Full Version: FBI admits abuses of Patriot act, wire tapping
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/20/...in2588346.shtml
http://www.nswbc.org/Press%20Releases/Pres...e-March5-07.htm
In 2001, the Patriot Act eliminated any requirement that the records belong to someone under suspicion. Now an innocent person's records can be obtained if FBI field agents consider them merely relevant to an ongoing terrorism or spying investigation.
Fine's review, authorized by Congress over Bush administration objections, concluded the number of national security letters requested by the FBI skyrocketed after the Patriot Act became law in 2001.
Fine found more than 700 cases in which FBI agents obtained telephone records through "exigent letters" which asserted that grand jury subpoenas had been requested for the data, when in fact such subpoenas never been sought.
AP) Republicans and Democrats sternly warned the FBI on Tuesday that it could lose its broad power to collect telephone, e-mail and financial records to hunt terrorists after revelations of widespread abuses of the authority detailed in a recent internal investigation.
Their threats came as the Justice Department's chief watchdog, Glenn A. Fine, told the House Judiciary Committee that the FBI engaged in widespread and serious misuse of its authority in illegally collecting the information from Americans and foreigners through so-called national security letters.
This completely destroys the idea that the broad powers given to the CIA and FBI would be hunting terrorists- OR- that the only people being spied upon were foriegners (one of Amlords points he kept trying to make- but as it turns out- completely false.
)
In fact, the abuses turned out to make every single person that protested these powers absolutely correct- in fact, when a judge denied the wiretapping due to a number of reasons- they went back to get an "NSL" letter to cover it back up- just as everyone feared.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051217-5791.html
The real concern here is that the NSA may have engaged in potentially unconstitutional action without the knowledge or consent of the American people and duly-elected representatives. The use of a classified executive order precludes public discussion and places a tremendous amount of power in the hands of one elected official. According to the New York Times article, the Bush administration felt that public disclosure would nullify the efficacy of sensitive and important investigations critical to national security:
Seeking Congressional approval was also viewed as politically risky because the proposal would be certain to face intense opposition on civil liberties grounds. The administration also feared that by publicly disclosing the existence of the operation, its usefulness in tracking terrorists would end, officials said.
The New York Times article contains a number of truly-astounding allegations, many of which are based on information gathered from anonymous government sources. Prior to President Bush's acknowledment of the domestic surveillance, some readers questioned the journalistic validity of the content. The Drudge Report was quick to point out that the article is included in an upcoming book by author James Risen, and could be little more than a publicity stunt orchestrated to sell copies of the book. Risen claims that the federal government attempted to block publication of the article for national security reasons, and CNN says that their own independent sources have confirmed the accuracy the New York Times article. According to CNN, the article had a great deal of influence on the Patriot Act renewal negotiations in the Senate:
So now- with proof positive of widespread and completely infected abuse of the Patriot act, and all the abuses dealing with warrantless wiretaps- my question is
1) If you believed that only "foreigners trying to harm us" would be affected here- do you still believe that to be true in light of these revelations?
2) Do you think we need to repeal the Patriot act , and riegn back in our secret services?
3) Do you believe that the current attempt to re-authorize the warrantless wiretap powers will be harmed by these revelations?
Bonus question:
4) Is another "I told you so" warranted at this point?
http://www.nswbc.org/Press%20Releases/Pres...e-March5-07.htm
In 2001, the Patriot Act eliminated any requirement that the records belong to someone under suspicion. Now an innocent person's records can be obtained if FBI field agents consider them merely relevant to an ongoing terrorism or spying investigation.
Fine's review, authorized by Congress over Bush administration objections, concluded the number of national security letters requested by the FBI skyrocketed after the Patriot Act became law in 2001.
Fine found more than 700 cases in which FBI agents obtained telephone records through "exigent letters" which asserted that grand jury subpoenas had been requested for the data, when in fact such subpoenas never been sought.
AP) Republicans and Democrats sternly warned the FBI on Tuesday that it could lose its broad power to collect telephone, e-mail and financial records to hunt terrorists after revelations of widespread abuses of the authority detailed in a recent internal investigation.
Their threats came as the Justice Department's chief watchdog, Glenn A. Fine, told the House Judiciary Committee that the FBI engaged in widespread and serious misuse of its authority in illegally collecting the information from Americans and foreigners through so-called national security letters.
This completely destroys the idea that the broad powers given to the CIA and FBI would be hunting terrorists- OR- that the only people being spied upon were foriegners (one of Amlords points he kept trying to make- but as it turns out- completely false.
) In fact, the abuses turned out to make every single person that protested these powers absolutely correct- in fact, when a judge denied the wiretapping due to a number of reasons- they went back to get an "NSL" letter to cover it back up- just as everyone feared.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051217-5791.html
The real concern here is that the NSA may have engaged in potentially unconstitutional action without the knowledge or consent of the American people and duly-elected representatives. The use of a classified executive order precludes public discussion and places a tremendous amount of power in the hands of one elected official. According to the New York Times article, the Bush administration felt that public disclosure would nullify the efficacy of sensitive and important investigations critical to national security:
Seeking Congressional approval was also viewed as politically risky because the proposal would be certain to face intense opposition on civil liberties grounds. The administration also feared that by publicly disclosing the existence of the operation, its usefulness in tracking terrorists would end, officials said.
The New York Times article contains a number of truly-astounding allegations, many of which are based on information gathered from anonymous government sources. Prior to President Bush's acknowledment of the domestic surveillance, some readers questioned the journalistic validity of the content. The Drudge Report was quick to point out that the article is included in an upcoming book by author James Risen, and could be little more than a publicity stunt orchestrated to sell copies of the book. Risen claims that the federal government attempted to block publication of the article for national security reasons, and CNN says that their own independent sources have confirmed the accuracy the New York Times article. According to CNN, the article had a great deal of influence on the Patriot Act renewal negotiations in the Senate:
So now- with proof positive of widespread and completely infected abuse of the Patriot act, and all the abuses dealing with warrantless wiretaps- my question is
1) If you believed that only "foreigners trying to harm us" would be affected here- do you still believe that to be true in light of these revelations?
2) Do you think we need to repeal the Patriot act , and riegn back in our secret services?
3) Do you believe that the current attempt to re-authorize the warrantless wiretap powers will be harmed by these revelations?
Bonus question:
4) Is another "I told you so" warranted at this point?
1) If you believed that only "foreigners trying to harm us" would be affected here- do you still believe that to be true in light of these revelations?
N/A. The government was, and always will be, spying on its own citizens. The least we can do is to try to make them follow some rules some of the time.
2) Do you think we need to repeal the Patriot act , and reign back in our secret services? yep. The more power any government agency has, the tighter a leash it must be on. Law enforcement, which has the power to imprison and kill, must be on the tightest leash of all.
3) Do you believe that the current attempt to re-authorize the warrantless wiretap powers will be harmed by these revelations?
I sure hope so. Kudos to the good Republicans and Democrats who condemned these abuses of power.
N/A. The government was, and always will be, spying on its own citizens. The least we can do is to try to make them follow some rules some of the time.
2) Do you think we need to repeal the Patriot act , and reign back in our secret services? yep. The more power any government agency has, the tighter a leash it must be on. Law enforcement, which has the power to imprison and kill, must be on the tightest leash of all.
3) Do you believe that the current attempt to re-authorize the warrantless wiretap powers will be harmed by these revelations?
I sure hope so. Kudos to the good Republicans and Democrats who condemned these abuses of power.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.