U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General

Report to Congress on Implementation 

of Section 1001 of the USA PATRIOT Act 

(as required by Section 1001(3) of Public Law 107-56) 

January 27, 2004 
Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice 

Section 1001 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Patriot Act), Public Law 107-56, 

directs the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in the U.S. Department of 

Justice (DOJ or Department) to undertake a series of actions related to claims 

of civil rights or civil liberties violations allegedly committed by DOJ employees. 

It also requires the OIG to provide semiannual reports to Congress on the 

implementation of the OIG’s responsibilities under Section 1001. This report – 

the fourth since enactment of the legislation – summarizes the OIG’s Section 

1001-related activities from June 16, 2003, through December 15, 2003. 

I. INTRODUCTION 

The OIG is an independent entity that reports to both the Attorney 

General and Congress. The OIG’s mission is to investigate allegations of waste, 

fraud, and abuse in DOJ programs and personnel and to promote economy 

and efficiency in DOJ operations. 

The OIG has jurisdiction to review programs and personnel in all DOJ 

components, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), the 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the U.S. Attorneys’ 

Offices, and other DOJ components.1 

The OIG consists of the Immediate Office of the Inspector General and 

the following divisions and offices: 

• Audit Division is responsible for independent audits of Department 

programs, computer systems, and financial statements. 

• Evaluation and Inspections Division provides an alternative 

mechanism to traditional audits and investigations to review 

Department programs and activities. 

• Investigations Division is responsible for investigating allegations of 

bribery, fraud, abuse, civil rights violations, and violations of other 

criminal laws and administrative procedures that govern Department 

employees, contractors, and grantees. 

 1 On March 1, 2003, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) moved from the

DOJ to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Consequently, the OIG’s review of

allegations of misconduct involving INS employees – including claims of civil rights and civil 

liberty abuses – ended in early 2003. If the OIG receives allegations involving immigrationrelated issues, including complaints about abuse of civil rights or civil liberties by employees of 

the former INS, we now forward the complaints to the DHS OIG.

 

1
Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice 

• Office of Oversight and Review blends the skills of attorneys, 

investigators, and program analysts to investigate or review high 

profile or sensitive matters involving Department programs or 

employees. 

• Office of General Counsel provides legal advice to OIG management 

and staff. In addition, the office drafts memoranda on issues of law; 

prepares administrative subpoenas; represents the OIG in personnel, 

contractual, and legal matters; and responds to Freedom of 

Information Act requests. 

• Management and Planning Division assists the OIG by providing 

services in the areas of planning, budget, finance, personnel, training, 

procurement, automated data processing, computer network 

communications, and general support. 

The OIG has a staff of approximately 400 employees, about half of whom 

are based in Washington, D.C., while the rest work from 16 Investigations 

Division field and area offices and 7 Audit Division regional offices located 

throughout the country. 

II. SECTION 1001 OF THE PATRIOT ACT 

 Section 1001 of the Patriot Act provides the following: 

The Inspector General of the Department of Justice shall 

 designate one official who shall - 

 (1) review information and receive complaints alleging abuses 

 of civil rights and civil liberties by employees and officials 

 of the Department of Justice;

(2) make public through the Internet, radio, television, 

and newspaper advertisements information on the 

responsibilities and functions of, and how to contact, the 

official; and 

(3) submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House 

of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the 

Senate on a semi-annual basis a report on the implementation 

of this subsection and detailing any abuses described in 

paragraph (1), including a description of the use of funds 

appropriations used to carry out this subsection. 

2
Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice 

III. CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES COMPLAINTS

Review information and receive complaints alleging abuses of

civil rights and civil liberties by employees and officials of the 

 Department of Justice.

 The OIG established the Special Operations Branch in its Investigations 

Division to help manage the OIG’s investigative responsibilities outlined in 

Section 1001.2 The Special Agent in Charge (SAC) who directs this unit is 

assisted by two Assistant Special Agents in Charge (ASAC), one of whom 

assists on Section 1001 and DEA matters and a second who assists on FBI 

matters. In addition, two Investigative Specialists support the unit and divide 

their time between Section 1001 and FBI/DEA responsibilities. 

 The OIG receives civil rights and civil liberties complaints via mail, 

e-mail, telephone, and facsimile. The complaints initially are reviewed by the 

Investigative Specialist and ASAC responsible for Section 1001 matters. After 

review, the complaint is entered into the OIG’s investigations database and a 

decision is made concerning its disposition. 

One of the initial determinations is whether a complaint alleges the type 

of abuse of civil rights and civil liberties contemplated by Section 1001 of the 

Patriot Act. While the phrase “civil rights and civil liberties” is not specifically 

defined in the Patriot Act, the OIG has looked to the “Sense of Congress” 

provisions in the statute, namely Sections 102 and 1002, for context. 

