FBI Lied To Support Need For PATRIOT Act Expansion

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "It probably won't surprise you, but in 2005, the FBI manufactured evidence to get the power to issue National Security Letters under the PATRIOT Act. Unlike normal subpoenas, NSLs do not require probable cause and you're never allowed to talk about having received one, leading to a lack of accountability that caused them to be widely abused. The EFF has discovered via FOIA requests that an FBI field agent was forced by superiors to return papers he got via a lawful subpoena, then demand them again via an NSL (which was rejected for being unlawful at the time), and re-file the original subpoena to get them back. This delay in a supposedly critical anti-terror investigation then became a talking point used by FBI Director Robert Mueller when the FBI wanted to justify their need for the power to issue National Security Letters."

Re:A real danger

[Ethanol-fueled]

It's funny, sad, and ironic how rigorous the FBI's screening standards are, and yet they get away with dishonest behavior all the damn time. They're like zealous, vengeful little power trippers who were an only child, or they were picked on too much in school, or both -- the kind who'd use their angelic rep to lie to their parents or their teacher to get somebody in trouble.

Re:Perfect example

[aadvancedGIR]

I recently heard that in England, the new powers given to the police (including local ones) by their anti-terrorism laws were mostly used for cases of minor frauds (meaning they could indefinitely detain people who, when presented to a judge, would only risk a fine).

Re:A real danger

[Daengbo]

Thirteen years ago, when I was in Military Intelligence, we were hounded and battered over even the appearance of domestic surveillance. A couple of years later, all that went out the window with the "Patriot" Act. Does anyone really believe that spying on your own people is Patriotic?

I knew what was going on back then. For years, various services had been crying for more power and to break down the walls between agencies so that more domestic monitoring could occur. 9/11 just gave them the excuse they needed. They already had what they wanted drawn up.

I'm not supporting a conspiracy theory here because, having been in MI, I don't believe the U.S. government to be that proficient. I'm calling this crass opportunism at the expense of citizens these agencies are supposed to be protecting.

Meh!

Re:fuck you, you fucking fascist

[Leonarodsan]

Look up Presidential Directives, or Presidential Orders. look up Number 51- the president can declare a national emergency (also what is one) and centralize all decision making to the executive. Bush took these rights, nobody was scared into giving anything up.

FOIA

[jfessler]

So, how long before FOIA is repealed? Anyone? Anyone?

What always surprises me is that people working for these bodies, like the FBI, are more than willing to commit these deeds, and yet seem to have no thought toward destroying the evidence, let alone complying with a FOIA request.

Or are we only seeing the violations committed by the stupid ones?

Re:A real danger

[Anonymous Coward]

The interesting thing about this statement is that too often the very same people that say "OMG STOP THE GOVERNMENT IT IS EVIL" will cheerfully sign over their souls to corporations, trusting them in the very same way they say to NOT trust governments.

Re:share the pain

[darkfire5252]

I know you were making a joke, but that's something I see as a very legitimate problem. If you look at all the countries of the world, it seems like all the superpowers are making distinct progress in the direction of fascism and authoritarianism. When you combine that with the growing trend of international cooperation to capture terrorists and criminals, to what country should we flee when ours becomes a police state?

Re:NSLs

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, meant to link to lettres de cachet [wikipedia.org]

It's been longer than 7 years

[HangingChad]

my last best hope is that there are a lot of decent, patriotic and reasonable people in military intelligence (and in the military generally), because the political branches of law enforcement and the justice department have been tainted for a generation by the last seven years.

There evidence that Rove has been using connections in the FBI for political purposes a lot longer than the last 7 years. Those rumors were circulating while Bush was campaigning for governor of Texas.

Funny no one thought it was any big deal when the FBI was showing up and intimidating political opposition in the run up to the '04 election. And that there was never any accountability for ignoring the field reports about suspicious people in flight school prior to 9/11. And now it's a big surprise they lied to Congress? I don't get it. Reminds me of the old phrase "strain out a gnat and swallow a camel".

I believe that most people at the FBI are there out of a genuine desire to do good. But there is a certain fraction of that population willing to use their official powers in pursuit of political gain. It's not the occasional misdeed that concerns me as much as the lack of independent oversight and accountability.

