Audit Finds FBI Abused Patriot Act 341
happyslayer writes to mention that according to Yahoo! News a recent audit shows that the FBI has improperly and in some cases illegally utilized the Patriot Act to obtain information. "The audit by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine found that FBI agents sometimes demanded personal data on individuals without proper authorization. The 126-page audit also found the FBI improperly obtained telephone records in non-emergency circumstances. The audit blames agent error and shoddy record-keeping for the bulk of the problems and did not find any indication of criminal misconduct. Still, 'we believe the improper or illegal uses we found involve serious misuses of national security letter authorities,' the audit concludes."
What are the chances... (Score:5, Insightful)
no surprise there (Score:5, Insightful)
And if so what drug are you on
Law enforcement agencies will abuse any law to get the maximum leverage that they
can, it does not matter that the laws they use were not originally intended for
the purpose they are being used for.
In NL we only recently got the obligation to carry ID, ostensibly to fight heavy
criminals that would not ID themselves. Of course now you can get arrested a
lot easier for say being a jogger and having no ID on you.
And that has already happened to a lot of people, but not to the so called heavy
criminals.
if you want to stop this trend I'm afraid it will take a lot more than a vote in
a ballot box at some point.
if that is still possible...
Re:What are the chances... (Score:3, Insightful)
No chance at all.
Surprised? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? (Score:4, Insightful)
Funny. I seem to recall a lot of screaming about the possibility for abuse and I distinctly recall being told to shut the fuck up, we can *trust* them to do the right thing.
pfft.
Accountable? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What are the chances... (Score:5, Insightful)
Arrested as a product of the illegal activity, or arrested for performing the illegal activity?
The former has probably already happened, the latter is probably unlikely (summary says no criminal misconduct).
You didn't really think they would get in trouble for abusing the law we've all been saying has huge potential for abuse, did you?
While they might make policy that says internally they need to do things correctly in the future, I doubt that will prevent them from obtaining information on a whim because it's expedient. But, I'm a cynic about such things, hopefully I'm wrong.
Cheers
We are shocked! Shocked! (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What are the chances... (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:no surprise there (Score:5, Insightful)
Cops screw up all the time, with the best of intentions. I know an officer who made a traffic stop, and searched the trunk based on an exhaust leak he noticed (they can bypass the right to an unlawful search in cases like these, safety trumps it). Trunk had two kilos of cocaine, perp gets off because the judge decided the search was unlawful.
A lot of these guys really are out there trying to catch the bad guys, or just trying to get ahead in their careers. We all take shortcuts in our jobs and to reach our goals, and when you're on the street, with a bust so close you can feel it - and the only thing stopping you is what you percieve as "beurocratic red tape", it's easy to slip up.
I'm not defending them, just offering some more rational explanation other than "da govment is out to get us". It's people that screwed up, in the end.
Re:no surprise there (Score:3, Insightful)
This is what happens when you ignore human nature (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a fact.
This is a truth of humanity.
Laws such as the patriot act, which remove checks and balances and allow individuals or small groups of like-minded individuals to act unilaterally in a way that is damaging to the rights of other citizens is a gross violation of this principle and is evidence to a loss of touch with what our government is put in place to do.
While protecting the people is a primary goal of a government, protecting the people must weigh protections both on the freedom and liberty of people against the PHYSICAL protection of people.
Unfortunately, our society is so sheltered from physical trauma, we have grown risk-averse in a disturbing way.
A few hundred years ago, when most people did not reach 60, and 1/4 of children died before adolescence, we had a realistic view of how important liberty is in our society. People dealt with death and destruction, as it was part of nature. Liberty, however, was not a constant and had to be protected at all costs.
Today, people take liberty for granted and so fear death and destruction that they will throw away their liberty for temporary saftey.
This is the trap which our founding fathers warned us against. They saw its power and also its danger.
We need to open our eyes to that truth as well.
Stew
Re:And yesterday Captain America was shot to death (Score:5, Insightful)
The tactics (and some of the players) never really left, they've only refined the techniques and the spin to explain it away to an apathetic public. At least Nixon stepped down when he was caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
Re:no surprise there (Score:5, Insightful)
That's probably because that judge knows a load of bullshit when he hears it. I mean, seriously, he decided to search the trunk because he noticed an exhaust leak?!?! Give me a break.
