freedom of speech and dominance of the press . . . .
You left out the people, like Chavez, who can call our President "The Devil"..Their freedom of speech is protected..even if I don't like it.
sw
sounds like a classic case of bureaucrats doing what they do best ....... CYA
The federal government is totally dysfunctional. I don't give a hoot who holds the majority either.
This isn't the first totally stupid story coming out of the Border Patrol, nor will it be the last.
Sorry folks:
The policy of having officers report significant events AFTER THE FACT, has been SOP in law enforcement for decades. It is not, in itself, a violation of free speech. It CAN have a dampening effect on people expressing OPINIO as opposed to fact. That is its purpose.
'You want a wall at the border built? I'll give you a wall!' -- Gorelick
Amen to that! Do you think that it will be more than the 2-3% of us who get it now?
Wrong. It was built by the Dems and implemented by the Republicans.
"Amen to that! Do you think that it will be more than the 2-3% of us who get it now?"
Not at this website, no.
Situational awareness = CYA
HMMMmm, Heck. Isn't that where people who don't believe in Gosh think they're not going?
They are also required to file a report whenever they encounter Minutemen. Which doesn't bother me, as long as their supervisors don't pass that information on to Mexico!
It depends on whether the agent was giving his personal opinions or simply providing factual data and information, doesn't it?
I wholeheartedly agree with the bold portion, especially.
yep, the very ones that know exactly what is going on are not allowed to talk about it, and yet so many say "I never heard that, why isn't it in the news- why aren't CBP and others talking about it?" Gee- get real, they have never been allowed to speak freely, this is not anything new.
Why do you think it took so long for word to get out about the Mexican military crossing the border? Things that have been going on for years on the border are little known elsewhere.
It may seem that way, but in reality they have never been allowed to speak freely with anyone- the public, reporters, or politicians. It has always been policy that only their PR people speak for everyone and all others will remain silent. The only exceptions to that are when something is set up ahead of time and then only supervisors are allowed to talk about anything other than oh say the weather.
Let's be honest, if they know what is good for them, they will not give facts or opinions- they will let the PR people say whatever they wish to and all others will smile and nod no matter how far from the truth the statement may be.
I have been at Ports of Entry when politicians show up- there is a lot of smiling, nodding, busy work and little talk of any kind. Most are afraid to say anything at all, even in response to direct questions. Any questions will be responded to with contact info for the area PR person.
In some ways this may be good- it keeps some from looking like goof balls if they get trapped by the media or anyone wishing to show them in a not so good light. In other ways it may not be good- this is how the truth about much of what happens on the border is kept from the public.
Well they probably don't care- until someone says something they don't like, that will be a different story.
It may be more open in your sector, but here the CBP guys I know won't talk to reporters, politicians or even the public. The only ones I know that will are supervisors when the visit is set up ahead of time.
By James V. Grimaldi
Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, March 29, 2002; Page A04
The Immigration and Naturalization Service violated federal whistle-blower protection laws late last year when it demoted and penalized two U.S. Border Patrol agents who openly complained about lax security along the Canadian border in the wake of Sept. 11, according to two independent federal offices.
The Border Patrol agents, based in Detroit, talked to a newspaper and appeared on the NBC "Today" show, where one of the agents said, "the northern border is vulnerable" and "terrorists know it." The statements prompted INS supervisors to try to fire the agents, but eventually they settled on reassignments, 90-day suspensions and one-year demotions, discipline that was put on hold after the Justice Department inspector general initiated an investigation
And it works like this:
Former Phoenix Police Chief Harold Hurtt Sued Officer sues HPD over 'gag order' on chase rule
A Houston police officer who was disciplined for criticizing the department's chase policy filed a lawsuit Friday, contending his free speech and civil rights are being violated.
After the Jan. 19 chase, which ended in a head-on collision, officer Thomas Nixon complained publicly that the Houston Police Department policy wasn't strict enough to allow officers to stop suspects before injuries to other motorists.
There were two women — one suffered minor injuries — and an infant in the other vehicle.
In the federal lawsuit, Nixon, who has been assigned to desk duty, is seeking an immediate return to his duties as a patrol officer, said his attorney Chad Hoffman.
Nixon, a patrol officer for 10 years, claims his right to free speech has been violated by "a gag order" by Police Chief Harold Hurtt, Hoffman said.
The lawsuit also asks U.S. District Judge David Hittner to issue a temporary restraining order to force the HPD to allow Nixon to exercise his constitutional right to free speech.
After criticizing the HPD chase policy, "Officer Nixon was hauled into the chief's office and told not to talk anymore," Hoffman said.
The next day, Nixon received a memo from an assistant chief of internal affairs, ordering him not to comment about pending investigations.
On Friday, Lt. Robert Manzo, an HPD spokesman, said no one in the department had seen a copy of the lawsuit.
Manzo said Hurtt issued an April 5 memorandum to all HPD officers that states officers "must refrain from criticizing the department" in a manner that "undermines the effectiveness of the department, interferes with discipline or recklessly disregards the truth."
By ANNE MARIE KILDAY Houston Chronicle
You're obviously someone who works or knows someone on the inside. The CBP is a sick organization. Its sickness stems from a lack of leadership. One port I know of personally has NO supervisor. They think that's OK. People are free to do whatever they want with no repercussions whatsoever. These are the people purportedly protecting the rest of us from terrorists, etc. Pretty sad. Having spent nearly 40 years in LE, including time as Chief, I know that many people think supervisors are just highly paid officers. If they're doing their jobs, they are LEADERS. Leading means being willing to give away power in exchange for loyalty. It is being willing to take the heat for a subordinate who steps into some $hit. It means instilling discipline in the working level people so that they know what they should do and mostly, they do it.
It means TRUSTING the working people to do their jobs. It means TRUSTING them to not do something that is harmful to their fellow officers and the organization. It means earning the trust of subordinates. It means loyalty that goes both ways.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.