This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/17/us/justice-dept-lost-track-of-2-former-terrorists-report-says.html

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Justice Dept. Lost Track Of Terrorists, Report Says Justice Dept. Lost Track of Terrorists, Report Says
(35 minutes later)
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department temporarily lost track of two former terrorists who had participated in its witness protection program and until recently did not disclose the fictitious identities it created for terrorism-linked witnesses to the agency that generates watch lists, allowing some who were on the no-fly list to take commercial flights under their new names, according to a new report.WASHINGTON — The Justice Department temporarily lost track of two former terrorists who had participated in its witness protection program and until recently did not disclose the fictitious identities it created for terrorism-linked witnesses to the agency that generates watch lists, allowing some who were on the no-fly list to take commercial flights under their new names, according to a new report.
A public summary of the classified report, issued Thursday by the office of the Justice Department’s independent inspector general, Michael Horowitz, revealed that the internal watchdog raised alarms with senior department officials in early 2012 about how the witness protection program was dealing with terrorism-related witnesses, leading to an overhaul of its procedures.A public summary of the classified report, issued Thursday by the office of the Justice Department’s independent inspector general, Michael Horowitz, revealed that the internal watchdog raised alarms with senior department officials in early 2012 about how the witness protection program was dealing with terrorism-related witnesses, leading to an overhaul of its procedures.
In a response to the report, Armando Bonilla, a senior counsel in the office of the deputy attorney general, said that department officials agreed that terrorism-related witnesses needed greater monitoring and that changes had been put in place, including a ban on commercial flights for all participants who had a “no-fly” status under their real names.In a response to the report, Armando Bonilla, a senior counsel in the office of the deputy attorney general, said that department officials agreed that terrorism-related witnesses needed greater monitoring and that changes had been put in place, including a ban on commercial flights for all participants who had a “no-fly” status under their real names.
But he also defended the use of the program for terrorism cases, saying that it had been key in securing cooperation from witnesses necessary for successful prosecutions, that no “terrorism-linked witness ever has committed a single act of terrorism after entering the program” and that an F.B.I. review of participants revealed none who posed a threat to national security.But he also defended the use of the program for terrorism cases, saying that it had been key in securing cooperation from witnesses necessary for successful prosecutions, that no “terrorism-linked witness ever has committed a single act of terrorism after entering the program” and that an F.B.I. review of participants revealed none who posed a threat to national security.
The Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte of Virginia, said he would hold a hearing on this “outrageous problem” and “gross mismanagement,” while the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, said the report “raises concerns” about prosecuting terrorists in civilian courts. The Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Robert W. Goodlatte of Virginia, said he would hold a hearing on this “outrageous problem” and “gross mismanagement,” while the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, said the report “raises concerns” about prosecuting terrorists in civilian courts.
The federal Witness Security Program, which began in 1971, creates new identities for witnesses and their family members who essentially go into hiding, cutting off all contact with relatives and friends and living under fictional names in new cities, because they may be in physical danger from people seeking retribution for their testimony.The federal Witness Security Program, which began in 1971, creates new identities for witnesses and their family members who essentially go into hiding, cutting off all contact with relatives and friends and living under fictional names in new cities, because they may be in physical danger from people seeking retribution for their testimony.
The program has about 700 active participants, most of whom were involved in organized crime, violent gangs or drug trafficking. The Justice Department said those linked to terrorism cases — including cooperating witnesses, their families, and innocent bystander witnesses — amounted to fewer than 1 percent of the 18,300 who had participated in the program since its inception, and that “just two former known or suspected terrorists have been admitted into the program” in the last six years. The program has about 700 active participants, most of whom were involved in organized crime, violent gangs or drug trafficking. The Justice Department said that those linked to terrorism cases — including cooperating witnesses, their families, and innocent bystander witnesses — amounted to fewer than 1 percent of the 18,300 who had participated in the program since its inception, and that “just two former known or suspected terrorists have been admitted into the program” in the last six years.
During a review of the overall program in late 2011 and early 2012, the inspector general’s office uncovered what it portrayed as “significant deficiencies in the handling” of witnesses who had links to terrorism, including training in aviation and explosives, involvement in plotting bombings and participation in a conspiracy to kill Americans.During a review of the overall program in late 2011 and early 2012, the inspector general’s office uncovered what it portrayed as “significant deficiencies in the handling” of witnesses who had links to terrorism, including training in aviation and explosives, involvement in plotting bombings and participation in a conspiracy to kill Americans.
Specifically, the program was not sharing their new identities with the F.B.I.’s Terrorist Screening Center, the agency that maintains watch lists used for purposes like determining who must undergo extra screening at airports or be placed on the no-fly list. Some program participants who were on the no-fly list “yet were allowed to fly on commercial flights” with the program officials’ knowledge and approval, and “could have” flown without it, the report said.Specifically, the program was not sharing their new identities with the F.B.I.’s Terrorist Screening Center, the agency that maintains watch lists used for purposes like determining who must undergo extra screening at airports or be placed on the no-fly list. Some program participants who were on the no-fly list “yet were allowed to fly on commercial flights” with the program officials’ knowledge and approval, and “could have” flown without it, the report said.
The inspector general raised alarms with officials at the Justice Department, who opened a review that resulted in the United States Marshals Service reporting that it had been initially unable to locate two former participants. With the F.B.I.’s help, it concluded that both are living outside the United States.The inspector general raised alarms with officials at the Justice Department, who opened a review that resulted in the United States Marshals Service reporting that it had been initially unable to locate two former participants. With the F.B.I.’s help, it concluded that both are living outside the United States.
The brief, unclassified summary of the report provided no further details about the two, such as who they were, how long ago they had been in the program, or when and why they had dropped out of it. Mr. Bonilla portrayed the inspector general’s characterization of such witnesses as “known or suspected terrorists” as alarmist, saying that they were “former” terrorists who had cooperated extensively with the government and were sponsored for the program by an investigative agency, usually the F.B.I., and had undergone “an intensive vetting process” for public safety reasons. The brief, unclassified summary of the report provided no further details about the two, like who they were, how long ago they had been in the program, or when and why they had dropped out of it. Mr. Bonilla portrayed the inspector general’s characterization of such witnesses as “known or suspected terrorists” as alarmist, saying that they were “former” terrorists who had cooperated extensively with the government and were sponsored for the program by an investigative agency, usually the F.B.I., and had undergone “an intensive vetting process” for public safety reasons.