-Eric
Re:What are the chances... (Score:5, Insightful)
Serves us right (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Accountable? (Score:3, Insightful)
Only half the consequences of old-fashioned accountability!
Look at the advantages: Less embarassment! More job security! Freedom to make critical mistakes without having to pay for them!
(Only available for cabinet-level Federal employees)
Re:Ha Ha stupid Americans (Score:1, Insightful)
Therefore, you have your happiness, and that's a good thing. I'll take my happiness in my not-so-perfect-either government and say that's a good thing, too.
Re:What are the chances... (Score:3, Insightful)
-Eric
Re:no surprise there (Score:4, Insightful)
All this government has to do is use the word "terrorist" in a sentence and all of your civil liberties are thrown out a window. In fact, by me writing this, I'm sure it has been flagged on some ISP/Government computer somewhere and they will notice its just another user bad mouthing big brother. Its disturbing how we must all sit idly by and watch as all of our rights continue to be diminished... Hopefully something will change and soon.
Re:This is what happens when you ignore human natu (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that people with FEDERALIST leanings are more to blame. Isolated pockets of socialism are not damaging when they are confined. At that point, it becomes a choice, rather than an obligation. For example, if California decided they wanted welfare, excelelnt. It is the nationwide push for such things that cause problems.
Our country was designed (and was most efficiently operated) as a loosely coupled federation of states. The federal control extended to ALMOST nothing, except where it concerned one state accepting the laws of other states and where it concerned international trade, commerce, war and diplomacy.
In this structure, if California becomes corrupt with power, you are free to move to Oregon. Presumably, there would develop a certain state of homeostasis between locations as like minded individuals move together and learn to inter operate with other groups of unlike minded people.
On the far other extreme end from your socialist comment lies a society of laissez-faire corporate oligarchy, not seen since the "oil baron" days of entire cities, owned, policed and supervised by corporate regulations and institutions, where corporations oppress citizens in exactly the same way, from exactly the opposite direction.
Surely there is a balance in the middle?
Regardless, the balance must be approached seperately by a number of smaller state governments, rather than centrally by a bureaucratic federal dictatorship.
Stew
Re:no surprise there (Score:5, Insightful)
There's nothing in the trunk that has anything to do with an exhaust leak. In addition, you can't actually tell if a car has an exhaust leak until you stop it, unless you go past it with open windows and hear the characteristic sound. The clouds of smoke could come from any number of sources. Once I got pulled over for excessive smoke because I had spilled some oil on my exhaust manifold while adding to my crankcase.
Thus this is a clear violation of authority, and a clearly illegal search.
Police have a responsibility to be more, well, responsible than "normal citizens" because they have more power. With power comes responsibility.
This is why it is simply not acceptable for any cop to ever break any law. Period. I realize that's impossible, and it's why I told the CHP officer who pulled me over and tried to talk me into applying to work for the CHP (after he already had written out my ticket, for something I didn't do, what a fucking asshole) that I felt that the law is simply the arms of a corrupt system that I don't want to be a part of. He'd already written the ticket, so what did I have to lose? And of course I have convictions. And I don't mean legal ones :P
But regardless, if someone isn't willing to live within the law, they shouldn't be a cop. And we should never let cops off when they do break the law. It's fucking hypocritical.
you are the government
you are jurisprudence
you are the volition
you are jurisdiction
and I make a difference too [lyricsdepot.com]
Re:So, Sweden (Score:4, Insightful)
Methinks we'd all be better off if we could support each other's efforts to restore freedom in our homelands, rather than sniping back and forth about how much worse off the other is.
Moral of the story (Score:4, Insightful)
Never give the government a power that you would not feel comfortable in having your worst enemy exercise.
(Because someday they will)
Re:oblig (Score:3, Insightful)
It was created to restrain the terrible power of government from abusing the sovereign rights of the people.
Government is the worst invention of man. It has created the most terrible acts of all history and has only one tool at its command.. that is force. If you try to say no to a government you will eventually be fined, if you don't like the fines, you will be put in a cage, and if you try to resist the men that come to put you in one you will be killed. Your rights are not granted to you by any such government. They exist outside of government, so a piece of paper can not fully define what rights you have. (The Constitution itself even says that)
*WE* do not control government anymore. We are the governed. We don't limit it anymore.. we just roll over on our rights, and its entirely run away.. but that's ok because since the people of the country understand so little of what freedom and liberty mean.. anything else they could come up with now would be WORSE. (can you imagine if congress had to re-write the bill of rights now??)
