FBI Lied To Support Need For PATRIOT Act Expansion 396
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."
A real danger (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a laziness in the way people react to such legislative measures - a laziness that ignores the very real danger that our comfortable Western democracies could fall in to dictatorship much more easily than people think.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
--Edmund Burke
Re:A real danger (Score:5, Insightful)
"The Proles will never revolt." -- George Orwell
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:A real danger (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A real danger (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A real danger (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:A real danger (Score:5, Insightful)
So, the net effect of campaign finance laws is to make buying Congressmen cheap, although the complexity of delivering that money legally presents a separate cost barrier to ordinary citizens. It's expensive to set up a lobbying firm, but the marginal cost of buying legislative influence is actually shamefully low, once you have the mechanisms in place to do it legally.
Re:A real danger (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A real danger (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not being complacent or apathetic, it's being realistic. Face it, when Sony can write a check for ten million to the Democrat candidate and a ten million dollar check to the Republican candidate and ten million for media advertising, the media doesn't cover the Greens or Libertarians except to tell you that a vote for them is a wasted vote, and no matter which candidate loses, Sony wins, the American people lose, and there isn't a damned thing you or I can do about it except "waste our vote" on a "third party" candidate.
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 in the end it doesn't matter at all because your vote is pretty much meaningless.
But fool that I am, I still go to the polls and vote against the Demoicrats and Republicans.
Re:A real danger (Score:4, Insightful)
So don't ever say it's "meaningless". It isn't. You're just jaded (along with 99% of the population).
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I can't argue with that, although I think "cynical" might be a more accurate description. Yet I still show up at the polls tilting at windmills every election.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:A real danger (Score:5, Insightful)
Speak for yourself John Alden. (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:A real danger (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A real danger (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A real danger (Score:5, Insightful)
It's much more profitable to report on Britney and American Idol than on political muckraking. For that matter it's more profitable to cover the Presidential race as a horse-race, complete with sound-bites, than it is as a serious political discourse and critical event. To think about it, political muckraking typically offends those with wealth and power, and that's clearly not profitable.
After profit IS the most important thing, isn't it?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Possibly when they contained Anthrax.
Re:A real danger (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So tell me again, is it McCain, Obama, or Clinton who want to legalise pot, outlaw contribution bribery to more than one candidate in any given race, and outlaw contributions to a candidate one isn't eligible to vote for? That's the candidate who will get my vote. Oh none of the above you say?
It's a sad fact that an American Idol vote is more meaningful than a
Re:A real danger (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I watched the "Idol Gives Back" episodes with the celebrity appearances. Bono introduced the three leading presidential candidates, who sent in 30-second video spots where they encouraged viewers to donate to the various worthy causes (fighting AIDS, educating poor children, etc.). But only McCain was funny: he said something like "unlike a primary, on American Idol your vote actually means something." Clearly, he's alluding to fact that Idol commands more involvement of the US public than politics.
Cli
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 p
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And maybe it'll make somebody think a little.
-Trillian
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:A real danger (Score:5, Interesting)
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:A real danger (Score:5, Insightful)
My hope is that our military and intelligence community career employees will be a firewall against a greater slide into tyranny. You guys are the "militia" that's mentioned in our Bill of Rights.
After the last seven years, it's funny that the very notion of a "Bill of Rights" seems quaint and antiquated. Like something the Bush Administration has "modernized" out of existence.
It's been longer than 7 years (Score:2, Interesting)
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 wa
Re:It's been longer than 7 years (Score:5, Insightful)
A genuine desire to do good is not sufficient to avoid corruption. In fact it might make you more vulnerable to it, since you are able to rationalize away that corruption for being neccessary for greater good. When you bend the rules, or follow their letter while ignoring their spirit, you can silence your conscience; after all, you aren't pursuing your own good, but common good, so you aren't doing anything wrong.
