Long, but worth the read. Needless to say, talk radio host Mark Levin is correct when he refers to this paper as the Washington Compost
-----------

A Letter to the Ombudsman From U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Sunday, June 8, 2008; 12:00 AM

May 19, 2008

Deborah Howell
Ombudsman
The Washington Post
1150 15th St. NW
Washington, D.C.
20071

Dear Ms. Howell,

I write to lodge a formal complaint about the series of articles published this week in The Washington Post about detention healthcare. Disguised as objective investigative journalism, these adversarial articles are misleading and highly editorial in nature. I respectfully request that your office make an inquiry into this case of unethical reporting.

As an initial matter, I should highlight that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is committed to ensuring the safety and well being of the hundreds of thousands of individuals who come through our detention facilities each year. We make every effort to enforce all existing standards and, whenever possible, to improve upon them. We want to know when our standards are not being met, so that we can take immediate action to correct deficiencies. Accordingly, it is a tremendous help to us, to those in our custody, and to the country when legitimate concerns are brought to our attention. That said, last week's articles written by Dana Priest and Amy Goldstein are more harmful than helpful.

Before the series went to press, our dealings with Ms. Priest and Ms. Goldstein caused us to suspect that ICE and the Division of Immigration Health Services (DIHS) were about to be unfairly treated by the media. Our correspondence with them began on Tuesday, April 29, when Ms. Goldstein called the ICE Office of Public Affairs (OPA) to put us on notice that she and Ms. Priest would soon publish a "lengthy and comprehensive" story on "ICE detention." The conversation was cryptic, but we were told they would be sending us some questions later that week.

On Friday, May 2, Ms. Goldstein and Ms. Priest called OPA to inform us that the story would involve "detainee healthcare." Asked if they had been secretly planning to publish a surprise, or "gotcha" story, Ms. Goldstein said they were not and they legitimately wanted ICE's input and information. They indicated that some of their questions would involve specific detainees, and OPA advised that, absent privacy waivers, ICE would be limited in its ability to respond to specific allegations. They said they would look into the privacy matter. After the phone call, Ms. Priest, and her partners at CBS "60 Minutes," began sending complex and specific questions via email, with a quick deadline of Wednesday, May 7. Regrettably, they secured no waivers on the individuals about whom they were asking in advance of the deadline. I should note that they did eventually secure two waivers after the series began to run, however their tardiness made it impossible for ICE to respond appropriately.

To meet the demand, we asked staff to work on the questions over the weekend and late into the nights. In time for the May 7 deadline, we provided our responses, limited as they were due to the lack of privacy waivers and the difficulty obtaining all of the relevant information involved within such a short period of time. OPA spent the following days responding to follow up questions and ensuring the media had all the facts and circumstances they needed for a balanced story. Surprisingly, though, no one interviewed any ICE officials.

On Saturday evening, May 10, Ms. Priest and Ms. Goldstein informed us that an undisclosed number of articles would begin running the following day. Ms. Priest said their theory was that the detention population has grown faster than the government's ability to adequately manage detainee needs and that the medical care is "wholly inadequate." They would be using a number of cases to tell their story. In an effort to gauge balance, OPA asked Ms. Priest if it would reference the numerous cases wherein the detainees readily admit their lives were saved by ICE medical intervention, or the cases of exceptional health care or non-routine procedures that have been performed for ICE detainees. Ms. Priest responded curtly, "No, that isn't the focus of our story . . . I'm not going to debate our story with you, we are focusing on the deplorable care that detainees receive." It was abundantly clear that an objective story on detainee medical care was not their goal.

Notwithstanding that Ms. Priest and Ms. Goldstein effectively put us on notice that their articles would be imbalanced, frankly we were shocked with what actually went to press. In addition to omitting important and known circumstances and context, the authors distorted and misrepresented the facts in the cases and stories they cited. They misled the public to a significant degree, and by doing so, they worked a disservice to the country.

We have numerous concerns that you can review on our website, at www.ice.gov but it is appropriate to highlight certain examples that demonstrate an egregious, and in some cases willful disregard for factual accuracy.

Consider the following representations made in Sunday's article about detainee rights and general conditions of detention. Ms. Priest and Ms. Goldstein hyperbolically claim that ICE "detainees have less access to lawyers than convicted murderers in maximum-security prisons, and some have fewer comforts than al-Qaeda terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba." They say, "about 33,000 people are crammed into these overcrowded compounds on a given day, waiting to be deported or for a judge to let them stay here." Finally, there is the claim that "some compounds never allow detainees outdoor recreation; others let them out onto tiny dirt patches once or twice a week."