Does anyone know if the FBI is still like 40% Mormon? I know they used to account for a rather large fraction of the total but haven't seen any recent figures. Again, not a bad thing by itself but a tight knit religious community with that much influence over a law enforcement body with broad and loosely checked power should be cause for concern.

Re:A real danger

[canUbeleiveIT]

I'm with you. I would happily vote for, contribute to, and volunteer time to any non-Ayn Randian candidate who campaigns on some/all of the following:
1. Ending this ridiculous and wasteful "war on drugs".
2. Changing farm policy from welfare to big agribusiness (current policy) and doing something that actually benefits our country.
3. Reforming campaign laws.
4. Doing something about Social Security.
5. Either doing what is necessary to win the war in Iraq or getting out.

Why this problem is only arising now...

[Anonymous Coward]

This will probably not get modded anywhere, but I thought someone at least deserved to know why this problem has arisen now.

20 years ago I was working for a Western national security organisation. It was a great club. No one audited us, or checked what we were doing. Our budgets, which were not huge compared to other parts of government, were always cleared when we said the magic words "National Security - Hostile Intelligence Agents - Eastern Bloc".

Then in 1990 the Berlin Wall came down, and by '94 we were suddenly being asked what we did with our money, and our budgets were being cut. Government committees started questioning our reason for existence.

We needed a New Threat. Some people may think it a lucky coincidence that we found one so quickly, but I don't believe in coincidences...

Re:A real danger

[nuzak]

My response to "I've got nothing to hide" is: "Neither do I, but I don't have to prove it to you."

Your papers, please.

Re:Not correct

[Doc Ruby]

Hot pursuit itself requires more than "probable cause": it requires the police personally witnessing the criminal red handed (and seeing that the escaping perpetrator is a clear and present danger). The seizure (and possible search) must then be justified in court, with evidence establishing that probable cause had been met or exceeded.

So even in the application of our protected rights in the real world, probable cause and court approval are still required for searches or seizures to be reasonable.

Health inspectors and fire marshals are accessing businesses that are not purely private property, but places that the public has free entry into, who they are protecting. They don't have the power to enter pure private property, like a home, without probable cause and a warrant. Even so, those inspectors still must follow due process in order to enter even a semi-private building, not arbitrary whim.

I'd like to see some evidence that the US government can indeed enter with impunity an American house during combat the way you describe. Keep in mind that the Constitution allows the suspension of some rights protections, like Habeas Corpus, in times of "insurrection", which is exactly what the battles in the Civil War were - and why Lincoln was justified, even if he agonized over executing it, in suspending Habeas Corpus in some cases during that war.

You should look into the actual long discussions in the Supreme Court about what is required for a search and seizure to be reasonable. It is long-settled law in the US (on good reasons) that no search or seizure is reasonable without probable cause and a warrant. There are indeed exceptions, but they are all justified on the basis of "emergencies", just as you cite yourself.

And, not by accident, just as the Bush regime always cites, in order to make violating the Constitution seem necessary. But that doesn't mean it's Constitutional - just that it works.

Which is one reason why every American (except the traitors who know, but still believe Bush isn't a criminal) should be angry (and in the streets) over last week's revelation that Bush would ignore the Constitution if he conveniently ordered domestic military operations [boingboing.net]. A revelation by the same EFF exposing this FBI lie about the NSLs (and posted by Slashdot fave Cory Doctorow).

Re:This is a massive troll

[Murrquan]

One thing that does separate the FBI and the cops, though, is that the "spooks" have always wanted not to be held accountable. Secrecy is necessary for our national security, don't you know. Or are you a commie, I mean terrorist?

exciting trip through history

[SethJohnson]

Have you ever wondered what was going through people's heads in Russia when the Committee for State Security began monitoring its own citizens? Early on I'm sure there were little news blurbs like this one. Then over time, people probably began to accept the necessity of this surveillance. Wikipedia has recognized this trend and accurately compares Russia's Committee for State Security to our own FBI [wikipedia.org].

Seth

Re:A real danger

[spazdor]

I would like to see /. adopt a new Library-Of-Congress unit of money to keep everything in perspective: Apache helicopters.

