Did FBI Call ABC but not Border Patrol?

The ABC News Blotter reported yesterday that Iraqis are being smuggled from Mexico across the Rio Grande River into New Mexico by a human smuggling ring, and this ring has been in operation for more than a year, according to an FBI intelligence report issued last week. This ABC story received significant attention in Internet news forums, but reader commentary at The Blotter web site and one of my favorites, Lucianne.com, was focused almost exclusively on our porous borders and the Bush administration's crusade for amnesty at the expense of national security through secure borders. These criticisms were, of course, perfectly valid, but when I read Brian Ross' Blotter piece, I observed something different and troubling that unless rectified, will almost certainly lead to continued vulnerability to terrorist attacks. Here is the portion of Ross' report that caught my attention:

An FBI intelligence report distributed by the Washington, D.C. Joint Terrorism Task Force, obtained by the Blotter on ABCNews.com, says the illegal ring has been bringing Iraqis across the border illegally for more than a year.

Border Patrol officials in the area said they were unaware of the specifics of the FBI's report, and federal prosecutors in New Mexico told ABCNews.com they had no current cases involving the illegal smuggling of Iraqis.

The FBI report, issued last week, says the smuggling organization "used to smuggle Mexicans, but decided to smuggle Iraqi or other Middle Eastern individuals because it was more lucrative....

If Ross' source is accurate, the FBI distributed this Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) report last week to agencies that are participating members of the Washington DC JTTF. That list would include most federal agencies with counterterrorism and law enforcement functions, including Department of Homeland Security components such as Customs and Border Protection (CBP), as well as many local and state law enforcement agencies. Yet when contacted for information about the Iraqi smuggling ring and the FBI's information about its existence, Border Patrol officials "were unaware" of the FBI report. Is this another example of the FBI keeping its terrorism investigation details close to the vest? It should concern all Americans that Brian Ross can obtain a copy of a restricted document about the smuggling of Middle Easterners into New Mexico, but the Border Patrol in New Mexico cannot.

What was the lesson from 9/11 if not the importance of information sharing among government agencies? I have decried the lack of openness in the intelligence and law enforcement communities in previous posts and there is ample blame to go around, but here we find ourselves nearly six years after 9/11 and the lead agency charged with investigating terrorism learns of a ring smuggling Middle Eastern individuals into America and no one bothers to tell the Border Patrol? The media should not be tasked with notifying law enforcement agencies about illegal activities that likely have a terrorist nexus. Brian Ross is not an FBI agent or counterterrorism specialist, yet when he contacted the Border Patrol in New Mexico, they received first notice of the FBI report from a journalist.

To make matters worse, the new National Intelligence Estimate issued yesterday made it quite clear that al Qaeda in Iraq has expressed significant interest in possibly attacking the U.S. homeland with Iraqi operatives to be placed in America. I'm sure it is just coincidence that the smuggling of Iraqis from Mexico into New Mexico has been occurring for over a year. Are they really "refugees fleeing the violence in Iraq" as Brian Ross claims, or are some of them the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing?

Do you feel safer knowing that those sworn to protect you work harder to avoid communicating with each other than they do to warn each other of newly obtained intelligence? This is a problem that must be stopped before an attack that could have been detected early is brought to terrible fruition.

Technorati Tags:
Border Patrol, Border Security, Human Smuggling, Iraqis, New Mexico, FBI, Information Sharing, National Intelligence Estimate, Al Qaeda in Iraq, Brian Ross

Agencies Failing to Protect Agents and Operatives From Physical and Legal Threats

Have you ever risked your life to benefit your employer or the greater good? Intelligence field operatives, military personnel, and law enforcement do so on a daily basis, with little expectation of reward or recognition. Is it unreasonable for personnel who have worked undercover to expect their employers to do everything possible to protect them when foreign operatives or betrayed criminals issue death threats and cash bounties to kill the employee? There is a marked difference between feeling under appreciated and feeling completely abandoned and in constant fear for one’s life. Although the risk of revenge or reprisal from infiltrated governments or criminal organizations is known to undercover operatives or agents before they undertake an assignment, they still reasonably expect their employer to make every effort to protect them once the operation is completed and cover is exposed.

Consider the case of Jay Dobyns. A former football player at the University of Arizona, Dobyns joined the ATF and became an undercover agent . During his first operation in 1987 he was shot in the back by a suspect. The round came within inches of his heart. He recovered and was transferred to Chicago, where he was struck by a vehicle driven by a suspect firing on him with an automatic weapon. He later infiltrated the Calabrese organized crime family and the Hells Angels. Dobyns incredibly faked a murder to be accepted into the Hells Angels. The Hells Angels and Aryan Brotherhood have offered cash contracts to hit men to find and kill the former Arizona receiver. One would assume that an employee who has demonstrated such remarkable courage and effectiveness would be sufficiently valued by an employer to offer him witness protection or similar security measures. Dobyns certainly made that assumption and now faces the reality that protecting its own is apparently not a high priority despite official statements to the contrary.

