April 1977. Break-in by FBI informant.. Defendants' motions for dis Yes. 1976. COINTELPRO. March 1977. Wrongful death. 610-73 (D.D.C.).... Sociallst Workers Party v. Attorney General. War Resisters League v. Regional Commissioner of (S.D.N.Y.). Customs. Weinberg v. Mitchell. C-75-0817 (N.D. Cal.). Wilson v. U.S.. 77C-975 (E.D.N.Y.).. May 1975.. July 1976 Zweibon v. Mitchell. 2025-71 (D.D.C.).. 52 May Day Cases. (D.D.C.)... 76-0798 (D.D.C.). 73-Civ. 3160 (S.D.N.Y.). Conspiracy to conceal violation of civil Defendants' motion for sumrights. Electronic surveillance; bad faith prosecu- Late discoverytion. Electronic surveillance. FBI investigatory practices directed against NSA interception of communications.. COINTELPRO. LETTER FROM SENATOR ABOUREZK TO ATTORNEY GENERAL, FEBRUARY 7, 1977: FIRST SET OF QUESTIONS ON S. 2117 At the January 26th hearing on S. 2117 before the Subcommittees on Administrative Practice and Procedure and on Citizens and Shareholder Rights and Interests, Senator Metzenbaum mentioned that I would be submitting written questions to you. Attached are these questions. In order to expedite consideration of this bill I would appreciate your providing me with written answers by Friday, March 3. GENERAL QUESTIONS BASED ON PREPARED STATEMENT 1. On page 5 of your statement you say that you are "personally agreeable to provisions which would assure effective and fair procedures to discipline an employee who has violated another's constitutional rights, procedures in which the injured person can participate in a meaningful way." Are you saying that at least an outline of the essentials of such procedures should be included in this bill? 2. In your statement, you say that "for punishment to be an effective deterrent it must be predictable." (page 4) Would you, therefore, support a provision in the bill requiring that a disciplinary proceeding automatically be commenced against a federal employee whenever a constitutional tort case involving him is filed against the government? 3. In your statement you say "the possibility of civil damage actions for (honest, law abiding and conscientious civil servants) tends to discourage taking difficult assignments and performing such assignments thoroughly and courageously. Instead, it has the effect of causing otherwise responsible officials to worry about 'covering' themselves. I know this is true in the Justice Department but do not doubt that it applies in every department and agency of the Federal Government." (page 4). -2 a. Please explain why you believe civil servants who are in fact b. honest, law-abiding and conscientious have these worries. If they were assured that they would not have to pay their legal fees, why does the prospect of civil damage actions have any adverse impact on federal employees who are "honest, law-abiding and conscientious"? c. Why should the Congress accept the Department's judgment that civil damage actions deter honest civil servants from fearless performance of their duties when the Supreme Court has rejected these very same arguments in refusing to give civil servants absolute immunity? d. On what basis do you conclude that the personal liability of civil servants "serves no constructive purpose" when the courts have repeatedly ruled that civil servants should be personally liable? (page 3). e. Is it an unjust ...burden" for a government employee to be held liable for a sizeable judgment in a civil suit" if that employee has intentionally violated the constitutional rights of an individual? (page 1) f. Isn't it true that civil damage actions do have a deterrent effect on employees who are not honest, law-abiding and conscientious? g. If it is true that civil damage actions have a deterrent effect on such employees, isn't it necessary that any bill immizing such employees maintain such deterrence through an alternative accountability procedure? -3 ACCOUNTABILITY OF HIGH GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND FORMER GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS 1. Is it possible or appropriate for presidential appointees and former government officials to be subjected to civil service disciplinary 2. Does the Department have any specific alternative system of accountability to recommend for Presidential appointees and former employees in addition to existing accountability mechanisms? a. If the Department has no recommendation for such an alternative b. Particularly with respect to presidential appointees, do you immunizing Presidential appointees from civil damage actions? |