For instance: "This new educational program is valued at 3/10 of an Apache."

Re:A real danger

[moeinvt]

"I have written my congressman/senators for all sorts of Constitution and Bill of Rights concerns but have gotten no satisfaction in return but "Thank you for your letter. I always . . ."

I can understand that frustrastion. Back when the Feds were raiding the search engine companies to acquire their complete search records in the name of stopping child pornography, I even got a reply from one of my elected officials that agreed with the exact opposite stance of my letter. I basically told him that "child porn" was a BS excuse to infringe on our civil liberties. The response I got back was:

"I share your concerns about child pornography on the internet . . ."

The frustration of that experience gave me an idea. Next time I feel like writing to one of my elected officials, I'm going to pick some random person out of the phonebook and "CC" them on the letter. For example:

---
Dear fellow citizen,

Having concluded that writing to Rep./Sen. X is a complete waste of time, I'd like to bring your attention to the following issue which has dire implications for our civil liberties . . .
---

What do you think?

Writing to the elected official does ZERO amount of good, so I figure that sending a letter to someone who is actually in a position to share my concerns (an ordinary citizen) will have an effect that's greater than or equal to zero.

Re:A real danger

[myowntrueself]

Sorry, I'm an atheist, I don't believe in magic

I fail to see the connection between being an atheist and not believing in magic.

Belief in magic does not and never has required a belief in a god or gods.

I'm an atheist and I believe in magic.

Speak for yourself John Alden.

[Medievalist]

The sad thing is that there was a time when we voted FOR things. Now? We're just voting against them.

Proud to say that I've never done that. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil! If you can't find something or someone to believe in, then write in somebody you know could do the job.

My mother has received an amazing number of write-in votes in the last 20 years. And ya know what? Even though she didn't get elected, I still feel good knowing that she could do ANY of those jobs I voted her for.

Some of my friends have been known to vote for her too...

Re:A real danger

[Scudsucker]

Slashdot Republicans all accuse me of being a liberal and slashdot Democrats all accuse me of being a neocon, and I accuse both camps of being fools and stooges for the corporations that run both major parties.

And I'll accuse you of buying into false equivalency. Take a look at just about any particular crock of shit that the Administration has tried to get through Congress: half the Democrats vote for it, half against, but the Republicans are always in lockstep support. See Military Commissions Act, FISA, etc. 50% rotten is better than 100% rotten.

So they easiest place to start is by cleaning up the Democratic party by primarying shitty Dems (like Joe Lieberman) and getting better Dems elected (like Jon Tester from Montana). And it's been Democrats leading the fight against crap like telecom immunity - not Libertarians or independents.

Whereas the GOP base is starting to splinter. Rather than realizing the party has fallen off the deep end, it's constituencies think they party hasn't gone far enough. We need more God in our schools. We need more military spending. We need more deregulation in our markets. More, more, more - even though these issues are what got us in this clusterfuck in the first place.

Re:Speak for yourself John Alden.

[KGIII]

I have used the write-in provision and have found that it is best in local elections. (I live in a VERY rural area of Maine where a single vote still matters quite often.)

I've found that, as I age, I'm much more able to hold my nose and vote. Picking the lesser of two evils seems to be the better choice if my write-in hasn't any chance of winning and my additional vote means that I'm at least, hopefully, thwarting the greater of two evils.

Don't make me make really bad lesser of two weevils jokes...

Re:A real danger

[sm62704]

I want marijuana legalized. Which party should I vote for?

I want it illegal to contribute to more than one candidate in any given race. Which party should I vote for?

I want federal laws to expire after 5 years. Which party do I vote for?

I want it illegal to accept contributions from anyone who isn't eligible to vote for you. Which party should I vote for?

I want the Bono act repealed and copyright terms scaled back to 20 years. Which party should I vote for?

I want the DMCA repealed. Which party should I vote for?

I want the PATRIOT act repealed. Which party should I vote for?

I know it's not the Republicans, nor the Democrats. I couln't care less about gay "marriage" or many of theissues the Republicrats are for or against at all. Neither of the two partys represents my interests. Both parties represent the big corporations, who bankroll their elections.