FBI creating a police state and using 9/11 as an excuse to do so

[Moonbeam]

Amused: Holy cow, Moonie, are you agreeing with me???

Well as long as you're gonna take the right side of an issue you sort of have my back to the wall. Actually, though, as you probably remember, there's this place down the road where I do go wierd, from your point of view. Everything for me depends of the level of consciousness of the people we are talking about. I don't, for example believe that power corrupts. I just think it corrupts the corruptable. I'd be willing to place my security in the hands of people I trust. Do you see any of those types around? I can't even depend on us putting in office the person who won the last presidential election. And if I can't trust Clinton, just imagine my faith in the current crop of goons Bush has put in charge of our national security. These people don't care about freedom. They care about control and oil revenues. They read the American people like a book, in my opinion, and know how to get exactly what they want. I guess whereas you fear do gooders who think they know what's best for you better than you do, I fear those who pretend that what's good for them or GM is also what's good for me. I think our founding fathers had a vision of democracy where ideas and interests could compete on as equal basis (at least among those they thought deserving of that right), but I think today some people get to deal their own hands. And we just don't care.

 

[UltraQuiet]

As you can see, there is nothing mistaken about what dwell is concerned with. Ashcroft has indeed given the FBI permission to monitor public forums. This was an area of questionable surveillance before, an area which the FBI reasonably respected people's rights to convene without government agents eavesdropping. That respect for people has gone out the window, and it's back to feeling like the McCarthy era. It wasn't illegal for them to monitor before, but it they didn't out of a respect for the presumption of innocence of the public

There is all kinds of mistaken in dwells concerns and yours if you agree with him. These new guidelines do nothing to infringe upon your privacy or your rights. You have lost no civil liberties. None. If you think you have, name one that you have lost. Carnivore has been shut down because it intercepted more than what it was supposed to. The FBI is now allowing itself to monitor public websites and attend public meetings. There is and has never been any expectation of privacy in either of those forums. So what if the NSA and CIA can share intercepts with the FBI. That was part of the problem to begin with, they weren't allowed. You people act like the FBI has the time and manpower to surveil every person on the internet, that they are the SS out to persecute you, that every judge in the country is in cahoots with them to do this and the Constitution has been shredded. That's all complete bullsh!t. The FBI is not some autonomous organization that does as it pleases. They have been put on notice by Congress that the guidelines can stay, but be careful, we're watching.

 

[NuclearFusi0n]

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

Giving the government the right to track our web surfing or intercept our email is only going to help investigate domestic cases

Has something happened where they are now allowed to do that? Give me a link please.

Carnivore

 

[kgraeme]

So what if the NSA and CIA can share intercepts with the FBI.

I believe I outlined the problem with the sharing of information. It circumvents the privacy protections of U.S. citizens. No more need to get a Federal judge to grant a wiretap when you can get the information straight from the NSA with no red tape. Red tape that is there to protect citizens. The FBI had the information and the authority to act on the hijackers under the laws at the time. Their failure was not in information gathering, but in acting on it.

You people act like the FBI has the time and manpower to surveil every person on the internet, that they are the SS out to persecute you

History gives credence: "The House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), established in 1938 to monitor disloyalty to the United States government, was made a permanent committee in 1945. Postwar HUAC investigators probed whether Communists and sympathizers to communism had played an active role in the labor movement, the movie industry, and the executive departments of the federal government."

McCarthy ruined people's lives over a suspicion of communism. Now Ashcroft appears willing to repeat history.

That is what I am afraid of, and what I am fighting against. I do not support nor condone terrorists. Based on the existence of all the evidence, the laws of 9/10 were adequate to combat terrorism, it was the bureaucracy of the FBI which was not adequate. New laws were not required.

 

[Cyberian]

Originally posted by: kgraeme

Originally posted by: Cyberian
"For the purpose of detecting or preventing terrorist activities, the FBI is authorized to visit any place and attend any event that is open to the public, on the same terms and conditions as members of the public generally."

I don't see how this infringes on my freedom.
Nor do I see how someone reading a public message board does.

Do you say bad things about your wife, mother, boss, etc. if they are standing right there? The bad things may be true, but fear of the consequences of saying them creates a stifling effect.

We have a first amendment freedom to express ourselves. But what will happen to the critical discussion of the government's practices when we become afraid to say anything critical for fear of having agents there creating a file of "un-American activity". What happens when the government begins taking political activists in "for questioning" because of speaking at a rally? The Constitution is intended to provide for "un-American activity".

The fear to speak is the infringment of the First Amendment.

I guess my point on this was that the things being looked at were already public domain, so to speak. The things I say on a public message board or at an Elks meeting may or may not be the same things that I say in a letter to you.

I would become very concerned with censorship of private communications without explicit reasons, warrants, etc.

 

[JellyBaby]

And now we are getting yet another intelligence agency?

The new Homeland Security department? It's bigger than your run of the mill agency. It won't be an entirely new wing of government. From what I read it absorbs some existing agencies (secret service, coast guard, some immigration and border agencies, etc.). It seems more like a reshuffling than completely new Big Gubment.

Of course it must get through Congress first. Who knows what those insightful folks will do to the idea.

 

[kgraeme]

Originally posted by: Cyberian
I guess my point on this was that the things being looked at were already public domain, so to speak.

I understand, and acknowledged that in my first post. The new policy isn't a direct legal change so much as a change in practice.

It's similar to the paparazzi. It's legal to photograph someone in public, but it can ruin their lives because of the implications created even though the person being photographed did nothing illegal.