If the people fail to understand that government must be limited.. it matters very little what pieces of paper we have or who controls what office.
Lord have mercy, you've just figured that out? (Score:1, Insightful)
They've been in the Bush '43 administration for over six years and you're just now learning enough about them to realize that they were also in the Nixon administration?
I hope you're not a US citizen of voting age. If you are, it's having a voting public dominated by people like you that is the cause of a good portion of our problems.
Re:What are the chances... (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course intent isn't everything, and being ignorant of laws doesn't always protect you from the consequences either.
If anything at all comes out of this, it will be limited to discussion and that's about it. MAYBE it will get a few congressmen hot under the collar and debate the merits and abuses of the unPatriotic Act. I seriously doubt any repealing or scaling back will happen however.
The insurgency is REALLY in its last throes. (Score:5, Insightful)
The insurgency that is dying is the one that began 230 odd years ago, against a distant King in England, by a ragtag group of people who believed in liberty. What kind of country we have now, if our citizenry can be so scared by the loss of couple of skyscrapers and surrender the freedoms so quickly?
The insurgency led by Geroge Washington and Thomas Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers is really in its last throes.
Re:What are the chances... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Moral of the story (Score:2, Insightful)
I take you're a fan of nuclear disarmament - because I sure wouldn't want my worst enemy sitting on a stockpile of nuclear weapons.
The way I see it, as a citizen you try fill the positions of power in government with good people who will do their best to act in the best interest of the people generally. But, you also set up enough oversight that you can tell when the people in positions of power are not acting in the best interest of the people generally so that you can replace them with good people.
Re:This is what happens when you ignore human natu (Score:3, Insightful)
Since World War 1, it is no longer a deterrent to governments.
As has been shown in overseas wars, a small detachment of a dozen or so trained marines with modern weapons can mow down several thousand citizens. This is not utilizing things such as cruise missles, air strikes, battleships, or even more feared weapons like tactical nukes, napalm, bio and chemical, etc.
The simple fact is that no matter HOW MANY guns and knives a person might have in their home, the government can destroy them from outer space, with no manpower, no risk and no fear. This nullifies the deterrent of weapons far more than any "gun control" does.
Stew
Re:And yesterday Captain America was shot to death (Score:3, Insightful)
For?
before answering, bear in mind that all charges brought against them were investigated very heavly by republicans looking to get them. Nothing was found.
So, are you just completly ignorant, a FUD spreading turd? or do you bring new information to the table(always welcome)?
Re:no surprise there (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:no surprise there (Score:5, Insightful)
But did you know that if your hand is bigger than your face, you've got cancer?
Re:oblig (Score:3, Insightful)
A direct democracy probably does not work well either, as it is easy to sway the masses (though I would prefer the tyranny of the majority to the tyranny of 100 people any day), but at least the issues, rather than the representatives, would receive attention.
The optimal solution that does not require a radical change (which would likely entail a revolution) is probably a hybrid of the two. Abolishing the party system and requiring voters to write a sentence or two explaining their rationale for their decision (even if unread) would probably cause an immediate improvement with comparatively little effort.
Danger! Red Herring! (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with this whole discussion is that it's about the FBI failing to keep track of how many letters they issued.
So now the government is saying "We'll keep better track of how many letters we issue, problem solved!"
NO! PROBLEM NOT SOLVED!
The *REAL* problem is that the government can compel release of private information WITHOUT A WARRANT! All this fiasco does is let the government substitute 'not counting the number of letters' for the REAL problem of 'being able to issue letters' and then pretend that since they've solved problem #1 that there is no problem at all.
Re:Wait a minute, aren't we missing something here (Score:5, Insightful)
Since the first rule of National Security Letters is not to talk about National Security Letters, then ya, it will be a good while till you hear an actual example.
Or did you mean that surveillance, eavesdropping, searching and financial snooping aren't violations of fundamental, inalienable rights? If that's the case, I won't argue. If we can't agree on what's fundamental, there's nothing really to discuss. BTW, can I have your SSN?
