Today, CREW successfully moved ahead in its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for public access to Secret Service records of top conservative religious leaders who have visited the White House. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a decision in CREW v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security, dismissing the government’s appeal.

After learning of the decision, CREW's chief counsel Anne Weismann said:

We are pleased that the D.C. Circuit is requiring the government to provide these Secret Service records that the White House has been trying to hide from the public. The American people are entitled to know who has been influencing the White House.

Anne is right, of course.   

Basically, the district court rejected the Bush administration’s argument that the records belong to the president, not the Secret Service, and are therefore not subject to the FOIA. Today’s opinion holds that the court does not have jurisdiction to resolve the government’s appeal because the district court has not ordered the government to release any records, simply to process CREW’s request.

The D.C. Circuit also resoundingly rejected the White House’s argument that requiring the government to process the request and invoke exemptions would place a constitutionally impermissible burden on the president or vice president. The court found that CREW’s request is “narrowly drawn” and that requiring the administration to rely on the FOIA’s exemptions to protect claims of executive privilege “is a routine occurrence, not a uniquely intrusive burden.” As a result of the court’s ruling, the Secret Service will now have to process CREW’s request.

Where in the world was Michael Chertoff on August 30, 2005, as Hurricane Katrina was devastating the Gulf Coast?

To answer that question CREW filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Department of Homeland Security seeking, among other documents, calendar entries for Secretary Chertoff.

In response, the agency produced pages and pages of calendar entries with one curious omission: August 30, 2005.

When pressed by CREW, the agency purportedly redoubled its search, but still came up empty handed. The best it could do was a record of a meeting that it claimed Secretary Chertoff had in Atlanta with the Center for Disease Control and an event with FEMA employees; the document, however, does not even mention the Secretary by name or title.

So once again CREW has to ask: Just where was Michael Chertoff on August 30, 2005, and what exactly is the agency trying to hide about his whereabouts?

CREW sent a letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff asking for an investigation into Immigration and Custom Enforcement’s (ICE) recent efforts in procuring the release of a Mexican woman kidnapped in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico.  The letter can be found here.

Bear with us, because there is a very odd series of events involved with this situation, which warrants further investigation.  Earlier this week, a sensitive memo prepared by Donald Bruckschen in ICE Office of International Affairs to ICE Assistant Secretary Julie Myers was leaked, detailing ICE’s role in the matter.

On June 19, 2008, ICE was contacted by an aide to Cong. Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for assistance in procuring the release of Erika Posselt, a relative of his wife who had been kidnapped from an auto glass store she owned in Mexico.

ICE officials contacted Mexican authorities to coordinate efforts to recover Ms. Posselt. ICE authorities met with Mexican authorities in El Paso to map out a strategy and Washington, D.C. officials offered technical assistance. On June 22nd, Ms. Posselt and another hostage were released. Ms. Posselt was transported to the United States.

CREW is asking Secretary Chertoff to immediately order an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding ICE’s involvement in the matter to determine:

1) the nature of the inquiry by Cong. Reyes’ office;

2) whether ICE had the legal authority to intercede in this matter;

3) why ICE chose to get involved in this matter;

4) whether the State Department was consulted; and

5) whether ICE has offered assistance in other cases involving foreign nationals kidnapped on foreign soil. 

CREW’s executive director Melanie Sloan summed up the reasons Chertoff needs to investigate this issue:

While the release of any kidnapping victim is always a positive development, this matter raises serious questions about whether ICE acted appropriately here. Did ICE officials assist in resolving a foreign kidnapping simply because the victim is related to a powerful member of Congress? While Congressman Reyes undoubtedly was overwhelmed by concern for his relative, officials with more objectivity should have been considering the greater political and policy issues raised by ICE’s intercession.