Sections 102 and 1002 identify certain ethnic and religious groups who would 

be vulnerable to abuse due to a possible backlash from the terrorist attacks of 

September 11, 2001, including Muslims, Arabs, Sikhs, and South Asians. 

The more serious civil rights and civil liberties allegations that relate to 

actions of a DOJ employee or DOJ contractor are generally assigned to an OIG 

Investigations Division field office for investigation by OIG special agents. 

Other complaints are assigned to the OIG’s Office of Oversight and Review for 

investigation. 

Given the number of complaints and its limited resources, the OIG does 

not investigate all allegations made against DOJ employees. The OIG refers for 

appropriate handling many complaints involving DOJ employees to internal 

affairs offices in DOJ components, such as the FBI Office of Professional 

Responsibility, the DEA Office of Professional Responsibility, and the BOP 

Office of Internal Affairs. In certain referrals, the OIG requires the components 

to report the results of its investigations to the OIG. In most cases, the OIG 

 2 This unit also is responsible for coordinating the OIG’s review of allegations of

misconduct by employees in the FBI and the DEA. 

3
Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice 

notifies the complainant of the referral. 

 Many complaints involve matters outside the OIG’s jurisdiction because 

they involve issues regarding non-DOJ employees. Complaints that identify a 

specific issue for investigation are forwarded to the appropriate investigative 

entity. For example, complaints of mistreatment by airport security staff are 

sent to the DHS OIG. We also have forwarded complaints to the OIG at the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of State, and the 

Social Security Administration. In addition, we have referred complainants to a 

variety of police department internal affairs offices who have jurisdiction over 

the subject of the complaints.

 When an allegation received from any source involves a potential 

violation of federal civil rights statutes by a DOJ employee, OIG staff discusses 

the complaint with the DOJ Civil Rights Division for possible prosecution. In 

some cases, the Civil Rights Division accepts the case and requests additional 

investigation by either the OIG or the FBI. In other cases, the Civil Rights 

Division declines prosecution. Even in the event of a declination, the OIG may 

continue investigating the complaint as an administrative matter. 3

A. Complaints Processed this Reporting Period 

From June 14, 2003, through December 15, 2003, the period covered by 

this report, the OIG processed the following number and types of complaints: 

• Number of complaints processed suggesting a Section 1001-related 

civil rights or civil liberties connection:4 1,266 

• Number of “unrelated” complaints:5 720 

 3 The OIG can pursue an allegation either criminally or administratively. Many OIG 

investigations begin with allegations of criminal activity but, as is the case for any law 

enforcement agency, do not end in prosecution. When this occurs, the OIG is able to continue

the investigation and treat the matter as a case for potential administrative discipline. The

OIG’s ability to handle matters criminally or administratively helps to ensure that a matter can 

be pursued administratively, even if a prosecutor declines to prosecute a matter criminally. 

4 This number includes all complaints in which the complainant makes any mention of 

a Section 1001-related civil rights or civil liberties violation, even if the allegation is not within 

the OIG’s or the DOJ’s jurisdiction. 

5 Complaints in this category cite no improper act by a DOJ employee or contractor or 

no discernible nexus between the alleged conduct of the DOJ employee/contractor to any 

Section 1001-related civil rights or civil liberties violation. Examples of this category include

complaints that the government is broadcasting harmful electronic signals to individuals, 

claims that the government is intercepting dreams, and allegations that the government is 

using subliminal messages to force people to engage in certain acts. 

4
Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice 

• Number of complaints outside the OIG’s jurisdiction:6 384 

• Number of complaints within the OIG’s jurisdiction: 162 

• Number of complaints within the OIG’s jurisdiction in which the 

OIG or another internal affairs office within a DOJ component 

opened an investigation or conducted a closer review: 17 

The 162 complaints processed by the OIG during this reporting period 

that fell within the OIG’s jurisdiction (i.e., that state a claim involving a DOJ 

component or employee) covered a wide variety of subjects. They included 

allegations of excessive force and verbal abuse by BOP correctional officers, 

unwarranted cell searches by BOP staff, retaliatory actions by BOP employees, 

illegal searches of property and fabrication of evidence by FBI agents, and the 

failure of the FBI to initiate investigations. 

However, many of the 162 complaints in this category, while within the 

OIG’s jurisdiction and couched as a “civil rights” complaint, did not raise 

issues implicated by our duties under Section 1001. For example, the OIG 

received numerous complaints from inmates alleging that they have not 

received appropriate medical care or were given food that violated their 

religious dietary restrictions. 

