Shot From Darkness

In an attempt to understand how the federal government receives, evaluates, and decides whether to honor requests of the kind that the British government has made for the Department of Justice to subpoena confidential research materials held at Boston College, I asked the DOJ press office for a basic procedural description regarding foreign requests in general.

Here are my questions:

First, where would a foreign government begin, if they had such a
request? Would they bring that request to the State Department
first, or directly to the DOJ, and what office within the DOJ would
receive it? Is there an invariable procedure for all such requests,
or does the process vary, sometimes going through one office of the
government and sometimes through another? The government of (X)
wants the DOJ to get a set of records for them in the U.S. -- who do
they ask?

Second, who in the DOJ decides whether or not to honor such a
request? In this case, the government of the UK is seeking
information on the IRA; obviously the politics of such a request
would be very different if, for example, the government of Iran
asked the DOJ to subpoena records that would reveal the identities
and activities of Iranian dissidents. Who in the DOJ analyzes these
requests and decides what to do with them?

Third, is there an office within the DOJ that remains involved in
the response to a foreign government's request, or is such a request
(for example) just passed to a local U.S. Attorney's office for
resolution without further involvement by a particular office at DOJ
headquarters? Is there an international affairs office that would
manage such a request from inquiry to resolution?

Finally, is there an office or officer within the DOJ with the
responsibility to make determinations regarding investigations,
subpoenas, and etc., that may be perceived as impinging on academic
freedom? Do DOJ efforts targeting records held by universities and
academic researchers go through any separate type of vetting?

Here's their response, from a press officer in the Criminal Division:

"I can't comment on the specific matter you reference below. In general there are processes in place for mutual legal assistance requests to be processed but they vary depending on terms of treaties, etc., so really no way to speak in general when in reference to a specific matter."

(A perfect circle: I can't discuss specific matters, and I can't speak to general questions that might be construed as being related to a specific matter.)

So I tried to get some more basic information:

It would even be helpful if you could just give the name and date of the treaty under which the British request was made.

Here's their response:

"Again, I'm sorry but I cannot comment on a specific matter."

So.

This is another reason why I argue that the subpoena served on Boston College is a far more serious threat to academic freedom than the public records request made by the Wisconsin GOP to the University of Wisconsin for William Cronon's email records. Government can come clean out your research materials without a word of public explanation. The records the Department of Justice filed in support of the BC subpoena are sealed, they're not answering even the vaguest, most general questions...

...and they're trying to get their hands on records that could cost the subjects of historical research their freedom or their lives, and that were created in the first place because of a promise that they would be held confidentially until the deaths of the interviewees.

Scholars who howled about the Cronon request, but are saying nothing about the Boston College subpoena, are weeping with terror over the neighbor's yappy toothless Shih Tzu while a Rottweiler that they somehow hilariously don't deign to notice chews on their legs.