And of course once you've bent the rules just a little, there's no reason not to bend them just a tiny bit more, and then more, and then even more, until one day you are doing shit like the summary said - all the time having nothing but the best of intentions. "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." That's one saying people working in intelligence agencies should really take to heart.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Hitler, Stalin, Bush, Obama, Clinton, McCain, a hundred Senators and over 400 congresscritters do or did.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Measure Title: A bill to extend and modify authorities needed to combat terrorism, and for other purposes"
Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---89
Clinton (D-NY)
McCain (R-AZ)
Obama (D-IL)
Apparently both the senators from my state voted for the bill in question.
Re: (Score:2)
But where the real power resides nothing could be further from the truth. At the higher levels of the intelligence community, whether it's FBI, CIA, NSA, NRO, ONI, etc they definitely know what they are doing. Stuff like this doesn't happen by accident - things like this ha
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah thanks, I was tired of paying my taxes. You want the government to waste taxpayer money? You can pay my share too.
Re:A real danger (Score:5, Funny)
See how easy that was?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A real danger (Score:5, Informative)
'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy
Abstract:
In this short essay, written for a symposium in the San Diego Law Review, Professor Daniel Solove examines the nothing to hide argument. When asked about government surveillance and data mining, many people respond by declaring: I've got nothing to hide. According to the nothing to hide argument, there is no threat to privacy unless the government uncovers unlawful activity, in which case a person has no legitimate justification to claim that it remain private. The nothing to hide argument and its variants are quite prevalent, and thus are worth addressing. In this essay, Solove critiques the nothing to hide argument and exposes its faulty underpinnings.
I've Got Nothing to Hide [ssrn.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Your papers, please.
Re:A real danger (Score:5, Informative)
The situation in Europe [statewatch.org] is but a few steps behind that in the US.
Further references: here [theregister.co.uk], here [bbc.co.uk] and here [wikipedia.org].
You know (Score:5, Insightful)
Tag: "Duh" (Score:2)
National Security Letters in full: (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
BTW: STFU would be better letters because it doesn't duplicate the U. Though charging twice for the same letter sounds like a typical government thing too
NSLs (Score:4, Informative)
Re:NSLs (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Perfect example (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Perfect example (Score:5, Interesting)
Well the now chip their police (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=558597&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true [dailymail.co.uk]
I guess we can change the motto to
The FBI lied, Rights died.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Especially so in the case of parents falsely claiming the location of their home address in order to get their children to a good school:
Parents stalked for three weeks by city council spies [dailymail.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
The only way to fix it is to get rid of all these agencies completely. Nor more FBI, nor more CIA, no more NSA, no more SEC, FTC, FCC. All gone. As an added bonus, we all get to keep a lot more of our money each paycheck.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Perfect example (Score:4, Funny)
share the pain (Score:4, Funny)
I'm jolly glad that I live in the United Kingd.......
oh.
Re:share the pain (Score:5, Interesting)
to what country should we flee ... (Score:3, Insightful)
To Soviet Russia ?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thing is, it really IS "just a piece of paper" in that regard. It counts so long as the government agrees to respect those rights, and the day they don't (which could be next Tuesday for all we know), we're just as screwed as every other country.
The onl
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The big problem on a practical level with this idea of the "people's revolt" is that now that we have a professional standing army with access to weaponry far greater than what the citizenry has access to, they'd better be on the side of the revolution. We tend to romanticize the Minutemen defeating the British Army in the late 1700s, but we gloss over the points that we not only had access to roughly equivalent armament, we had help from other well-equipped, professional fighting forces. And at this point, even a repeat of that help is less likely to either happen or to be effective, given that America outspends the rest of the world combined on military matters. If a future apocalyptic showdown in America was pretty much between the Armed Forces and a wide-ranging collective of gun clubs and "citizen militia" groups, my suspicion is that it would not go very well for the latter.
:)
This is coming across as a bit grimmer than I really set out for it to be.