None of the 162 matters involved complaints alleging misconduct by DOJ 

employees related to their use of a substantive provision in the Patriot Act. 

After closely analyzing the complaints in this category, the OIG identified 

17 matters that warranted opening an investigation or conducting a closer 

review. These complaints, which varied in seriousness, included allegations of 

excessive force against BOP inmates, verbal abuse of inmates, denying inmates 

access to the law library and telephone calls, unreasonable prison cell 

searches, and placement in solitary confinement for no apparent reason. 

 6 These complaints generally cite issues that involve other federal agencies, state

governments, local law enforcement agencies, or private businesses. Examples include

allegations that local law enforcement officers used excessive force or entered a home without a 

search warrant; allegations of retaliation, unfair labor practices, discrimination, or other civil 

rights violations by federal agencies outside the DOJ; or allegations of rude treatment by INS or

airport inspectors. We refer these complaints to the appropriate entity. 

5
Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice 

B. Section 1001 Cases this Reporting Period

 1. Complaints Investigated by the OIG 

a. New matters

During this reporting period, the OIG opened two new Section 1001-

related investigations, continued eight ongoing Section 1001-related cases, and 

closed four Section 1001 investigations. The two new matters opened by the 

OIG alleging Section 1001-related civil rights and civil liberties abuses by DOJ 

employees during this reporting period are:

• The OIG is investigating allegations raised by a Muslim inmate that he 

was subjected to verbal abuse, discrimination, and anti-Islamic 

sentiment that has intensified since September 11, 2001. The inmate 

also complained he was transferred to another BOP facility in retaliation 

for filing complaints against BOP correctional officers. 

• The OIG opened a preliminary inquiry into allegations received from an 

individual who alleged that he was abused by FBI agents and INS 

detention officers from his arrest in March 2002 until he was deported in 

April 2002. 

b. Examples of cases opened during the previous 

reporting periods that the OIG has continued to 

investigate 

• The OIG is investigating claims by an Egyptian national that the FBI 

improperly arrested and detained him immediately following the 

September 11 attacks and that during his detention his civil rights and 

civil liberties were violated. According to the Egyptian national, while 

held at a BOP facility he was forced to undergo an invasive body cavity 

search in the presence of numerous people, including a woman. To

date, the OIG interviewed the Egyptian national and approximately 50 

BOP employees who had contact with the detainee during his detention. 

• The OIG is investigating claims that a BOP correctional officer verbally 

and physically abused an inmate while he was being transported to the 

prison’s hospital and that the inmate was placed in solitary confinement 

after the incident. This case has been referred to the Civil Rights 

Division for prosecutive decision. 

• The OIG investigated allegations that FBI agents conducted an illegal 

search of an Arab-American’s apartment and during the search they 

vandalized the apartment, stole items, and called the complainant a 

6
Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice 

terrorist. According to the complainant, even though the FBI found no 

evidence linking him to terrorism, approximately four months later the 

FBI recruited an acquaintance of his to plant drugs in the complainant’s 

home. FBI agents then arrived at the complainant’s home and 

conducted a consent search and arrested the complainant after finding 

drugs. During the complainant’s interview by the OIG, however, he 

admitted that the cocaine discovered could have been his and that he 

did not believe the FBI was involved in planting evidence. The OIG has 

completed its review of this matter and is drafting its report of 

investigation. 

 

• The OIG is investigating allegations that Muslim inmates at a BOP 

facility have been targeted for disciplinary actions and subjected to 

disparate treatment by correctional officers. Specifically, the 

complainant alleges that certain members of the facility’s staff take 

retaliatory actions against the Muslim inmates on a regular basis. 

• The OIG is investigating allegations that unidentified correctional 

officers and the warden of a BOP facility threatened to “gas” inmates 

subsequent to the September 11 attacks. It was further alleged that 

these unidentified correctional officers and the warden have retaliated 

against the inmate complainant for making the allegations. The OIG is 

drafting its report of investigation. 

• The OIG is investigating allegations that a detainee was assaulted at an 

INS contract facility. The detainee was involved in a verbal exchange 

with a correctional officer and allegedly was struck in the eye, pushed to 

the floor, and sprayed with pepper spray. The following day, the 

detainee was taken to a local hospital emergency room for treatment. 