In a liaison capacity a few years ago, I represented an unnamed government agency at an awards ceremony. The main attraction at that event was Jay Dobyns, who was presented the Law Enforcement Officer of the Year award. While sitting in that large banquet hall listening to harrowing descriptions of Dobyns’ 2 year undercover infiltration of the Hells Angels gang, I was amazed that he had survived the experience and frankly more amazed he was being trotted around the country like a show pony by his agency despite death threats and contracts being offered in prisons nationwide for his murder. It did not appear then, and it appears even less so now, that his employer has any interest in protecting Dobyns, who sacrificed his identity, his family, and any semblance of a normal life for 2 years to effect more than 40 arrests of Hells Angels’ leadership structure.

Dobyns, harboring little hope that the ATF will take action to protect him and his family, now feels forced into bringing attention to his plight through the media, which he hopes will result in public pressure being applied to the ATF to protect him and others in similar danger. This media effort places him at even greater risk as his current appearance is shown on web sites and cable news channels, but Dobyns apparently sees no alternative. In an effort to raise awareness, Dobyns granted an extensive interview to CNN, in which he warned that there are many other agents and officers who have worked undercover for various agencies and were similarly abandoned once they returned to civilian life. All of them had something in common: They faced credible threats of reprisals from those whom they had infiltrated.

After warning the ATF of the death threats and murder contracts, Dobyns was surprised and angered by the ATF’s reaction. According to the CNN report:

In response, Dobyns says, the ATF gave him a routine transfer with no special protection, despite his repeated protests. The ATF could have moved Dobyns and his family under what is known as a "threat policy" -- similar to the kind of protection the government routinely gives witnesses in organized crime cases.

But federal agents who go undercover don't automatically get a high level of protection, according to Dobyns and other ATF agents CNN interviewed.

"In order to save money, I was told it wasn't cost effective," Dobyns says.

Dobyns says he has moved himself and his family several times to elude those who've threatened to kill him. He has filed a claim with the ATF for the emotional stress and financial burden he says he's had to bear as a result.

The acting director of the ATF notified CNN that Dobyns’ grievance claim is under review, which to anyone with government experience signifies that no immediate remedy is being sought by the ATF to protect Dobyns until the outcome of this grievance review is determined.

The report also included the results of interviews with a dozen other former undercover ATF agents who have filed claims similar to Dobyns’. The official ATF response to CNN asserted, “"[T]here is nothing more important to ATF and to me than the safety and protection of our employees and their families. We at ATF understand that we have a solemn responsibility to protect the people whom we charge to investigate and arrest the country's most violent criminals."

The ATF statement was refuted in a CNN interview with a prominent former trainer of undercover agents:

Charlie Fuller is a 23-year retired veteran ATF special agent and a former top trainer of undercover agents, who wrote a manual on undercover work, "The Art of Undercover." He trained Dobyns and many other top ATF undercover agents.

"What happened to Dobyns is not an isolated incident," said Fuller. In many cases, he said, managers don't thoroughly understand the complexity of the undercover work or how to best work with and manage the agents once they're back in the real world.

He said agents are seen as troublemakers or retaliated against if they raise complaints or report problems.

"Threats like what Dobyns faced -- this is the most serious thing an ATF agent can face -- the threats against his family," said Fuller. "How could they ignore something like that?"

Hopefully Dobyns and others facing similar threats can continue to elude death at the hands of enemies they made while in service of the ATF long enough to receive that review decision.

Other agencies within the intelligence and law enforcement communities are likewise guilty of failing to adequately protect valued employees who have lost all possibility of anonymity or quiet family life due to their undercover assignments. The problem of abandonment or insufficient protection is not solely an ATF issue. Employers demonstrating loyalty to employees seems to be the exception rather than the rule. The plight of Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean may be an example of this, as new reports have now surfaced that government reports provided to prosecutors contained false information, according to an Inspector General. These reports refute testimony used to convict the two agents in the shooting of a fleeing armed Mexican drug smuggler transporting hundreds of pounds of narcotics into the U.S. The Mexican smuggler, although in the U.S. illegally, filed a lawsuit for damages against the two agents. Additionally, prosecutors convinced the jury that the agents failed to report the incident to supervisors in an effort to cover up their actions, when recently released documents reveal that Agent Compean did in fact report the incident to his supervisor.

While some facts of that case remain in dispute, one fact is all too clear: the U.S. Government, specifically the Border Patrol and its parent department, failed to provide exculpatory evidence that might have protected its employees from a controversial and polarizing prosecution. What motivated that action should be the focus of media and Congressional inquiries. The motivation for the ATF to abandon Dobyns and others should receive similar scrutiny and condemnation. When government fails to protect those who sacrifice their identity and family security in its service, it discourages potential recruits and embitters dedicated personnel who deserved better.