One thing you have to understand however, is that the "big stuff" works much better as offensive weapons than as defensive. Fighter planes kill other fighter plans and shoot down attackers and bombers. If the other side has no attackers or bombers, there is little point in the fighters. Bombers hit clear military installations. It's nearly impossible to use them effectively in a civil war against a force interspersed within your main population. Attack planes are similar - they can be used against cle
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure we have 2 million standing. But how many do you honestly think will be left if they have to start killing their own people?
It can't be true! (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't understand (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And if they had thought about it, they could, just as logically have pointed out that the sun rose the next day, and claimed that it happened because the NSL papers made Jesus happy.
Something in the woodshed (Score:5, Insightful)
I can perfectly understand the agents desire for greater powers; "I know this guys a crook so why do I have to jump through all these damn hoops just to lock him away" but there should be leadership from the top which balances these needs with the needs of society and it's here the problem seems to lie with an administration unconcerned with the needs of the society and over focussed on 'improving' it's own machinery.
I seriously hope the next US President is able to take charge of his apparatus properly and put it use for everyones good rather than fulfilling some dubious goals of your own because as I think we can clearly see now the wrong people in the Whitehouse can produce all sorts of nasty and counter productive behaviour even in areas they aren't directly interested in.
Kids (Score:4, Funny)
Who put these kids in charge?
Lied to congress...? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Lied to congress...? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd like to answer your question, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to claim executive privilege.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Next Time, Don't Believe 'Em (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember this the next time the so-called "good guys" explain how the sweeping new powers they need to defeat terrorists and save all the children and puppy dogs would never be abused.
These people have a sense of entitlement coupled with an iron-clad conviction that they're right and everybody else is wrong that makes them at least as dangerous to the long-term survival of democracy as any pack of terrorists.
J. Edgar would be proud (Score:4, Insightful)
Violating the Constitution is Impeachable (Score:5, Insightful)
No search or seizure is reasonable unless determined by a court to derive from probable cause for the search or seizure.
NSLs are inherent violations of the Constitution. Every time, even when they're "properly" used. When they're not even used according to the FBI's rules, there is not even a flimsy excuse for violating the Constitution.
Thousands of times, as a matter of course, or on a whim. Mueller and every other official with their hands dirty from these crooked anti-American NSLs should be impeached immediately. And then charged with criminal penalties, then slammed in prison with the people they were charged with busting. Because they're all criminals. Some, like Mueller, far more dangerous than others.
In a slightly less civilized country (but one with perhaps more dignity), Mueller would have been hanged from a tree or ripped to shreds by an angry mob. He should be grateful that we have the decency to just throw him in jail.
Not correct (Score:4, Informative)
That's not true at all. If the police are engaging in hot pursuit, they don't have to wait for a warrant to follow you (or anybody else) onto your property.
The health inspector or fire marshal doesn't need a warrant to inspect private property for code violations.
If there is active combat, say in a civil war, the army can enter your house without permission for combat purposes, either to seek combatants or to use it as a vantage point. This is one reason why Americans ought to be very concerned about blurring the definition of "combat" and "combatant".
The Fourth Amendment says that searches need only be "reasonable". It's presumptively unreasonable to search or seize in circumstances where a warrant is customarily required. However, if you can show that under the circumstances delaying to seek a warrant would be unreasonable, you don't need one, although you have to prove this, and may face challenges to evidence you introduce into criminal trials.
The flip side is that having a warrant issued on probable cause makes a search presumptively reasonable, but there are exceptions. If the warrant is not sufficiently narrowly tailored to the evidence supporting probable cause, or you exceed its specific limitations, then your search or seizure is unreasonable, warrant notwithstanding.
So, the Fourth Amendment is both stronger and weaker than people think it is. It is certainly not reasonable to play linguistic games to make a search appear "reasonable". Calling a person a "combatant" isn't enough to convert an unconstitutional search into a constitutional one, because it is the substance of the circumstances that matter. If you're shooting at people out of your window, it is the necessity of protecting people that makes entering your home, searching it, and detaining you reasonable, not the label the police apply to you.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 in
FOIA (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bush's "Shock Doctrine" Case in Point (Score:4, Informative)
You can look at any crisis, unexpected or manufactured, through the long 7 1/4 years of Bush/Cheney's presidency, and see that Doctrine hard at work (the only hard work done by the regime).