The detainee suffered a black eye and back pain. The detainee has since 

been deported from the United States.7 

 c. OIG investigations closed during this reporting period 

• The OIG investigated claims that an INS Supervisory Detention 

Enforcement Officer (SDEO) entered a gas station operated by an ArabAmerican and demanded paper towels. When the attendant replied that 

he did not have paper towels, the SDEO displayed his credentials, asked 

the attendant if he was American, and requested his immigration 

documents. The investigation also revealed that the SDEO requested a 

colleague to query an immigration database for information on the 

attendant. Our investigation concluded that the SDEO improperly 

displayed his credentials for other than official purposes and 

 7 The OIG began this investigation before INS was moved from the Department to the

DHS and retained the matter after the transfer in order to complete the investigation. 

7
Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice 

inappropriately caused an INS database to be queried. We provided our 

report of investigation to the DHS for appropriate action. 

• The OIG investigated allegations that a BOP correctional officer used 

excessive force and failed to follow BOP policy in handling and 

restraining a Muslim inmate when the inmate was removed from his cell 

to be escorted to the Medical Unit for examination. The investigation did 

not reveal sufficient evidence to conclude that the correctional officer 

used excessive force to restrain the inmate. However, the OIG 

concluded that the correctional officer used poor judgment in handling 

the inmate and failed to follow BOP policy when the correctional officer 

immediately entered the inmate’s cell and used force to subdue the 

inmate instead of waiting for assistance and preparing a plan for a safer 

entry into the cell. The OIG provided its findings to the BOP for 

appropriate action.

• During the previous reporting period, the OIG opened an investigation 

based on allegations raised by approximately 20 inmates that a BOP 

correctional officer verbally abused inmates with ethnic and racial slurs 

and inappropriate comments. After the BOP facility’s investigation 

concluded that the allegations were unsubstantiated, BOP’s Office of 

Internal Affairs (OIA) referred the matter to the OIG. When the OIG 

interviewed the correctional officer, he admitted to not being completely 

candid with the investigators, to verbally abusing the Muslim inmate, 

and to throwing the inmate’s Koran into the trashcan. The OIG provided 

its findings to the BOP for appropriate action. 

• The OIG investigated allegations that an INS detention enforcement 

officer held a loaded gun to a detainee’s head and threatened the 

detainee while transferring him to another detention facility. The OIG 

interviewed the detainee and the two detention enforcement officers who 

were transporting the detainee but could not substantiate the 

allegations due to conflicting accounts. 

 2. Complaints Referred to Other Components

During this reporting period, 15 of the 17 complaints were referred to 

internal affairs offices within DOJ components for investigation or for closer 

review. One of the 15 complaints was referred to the FBI. The complainant in 

that matter alleged that he was inappropriately subjected to surveillance by the 

FBI. The FBI determined that the allegation was without merit and closed the 

matter. 

 Fourteen of the 15 complaints were referred to the BOP this reporting 

period. They included allegations that BOP staff used excessive force and 

8
Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice 

verbally abused Muslim inmates; ignored requests for medical treatment; 

executed excessive searches of Muslim inmates’ cells because of their religious 

beliefs; and denied Muslim inmates access to television, radio, books, and 

newspapers. 

 The 14 complaints sent to the BOP were designated by the OIG as 

“Monitored Referrals,” which means that the BOP is required at the end of its 

investigation to send a report of the investigation to the OIG for its review. Of 

the 14 complaints, the BOP closed five matters during the reporting period, 

while nine matters remain open. The BOP closed four of the five as 

unsubstantiated and the fifth because the subject was terminated from his 

position as a correctional officer during his probationary period. 

 In our previous Section 1001 report, we described a complaint that was 

sent to the DEA alleging that DEA agents conducted an illegal search of an 

Arab-American’s home and confiscated the family’s passports and personal 

property, even though nothing illegal was found during the search. DEA OPR 

conducted an investigation of this matter and determined the allegations were 

unsubstantiated. The investigation also revealed that the complainant was 

charged by the DEA in connection with a drug investigation and is currently a 

fugitive from justice. 

C. Other OIG Activities Related to Allegations of Civil Rights 

and Civil Liberties Abuses

The OIG has conducted activities that go beyond the explicit 

requirements of Section 1001 in order to more fully implement its civil rights 

and civil liberties responsibilities. Given the multi-disciplinary nature of its 

workforce, the OIG can extend its oversight beyond traditional investigations to 

include evaluations, audits, and special reviews of DOJ programs and 

personnel. Using this approach, the OIG has conducted several special 

reviews, including an in-depth inquiry into allegations that aliens detained in 

connection with the investigation of the September 11 attacks were physically 

and verbally abused by some correctional officers at the Metropolitan Detention 

Center in Brooklyn, New York. 

 

 1. Supplemental Report on September 11 Detainees’ 

Allegations of Abuse at the Metropolitan Detention Center 

in Brooklyn, New York 

 On December 18, 2003, the OIG issued a report that examined in detail 

allegations made by detainees held in connection with the Department’s 

terrorism investigation that some correctional staff members at the 

Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) physically and verbally abused detainees. 