Their comparisons on detainee rights are reckless, at best. All individuals who are detained while in administrative removal proceedings are notified of their right to counsel which, by statute, cannot be at the expense of the government. We provide them with a list of pro bono representatives as a matter of practice when they are notified of the basis for being placed in removal proceedings. All facilities are required to abide by the ICE National Detention Standards. Under these standards, attorneys are entitled to, and receive, more access than any other visitor to ICE facilities. Indeed, all of our facilities permit legal visitation seven days a week, including holidays, for a minimum of eight hours per day on weekdays. In no way can this arrangement be compared to the access "convicted murderers" have to their lawyers. Given the exceedingly comprehensive nature of the ICE National Detention Standards, which were developed in consultation with a number of immigrants' advocacy groups and the American Bar Association, and which afford detainees such things as family visitation, free calls to consulates, pro bono legal services, and the Inspector General, it is hard to imagine how the treatment of detainees can be, in any way, objectively compared to Guantanamo Bay.

It is incorrect for Ms. Goldstein and Ms. Priest to say that detainees "are crammed into these overcrowded compounds." The use of the terms "crammed" and "compound" belies their editorial bias and adversarial tone, both of which are plainly apparent. ICE detention facilities are not experiencing overcrowded conditions. Daily counts at ICE facilities fluctuate, however we take all appropriate and necessary action to ensure that facilities do not exceed their capacity, something Ms. Goldstein and Ms. Priest could have noticed from our significant expansion of bed space during the last few years.

Finally, the reporters' discussion of outdoor recreation is misleading. They imply that while some detention facilities prohibit outdoor recreation, the rest of the facilities only allow it once or twice a week. With the exception of the recently opened Varick Street facility in Manhattan, all ICE Service Processing Centers and contract detention facilities have outdoor recreation areas. ICE detainees enjoy the opportunity for outdoor recreation five times per week, weather permitting.

In light of their claims, it is remarkable that neither Ms. Priest nor Ms. Goldstein visited a single ICE facility while they pursued their "investigative" journalism. Numerous reporters from other media organizations have requested and been provided tours of our facilities, so they have benefited from a greater understanding of our commitment to detainee care, based on first-hand experience. As such investigations produce more accurate and balanced stories, it is disappointing that Ms. Priest and Ms. Goldstein did not care to do so.

In addition to misrepresentations, Ms. Priest and Ms. Goldstein knowingly omitted important facts and mislead the public. Consider their discussion of medical staffing shortages in Sunday's article. In reference to a detention facility in Jena, La., they cite email correspondence about "staffing problems," but in their discussion, they omit a critical fact in order to make their case. Specifically, the reporters say that last August, the DIHS interim director warned his superiors at ICE that critical personnel shortages were making it impossible to staff the Jena facility adequately: "With the Jena request we have been re-examining our capabilities to meet health care needs at a new site when we are facing critical staffing shortages at most every other DIHS site. While we developed, executed and achieved major successes in our recruitment efforts we have been unable to meet the demand." The reporters' implication was clear: there were critical medical staffing problems at the Jena facility endangering detainee health. However, what Ms. Priest and Ms. Goldstein omitted was the known fact that the facility had not yet been opened in August, when the email was written. The facility was not opened until October 21, 2007. In August, we were in the process of staffing the facility so that it could be opened later in the year: no detainee's health was in danger, despite what was implied.

On their own the aforementioned examples warrant an ethics inquiry, but I feel compelled also to discuss the authors' treatment of LaMont Flanagan. Mr. Flanagan is the chief of the Detention Health Care Unit within the ICE Office of Detention and Removal Operations -- not the Director of DIHS, as mischaracterized by the authors -- and he serves his country ably in that capacity. In Sunday's article, the authors impugned Mr. Flanagan's name by asserting that his only credential is "having been fired in 2003 by the state of Maryland for bad management and spending practices supervising detention and pretrial services." This irresponsible characterization is not only offensive, but untrue.

As Mr. Flanagan told us and our Office of Professional Responsibility has confirmed, he served as Commissioner of the Division of Pretrial and Detention Services (DPDS), within the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, for twelve years. During Mr. Flanagan's time at DPDS, he was praised by the media, his superiors, the Maryland State legislature, and his peers for his programmatic initiatives and superior management in the field of corrections. Indeed, articles and editorials from the Baltimore Sun newspaper lauded his leadership and performance. In May 2003, five months after the election of the new Governor, Mr. Flanagan resigned from his position. Upon his resignation, the newly appointed Secretary of the Department of Public Safety stated that Mr. Flanagan "served the Department with distinction during his tenure, and we wish him every success in the future." Two months later, the Maryland State Senate passed a resolution congratulating and recognizing him for "Outstanding and Dedicated Service to the State of Maryland as Commissioner of Pretrial and Detention Services." It is a falsehood to say that Mr. Flanagan was fired for bad management.