Or you can read Naomi Klein's book _The Shock Doctrine_ [naomiklein.org] for the (literally) gory details.
Re:Bush's "Shock Doctrine" Case in Point (Score:4, Insightful)
Another Poor summary (Score:2)
Anyways the truth of the occurance.
1) It was used as a reason why the FBI needs administrative subpoena power instead of NSLs. (summary totaly wrong).
2) What happened. The FBI wanted information on a person who had meet with people involved with the bombers in London; that person had a attended chemical classes from NC State. They went to the professors who gave the FBI so
Yes, It's Been Quite A Heck (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet, there's no hollering and screaming in the public for heads to roll. The Democratic majority in Congress, our supposed check on this kind of abuse, still does not call for impeachment.'
Soon, my friends, very soon, there will be little recourse but to converge on Washington DC and burn it to the ground.
But in the small hope that that can be avoided, please call and write your Congresspeople and demand impeachment for these and all the many other crimes they've committed.
It has happened before. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a massive troll (Score:4, Insightful)
The second laughable problem is that the FBI shouldn't need to justify the emergency. The director is correct. But they should be held accountable to what's done in such an emergency. If a police officer turns on his lights and sirens simply to run a red light and causes an accident, you get a fat check! The FBI doesn't need to demonstrate that it has an actual emergency, but does need to be held accountable to what it's done after the fact. The same concept applies to anyone or anything else. The cops don't pull you over randomly in your car and ask if you've been speeding because you aren't guilty until it's observed. You don't get shaken down on the street for assault and battery because you have a baseball bat.
This is why slashdot has gone to the dogs. Without linking to the original context of the testimony, you can't possibly hope to have any meaningful discussion. DON'T YOU LOVE SPIN?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit, pure and simple bullshit. Cops and those in authority have, and always will, act arbitrarily.
Whether you have long hair (1960s - 70s), the "wrong" skin color (1700s - present), the wrong ideology, facial features, attitude, whatever, you can be a target at the momentary whim
shocking! (Score:3, Insightful)
Subpoenas Don't Require Probable Cause (Score:3, Informative)
A subpoena is not a warrant, and demanding production of evidence is not a 'search' or 'seizure'
That happens when the feds show up at your house and turn over all of the furniture looking for evidence.
Basically, all they need to show for a subpoena is that the information or evidence sought is relevant to ongoing investigation
The practical difference between a NSL and a traditional subpoena is that the NSL can be issued by the FBI without requiring judicial review. Further, an NSL includes a built-in gag order while the judge would again have to rule on the appropriateness of sealing order and gagging the recipient.
Why this problem is only arising now... (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
exciting trip through history (Score:5, Interesting)
Seth
fuck you, you fucking fascist (Score:5, Insightful)
9/11 might have scared you to the point where you'll allow the government to do whatever they like with your private life. Many of us, however, aren't nearly so cowardly.
Asshole.
Re:fuck you, you fucking fascist (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's face it, most people are cowards and that's never going to change.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it doesn't further debate. Then again, I'd like to argue that the initial post was so idiotic that there was no chance of ever having a civilized debate to begin with. A quick curse gets the point
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Blogtastic. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
"Apologies if you aren't American."
Well isn't that condescending? :)
Re: (Score:2)
By the way everyone, don't forget that tomorrow is the siege of Toronto. Don't tell any Canadians, okay?
Re: (Score:2)
Which traitors would that be? (Score:3, Insightful)
Which traitors would that be?
People using their telephone to call their relatives in the middle east?
Or the ones in the White House who have violated their sworn oath to "...preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." ?
Spidey!!!