The report supplemented a comprehensive review released by the OIG in 

June 2003 that examined how the Department handled 762 detainees held on 

9
Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice 

immigration charges in connection with the investigation of the terrorist 

attacks, including their processing, their bond decisions, the timing of their 

removal from the United States, their access to counsel, and the conditions of 

their confinement.8

In Chapter 7 of the Detainee Report, the OIG described the treatment of 

the September 11 detainees at the MDC and concluded that the conditions 

were excessively restrictive and unduly harsh. We also concluded that 

evidence showed some MDC correctional officers physically and verbally 

abused some detainees, particularly during the months immediately following 

the September 11 attacks. However, we noted in the Detainee Report that 

while federal prosecutors had declined criminal prosecution in this matter, the 

OIG’s administrative investigation of physical and verbal abuse at the MDC was 

still ongoing. 

The December 2003 Supplemental Report details our findings and 

conclusions from this supplemental review. We concluded that certain MDC 

staff members did abuse some of the detainees. We did not find evidence that 

the detainees were brutally beaten, but we found evidence that some officers 

slammed and bounced detainees against the wall, twisted their arms and 

hands in painful ways, stepped on their leg restraint chains, and punished the 

detainees by keeping them restrained for long periods of time. We concluded 

that the way these MDC staff members handled detainees was, in many 

respects, unprofessional, inappropriate, and in violation of BOP policy. 

In addition, we found systemic problems in the way detainees were 

treated at the MDC, including staff members’ use of a t-shirt taped to the wall 

in the facility’s receiving area designed to send an inappropriate message to 

detainees, audio taping of detainees meetings with their attorneys, unnecessary 

and inappropriate use of strip searches, and banging on detainees’ cell doors 

excessively while they were sleeping. 

During our investigation, we examined approximately 30 detainees’ 

allegations of physical and verbal abuse against approximately 20 MDC staff 

members. In our review of these allegations, we interviewed more than 115 

individuals, including detainees, MDC staff members, and others. The staff 

members primarily were correctional officers who had been assigned to the 

Administrative Maximum Special Housing Unit or ADMAX SHU, the highsecurity wing of the MDC that housed the September 11 detainees, or staff 

members who were involved in escorting the detainees on and off the ADMAX 

SHU. 

 8 “The September 11 Detainees: A Review of the Treatment of Aliens Held on

Immigration Charges in Connection with the Investigation of the September 11 Attacks” 

(“Detainee Report”), issued June 2, 2003. On June 25, 2003, the Inspector General testified 

before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary regarding the Detainee Report. 

10
Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice 

We also reviewed MDC videotapes, including hundreds of tapes showing 

detainees being moved around the facility and tapes from cameras in detainees’ 

cells. During the course of our investigation, MDC officials repeatedly told us 

that videotapes of general detainee movements no longer existed. That 

information was inaccurate. In late August 2003, the OIG discovered more 

than 300 videotapes at the MDC spanning the period from October through 

November 2001. 

The OIG developed evidence that approximately 16 to 20 MDC staff 

members, most of whom were assigned to the ADMAX SHU, violated BOP 

policy by physically or verbally abusing detainees. We considered “physical 

abuse” to be the handling of the detainees in ways that physically hurt or 

injured them without serving any correctional purpose. Similarly, we 

considered “verbal abuse” to be insults, coarse language, and threats to 

physically harm or inappropriately punish detainees, all of which violate BOP 

policies. 

For example, the videotapes showed compliant detainees being slammed 

or rammed against the wall, pressed by their heads or necks, and having their 

fingers or hands twisted, despite officers’ denials that this ever occurred and 

despite statements by senior BOP officials that such actions were not 

appropriate. The videotapes also confirm that officers placed detainees against 

an American flag t-shirt with the phrase “These colors don’t run,” which was 

taped to the wall in the sally port area where detainees first arrived at the 

MDC. This t-shirt remained in place for many months, despite officers’ denials 

of its existence or claims that it was removed after a short period of time. 

 

Moreover, the videotapes showed that some MDC staff members misused 

strip searches and restraints to punish detainees and revealed that officers 

improperly recorded detainees’ meetings with their attorneys. 

We provided the results of our investigation to managers at BOP 

Headquarters for their review and appropriate disciplinary action. In the report 

to the BOP, we included an Appendix identifying current and former staff 

members who we believe committed misconduct, and we describe the specific 

evidence against them. In the Appendix, we also described allegations against 

specific officers that we did not substantiate. It is important to note that these 

allegations were not against all staff members at the MDC, and that many MDC 

officers performed their duties in a professional manner under difficult 

circumstances in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks. 