Last Sunday's article apparently tries to connect the dots by stating that, "An audit found that Flanagan had signed off on payments of $145,000 for employee entertainment and other ill-advised expenditures." This statement is misleading. In February 2005, two years after Mr. Flanagan resigned from DPDS, the Maryland Department of Legislative Services conducted a routine audit of the agency. The audit noted that the annual budget requests that DPDS submitted to the Maryland General Assembly did not adequately disclose general fund entertainment-related expenditures, which totaled approximately $145,000 during fiscal years 2002 to 2004. These "entertainment-related expenditures" were utilized exclusively for the benefit of inmates. The fund provided social, cultural, and educational initiatives for inmate programs and activities, and assisted in reducing violence by 71 percent. It also provided inmates with extracurricular activities. All expenditures were reviewed and approved by finance and budget authorities within the Office of the Secretary of Public Safety and the State Comptroller. Each expenditure involved a requisition request with a three-level management review and approval process above Mr. Flanagan's position as Commissioner. Nonetheless, after the audit, DPDS made changes to established procedures to ensure all such expenses fully complied with procurement related requirements, such as competitive bidding.

Finally, the article concludes its discussion of Mr. Flanagan by saying his "reputation was such that the District of Columbia would not hire him for a juvenile-justice position." This statement is particularly inflammatory and erroneous. Again, as Mr. Flanagan reported and our Office of Professional Responsibility confirmed, in 2004, the Executive Director of the Department of Human Services for D.C. asked him to apply for the position of Juvenile Services Administrator. Mr. Flanagan interviewed for the position and was designated by the press as a major candidate. Advocates within the Juvenile Justice community impressed upon the D.C. Mayor that a corrections administrator would not be their preference for someone charged with administering the juvenile services program. In response, Mayor Williams appointed a juvenile justice advocate as the juvenile services administrator. However, Mayor Williams subsequently appointed Mr. Flanagan to the position of Deputy Director for Administration in the Department of Human Services, where he served with distinction for two years before coming to ICE.

It seems that the "facts" about Mr. Flanagan alleged in last Sunday's article is either false or highly misleading, from the mischaracterization of his title and responsibilities at ICE to the suggestion that his reputation is stained by mismanagement and scandal. Our Office of Professional Responsibility has conducted interviews and reviewed personnel records, and we can firmly stand behind our facts. Unless Ms. Goldstein and Ms. Priest provide evidence to support their inflammatory and unnecessary allegations, they should retract their statements and issue a public apology to Mr. Flanagan.

In addition to the many factual inaccuracies and misrepresentations, there is a disturbing theme to these articles. Based upon statements made to our OPA, it is clear that Ms. Goldstein and Ms. Priest wanted to make their case that the current healthcare system for detained aliens is fraught with systemic problems with no progress or improvement in sight. The problem is that their case fails on the merits. For example, the article published on Tuesday indicated that suicides were increasing. To the contrary, the data show that suicides are declining. In fact, ICE has implemented an aggressive suicide prevention program, and there has not been a detainee suicide in 15 months. When Ms. Goldstein was corrected by an ICE official on National Public Radio, she changed her posture and instead argued that attempts have gone up. But, she has not corrected the record.

Turning to last Wednesday's article, the reporters described the involuntary sedation of detainees as it used to be, despite that Ms. Priest and Ms. Goldstein know that sedation policy has dramatically changed. They know that, in June 2007, ICE policy was changed to require a court order for such sedations, except in emergent circumstances where the individual represented a threat to himself or others. In January 2008, that policy was limited further to require a court order in any case involving involuntary sedation, with no exceptions. Under both the June 2007 and January 2008 policy, medication administered consistent with treatment of a diagnosed mental condition is appropriate. To imply that improvement has not been made in this important area is irresponsible.

OPA has provided Ms. Priest and Ms. Goldstein specific examples of errors and misrepresentations, but Ms. Priest advised that "their investigation and the people they talked to support their facts." They have refused to correct what is clearly erroneous information, and their responses to criticism have been indignant.

Although they deny promoting an agenda in their reporting, their articles make their hostilities clear. With reckless comparisons of ICE detention facilities to Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib and numerous references to September 11, it is unmistakably clear that their story was meant to criticize Bush Administration policy on the War on Terror. Whatever their personal beliefs, they have no place in objective journalism.

One final issue should be raised. We submit that it was inappropriate for Ms. Priest and Ms. Goldstein to appear on programs such as CBS's "60 Minutes" or National Public Radio as if they are subject matter experts. Given that neither Ms. Priest nor Ms. Goldstein interviewed a single ICE official nor have either toured one ICE detention facility, we believe their appearances on those news analysis programs presented a substantial conflict of interest. We not only call on your office to make an inquiry, but we call on the journalism profession to engage in a full discussion of the ethics of such practices.

Thank you for taking this important matter into consideration. If you have any questions, please call me at (202) 514- 2522.

Sincerely,
Kelly Nantel
Press Secretary

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03660.html