Re:This isnt important (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:no surprise there (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly.
These FUCKS were do ANYTHING no matter HOW illegal it is to "get ahead in their careers."
And YOU don't see anything wrong with that?
What police department do YOU work for?
I knew an inmate at Leavenworth who was working on appealing his case. He was convicted on the basis of a search warrant which was served off-premises of the address the warrant was for, which was "issued" based on the cop's report of a "drug sale" which never happened, and on "lab results" of the drugs involved in said non-existent sale which the lab later denied ever having seen, and the warrant itself had a "judge's signature" that exactly matched the handwriting of the police officer involved.
Yeah, "it's people that screwed up", all right.
No. These guys are NOT "out there trying to catch bad guys". They ARE "bad guys" who go into law enforcement because it allows them to BE "bad guys" while convincing suckers like you that they are the "good guys."
There may be a handful of morons who go into law enforcement with the expectations you suggest. They learn quickly that that's not how the operation works, and if they want to get along, they go along.
I had an uncle in Bristol, Connecticut, who was a cop. He got fired for having knowledge of a burglary ring operating within the police department and not turning in the cops involved.
Take a look at the photos of the goons involved in that New York case where they shoved a broom handle up a guy's ass. If you've never seen SS Nazi goons before, that should solve your problem.
Go read up on the LA cops in that "nut squad" who ran around shooting unarmed "perps" and manufacturing evidence and lord knows what all else.
Don't bother dragging out that BULLSHIT about "a few bad apples" either. The barrel is rotten to the core and always has been, in every country in history.
"Insightful", my ass...
Re:no surprise there (Score:2, Insightful)
The best thing that can come of this is that our senators grow a collective set of balls, realize that Patriot Act makes a mockery of our professed idea of freedom, and pull in the reigns on this heinous piece of legislation.
Re:Wait a minute, aren't we missing something here (Score:2, Insightful)
Respectfully, I submit it was me, you, and every other American, as our collective rights and liberties have been squashed even more.
It's starting all over again (Score:5, Insightful)
Back in the 1960s and 1970s, as a result of FBI abuses including targeting of dissident groups, new laws were passed and court decisions occurred putting restrictions on the FBI and on state and local police because of agency misconduct. Consider Bull Connor [wikipedia.org] and his thugs at the Birmingham (Alabama) Police, who felt the appropriate response for peaceful protests was attack dogs and firehosing. We did not 'hobble' them because we wanted to let criminals get away with things, we put restrictions on police because they could not be trusted not to abuse their authority.
You didn't get decisions like Miranda [wikipedia.org] , Escobedo [wikipedia.org] , Mapp [wikipedia.org] , and others because it was thought that it would be a good idea to make the job of law enforcement more difficult, but because law enforcement was acting in an improper and often illegal fashion. Depriving police of the ability to use illegally obtained evidence, of suppressing forced confessions and other such things would, it was claimed, destroy law enforcement. And you know what happened? Police officers learned, generally, to act within the rules, to be professional and to work on finding evidence in a proper manner. But it still wasn't enough.
The Govenor of Illinois had to commute the death sentences of over 150 because of police and prosecutorial misconduct, including cases where prosecutors sought death sentences and sent people they knew were innocent to death row. The incident was so bad that some prosecutors were arrested for misconduct.
There is an old saying in Latin, Quos custodes ipsos custodes?, i.e. Who will watch the watchers? When the police don't have serious restrictions, they will do anything they can get away with. Sometimes the police act properly and in a professinal manner. Sometimes the police can be almost as bad as the people they are supposed to catch.
Wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
No.
With power comes the desire for more power.
Re:What are the chances... (Score:4, Insightful)
What this means is that information seized illegally, outside of the bounds of the statute, will not be available to federal prosecutors, not that anyone in the FBI will be prosecuted, because they may not have violated a specific criminal statute in doing so.
Re:What are the chances... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What are the chances... (Score:3, Insightful)
Right. That's why they keep doing it.
Right. That's why they keep doing it.
This is a fundamental flaw in the system. Not only should law enforcement — at all levels — not be exempt from the law, they should be held to a considerably higher standard, as they are in a position of great power and responsibility. They can literally ruin your life with a a single action; it is obviously important, critical even, that they perform those actions with great care and under absolutely unforgiving limitations.