In the Appendix (which was not released publicly because of privacy 

interests and the ongoing consideration of discipline against specific officers), 

we recommend that the BOP take disciplinary action against 10 current BOP 

employees, counsel 2 current MDC employees, and inform employers of 4 

former MDC staff members about our findings against them. 

11
Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice 

In the report, we made seven recommendations to the BOP, ranging from 

developing guidance to train correctional officers in appropriate restraint 

techniques to educating BOP staff concerning the impropriety of audio 

recording meetings between inmates and their attorneys. 

 2. Analysis of Responses to Recommendations in Detainee 

 Report 

 

In Chapter 9 of the Detainee Report, the OIG made 21 recommendations 

related to issues under the jurisdiction of the FBI, the BOP, leadership offices 

at the DOJ, as well as immigration issues now under the jurisdiction of DHS. 

During the reporting period, the OIG analyzed two sets of responses from the 

Department to our recommendations in the Detainee Report and one set from 

the DHS. 

The OIG received written responses to the 21 recommendations from the 

Deputy Attorney General on behalf of the DOJ on July 21, 2003, and from the 

Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security on behalf of the DHS 

on August 4, 2003. On September 5, 2003, we issued an analysis of the 

responses of both the DOJ and the DHS. The OIG’s analysis concluded that 

both agencies appeared to be taking the recommendations seriously and were 

taking steps to address many of the concerns raised by the Detainee Report. 

The OIG’s analysis concluded, however, that many of the recommendations 

were not addressed with sufficient specificity and significant work remained 

before the recommendations were fully implemented. For several of the 

recommendations, the OIG requested additional information regarding the 

DOJ’s proposed action to address the recommendations. 

On November 20, 2003, the DOJ submitted to the OIG a second 

response to the recommendations that related to issues under the DOJ’s 

jurisdiction. The DOJ’s second response provided additional information and 

an update on the steps that the DOJ and its components were taking to 

implement the OIG’s recommendations. The second response also included 

three attachments from the BOP describing policies it had adopted to address 

the OIG’s recommendations. 

The OIG analyzed the DOJ’s second response and in a report issued on 

January 6, 2004, concluded that the DOJ has taken significant and 

responsible steps to implement the OIG’s recommendations. For example: 

• The OIG had recommended that the FBI develop clearer and more 

objective criteria to guide its classification decisions in future cases 

involving mass arrests of illegal aliens in connection with terrorism 

investigations. The DOJ’s second response described how decisions will 

be made to determine whether someone is “of interest” to the FBI, and 

12
Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice 

also described a protocol on how that decision will be made. In making 

its initial decision, the FBI stated that it will rely on information from a 

variety of sources, including the Terrorist Threat Integration Center and 

the Terrorist Screening Center. 

• The OIG had recommended that the FBI should provide the DHS and 

BOP with a written assessment of an alien’s likely association with 

terrorism shortly after an arrest, preferably within 24 hours. The DOJ 

agreed with our recommendation to provide an assessment of an alien’s 

suspected association with terrorism “as expeditiously as possible.” It 

stated that it may not be possible to do so within 24 hours in all cases, 

but said if the initial statement of interest is oral, the FBI will provide a 

written statement as soon as possible thereafter. 

• Given the highly restrictive conditions under which the BOP housed 

some of its September 11 detainees, and the slow pace of the FBI’s 

clearance process, we had recommended that the BOP consider requiring 

written assessments from immigration authorities and the FBI prior to 

placing aliens arrested solely on immigration charges into highly 

restrictive conditions of confinement. Absent such a particularized 

assessment from the FBI and immigration authorities, we recommended 

that the BOP apply its traditional inmate classification procedures to 

determine the level of secure confinement required by each detainee. 

The DOJ response stated that the FBI will provide either a verbal or 

written statement to the BOP and DHS as to their interest in a detainee. 

The response further provided that in the absence of this statement, the 

BOP will apply its traditional inmate classification procedures to 

determine the level of secure confinement required by each detainee. 

• The OIG had recommended that the BOP issue new procedures requiring 

that videotapes of detainees with alleged ties to terrorism who are housed 

in high security areas be retained for longer than the 30 days that was 

required at the time our Detainee Report was issued. The DOJ response 

described a new BOP policy that requires staff to retain for six months 

videotapes that depict routine inmate movements outside cells and BOP 

officers’ entrances into the cells of inmates who are confined pursuant to 

national emergencies. 

Because immigration enforcement responsibilities have been transferred 

from the DOJ to the DHS, the DHS OIG is now responsible for monitoring the 

DHS’s implementation of the recommendations contained in the Detainee 

Report relating to immigration issues. 

 

13
Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice 

 3. Review of the BOP’s Process for Selecting Muslim Clerics 

The OIG is examining the procedures used by the BOP to select Muslim 

personnel, contractors, and volunteers who provide religious services to 

inmates. We initiated this review in response to a request from a U.S. Senator 

expressing concern that the BOP relies solely on two organizations that 

allegedly have connections to terrorism to endorse Muslim cleric candidates as 

qualified religious leaders. The OIG review is examining whether the BOP’s 

process for selecting Muslim religious service providers effectively screens 

candidates to ensure that extremist groups do not become religious service 

providers in the BOP. 

 4. Review of the FBI's Implementation of Attorney 

 General Guidelines

 In May 2002, the Attorney General issued revised domestic Guidelines 

that govern general crimes and criminal intelligence investigations. In 

May 2003, approximately one year after the revised Guidelines had been in 

effect, the OIG began a review of the FBI’s implementation of the four sets of 

Guidelines: Attorney General’s Guidelines Regarding the Use of Confidential 

Informants; Attorney General’s Guidelines on FBI Undercover Operations; 

Attorney General’s Guidelines on General Crimes, Racketeering Enterprise and 

Terrorism Enterprise Investigations; and Revised Department of Justice 

Procedures for Lawful, Warrantless Monitoring of Verbal Communications. 

 The objectives of the OIG review are to determine what steps the FBI has 

taken to implement the Guidelines, examine how effective those steps have 

been, and assess the FBI’s compliance with key provisions of the Guidelines. 

Because the FBI’s adherence to these Guidelines could implicate civil rights or 

civil liberties issues under Section 1001, we are including a description of this 

review in our report. 

IV. ADVERTISING RESPONSIBILITIES 

Make public through the Internet, radio, television, and newspaper 

advertisements information on the responsibilities and functions of, 

and how to contact, the official. 

The OIG continues to meet its Section 1001 advertising requirements in 

a variety of ways.

14
Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice 

 A. Internet 

 The OIG’s website contains information about how individuals can report 

violations of their civil rights or civil liberties. The OIG also continues to 

promote an e-mail address – inspector.general@usdoj.gov – where individuals 

can send complaints of civil rights and civil liberties violations. 

 The OIG previously developed a poster, translated in Arabic, that 

explains how to file a civil rights or civil liberties complaint with the OIG. 

An electronic version of this poster is available on our website.

 The DOJ’s main Internet homepage contains a link that provides a 

variety of options for reporting civil rights and civil liberties violations to the 

OIG. The Civil Rights Division’s website also describes the OIG’s role in 

investigating allegations of misconduct by DOJ employees and provides 

information on how to file a complaint with the OIG. 

 In addition, several minority and ethnic organizations have added 

information to their websites about how to contact the OIG with civil rights and 

civil liberties complaints. For example, the Arab American Institute 

15
Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice 

(www.aaiusa.org), an organization that represents Arab Americans’ interests 

and provides community services, added the OIG’s Section 1001 poster to its 

website of information and resources for the Arab American community. The 

Institute also has informed its members and affiliates of the OIG’s Section 1001 

responsibilities through its weekly e-mail newsletter. Similarly, the AmericanArab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), one of the largest Arab American 

organizations in the nation, has posted the OIG’s contact information and 

Section 1001 responsibilities on its website, which at one time averaged more 

than 1 million hits per month. The ADC also has published the OIG’s Section 

1001 responsibilities in its magazine, the ADC Times, which is circulated to 

more than 20,000 people. Furthermore, the OIG’s Arabic poster and Section 

1001 responsibilities have been disseminated electronically by the Council on 

American Islamic Relations LISTERV and the National Association of Muslim 

Lawyers LISTSERV. 

B. Television 

 During this reporting period, the OIG arranged to have the following 

television advertisement aired with the text spoken in Arabic and scrolled in 

English: 

The Office of the Inspector General investigates allegations of civil rights and civil 

liberties abuses by U.S. Department of Justice employees. If you believe a

Department of Justice employee has violated your civil rights or civil liberties,

contact the Inspector General at 800-869-4499. That number again is 800-869-

4499.

 The OIG purchased blocks of time on ANA Television Network, Inc., an 

Arab cable television station with outlets around the country. According to the 

promotional materials, ANA Television Network is the largest Arab-American 

television network in the country and broadcasts news and entertainment 

24 hours a day. The segment was aired 48 times, during prime time, from 

June 5, 2003, through July 22, 2003. 

C. Radio 

 During the reporting period, the OIG submitted public service 

announcements to 45 radio stations in cities across the country, including New 

York, Los Angeles, Sacramento, Chicago, Detroit, Houston, Dallas, and 

Washington, D.C. The text of the PSA read: 

The Office of the Inspector General investigates allegations of civil rights and civil 

liberties abuses by U.S. Department of Justice employees. If you believe a

Department of Justice employee has violated your civil rights or civil liberties,

contact the Inspector General at 800-869-4499. 

16
Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice 

 We also purchased airtime for 44 radio advertisements on Arab/Muslim 

American radio stations in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Detroit, and 

Dallas. These advertisements, which ran in late 2003, were 60 seconds long 

and included the same script listed above both in English and Arabic. 

D. Posters 

 Previously, the OIG disseminated approximately 2,500 Section 1001 

posters to more than 150 organizations in 50 cities. The posters, in English 

and Arabic, explain how to contact the OIG to report civil rights and civil 

liberties abuses. 

 In an earlier reporting period, we also provided the posters to the BOP, 

which has placed at least two in each of its facilities. In addition, we had 

provided approximately 400 posters to INS officials prior to the agency’s 

transfer from the DOJ for distribution to its offices across the country. If the 

posters generate complaints about immigration officials, as of March 1, 2003, 

we have forwarded these allegations to the DHS OIG. 

17
Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice 

 

 

 

 E. Newspapers 

The OIG is making arrangements to purchase a second round of 

advertisements in one newspaper highlighting its role in investigating 

allegations of civil rights and civil liberties abuses. This time, the display 

18
Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice 

advertisements will be placed in an Arab community newspaper. 

Advertisements will appear both in English and Arabic. 

 

F. Flyers

With the assistance of the FBI’s Language Services Department, the 

OIG developed flyers in Urdu and Punjabi, which after Arabic are the two most 

commonly spoken Arab languages. Flyers also were translated into Spanish 

and Vietnamese, and the FBI is preparing a translation into Indonesian. These 

flyers will be distributed to organizations that work with the respective 

communities to inform them of the OIG’s Section 1001 responsibilities. In 

addition, we intend to provide all the flyers to the BOP and request that they be 

made available to incoming inmates in their native languages. 

19
Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice 

REPORT

 CIVIL RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES ABUSES

mail: Civil Rights & Civil Liberties Complaints

Office of the Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Justice 

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20530

e-mail: inspector.general@usdoj.gov

or fax: (202) 616-9898 

For more information, call (800) 869-4499 or 

visit the OIG’s website at www.usdoj.gov/oig

The Office of the Inspector General 

(OIG), U.S. Department of Justice, 

investigates allegations of civil rights 

and civil liberties abuses by 

Department of Justice employees in 

the FBI, DEA, ATF, Federal Bureau 

of Prisons, U.S. Marshals Service, 

U.S. Attorneys Offices, and all other 

Department of Justice agencies. 

mail: Civil Rights & Civil Liberties Complaints

Office of the Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Justice 

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20530

e-mail: inspector.general@usdoj.gov

or fax: (202) 616-9898 

For more information, call (800) 869-4499 or 

visit the OIG’s website at www.usdoj.gov/oig 

If you believe a Department 

of Justice employee has 

violated your civil rights or 

civil liberties, you may file a 

complaint with the OIG by: 

20
Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice 

V. ADDITIONAL OUTREACH AND TRAINING EFFORT 

In addition to media advertisements, the OIG is reaching out in other 

ways to educate the public and its own employees about its Section 1001 

responsibilities. For example, on June 26, 2003, an OIG Special Agent in 

Charge attended training sponsored by the DOJ’s Community Relations Service 

entitled “Building Cultural Competency: Arab, Muslim and Sikh Americans.” 

This day-long program was designed to assist the attendees to understand 

cultural issues relating to the Arab, Muslim, and Sikh communities in the 

United States and to provide guidance for training others. 

We are also developing a guide in question/answer format to assist 

individuals in understanding the OIG’s Section 1001 responsibilities, our 

jurisdiction, and how to make a complaint. This guide will be posted on the 

OIG’s website. 

VI. EXPENSE OF IMPLEMENTING SECTION 1001 

Submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives

and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate on a semi-annual basis 

a report...including a description of the use of funds appropriations used to

 carry out this subsection. 

 

During this reporting period, the OIG spent approximately $415,000 in 

personnel costs, $13,400 in travel costs, and $8,000 in advertising and 

publication costs, for a total of more than $436,500 to implement its 

responsibilities under Section 1001. The personnel and travel costs reflect the 

time and funds spent by OIG Special Agents, inspectors, and attorneys who 

have worked directly on investigating Section 1001-related complaints and 

special reviews. 

21