 

[UltraQuiet]

I believe I outlined the problem with the sharing of information. It circumvents the privacy protections of U.S. citizens. No more need to get a Federal judge to grant a wiretap when you can get the information straight from the NSA with no red tape. Red tape that is there to protect citizens. The FBI had the information and the authority to act on the hijackers under the laws at the time. Their failure was not in information gathering, but in acting on it.

It circumvents nothing. Your own excerpt from the PA states if they come across foreign intelligence or counter-intelligence in their intercepts they can share it. Nothing more. It gives no one the freedom to wiretap at will. As far as your assertion that the FBI had enough to act well the jury is still out isn'tit. You have no way to know that and to say any different is disingenuous.

History gives credence: "The House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), established in 1938 to monitor disloyalty to the United States government, was made a permanent committee in 1945. Postwar HUAC investigators probed whether Communists and sympathizers to communism had played an active role in the labor movement, the movie industry, and the executive departments of the federal government.
"McCarthy ruined people's lives over a suspicion of communism. Now Ashcroft appears willing to repeat history.

That's a ludicrous comparison at best. There was little or no opposition to what McCarthy was doing. These measures have by no means the same level of support McCarthy did, we have a much more efficient method of disseminating information, people are more informed, etc. To say that we are on the path to Mcarthyism just sounds like alarmist rant to me.

Let me end my part of this discussion. I am honestly tired of hearing people say we have lost this, we have lost that. In the 50 or 60 trillion threads we have had on this topic no one, I repeat no one, has been able to name one liberty or freedom they have lost. Not one. It's "well we might lose this or they might do that." So don't let them. Get involved. How many of you have contacted your Congressman? That's what I thought. Rant at him instead of me. Christ, the ATOT effect can shutdown commercial websites that have a pricing error but god forbid anyone ever writes their Congressman. Be a part of the process, don't just bitch.

 

[HappyPuppy]

I am going to make a wild guess that the vast majority of people in this thread who are complaining about losing some nebulous "freedom" have never in their lives done anything which might bring physical harm to themselves in order to preserve those "freedoms" that they seem to hold so dear.

I have read pretty much all the posts in this thread and what I get is that most of the posters are a bunch of spoiled brats who want everything, but they don't want to give up anything. What the hell do you people think "WAR" is?

 

[JellyBaby]

Sigh. The problem is the FBIs re-enactment of these powers gives a false-sense of accomplishment regarding the war on terrorism. They're giving their front-line people greater powers but the real problem lies within the 7-9 bureacratic layers the front-liners must go through to get information to someone who can connect the dots. Why not streamline the damn FBI first?

Let's say these new powers fail to stop the next incident. What then? The right of FBI agents to search without a warrant?

 

[QueHuong]

We are at war with terrorists, and a clear majority of them come from Middle Eastern Discent. Are we generalizing and scrutenizing every Arab? Yes, we should be, as they have represented the clearest danger. In 10-15 years, the war on terror will not have been won in terms of getting rid of it, but the US will change back to what it was and the cycle starts all over again.

I can't believe this bullsh!t went on for 3 pages without anyone stepping on it. Most terrorists are Middle Easterners - agreed. As of now, these terrorists represent the clearest danger - agreed. Let's scrutinize, harass, persecute the innocent and be content when in 15 years, the prejudice is hopefully gone - as you can probably tell, I wholeheartedly disagree. So you're willing to sacrifice the rights of other innocent Americans whose only sin was being born to man of a different race? I just saw an Arab man walking down the street - let's go pat him down and report him to the FBI and have them detain him and pry into his personal life. Saying the innocent should be persecuted based on their ethnicity (or religious beliefs) is the answer to solving terrorism is pathetic. Maybe until you become the receiving end of extreme discrmination and prejudice, you wouldn't be so quick to dish them out or support it and then say it'll be all hunky dory in "10-15 years."

 

[whodiswhodat]

I dont know why we let anyone in the United States anyway.Dont we have enough people here to do the jobs we have in this country.There is no reason for immigration.It should be banned.As for loss of rights,if they want to see me look at porn on the internet then fine.Maybe we can share pictures.If they wanna tap my phone,fine.I have nothing to hide.Should we single out Arabs and have them watched? Yes.They are the enemy and if you cant tell who is good or evil then you watch them all.This country is too worried about being politically correct.We have to kiss the butts of minorities so the majority can suffer.

 

[etalns]

I know some people will disagree with this next statement, and go ahead and flame me for it this is merely my opinion and my opinion only.

If we scrutanized everyone of Middle-eastern descent, we would be no better than Hitler.

In many senses, it would be the same things.

Albeit he was in a different position of power, we do not go around now scrutanizing every German we see.

Or after Pearl Harbor, we do not (or atleast the majority) does not go around and hold a lesser thought of the other millions of Japanese who were not involved in thi sact and just want to live their life peacefully and FREE.

This would be denying someones freedom for what someone else has done....

Would you like it if everytime you went to Japan you got a cavity search, just to be sure. Because over 50 years ago a nuclear bomb was dropped on them by Americans.

I know these are all different situations then 9-11, but you can not judge someoen based on their race. Only based on accurate suspicion, and if Osama wanted I'm sure out of the over 400 million Americans, he could find a white male to do his next crime with a little incentive. Then what? should we do the same to white people after that?

 

[etalns]

Originally posted by: whodiswhodat
I dont know why we let anyone in the United States anyway.Dont we have enough people here to do the jobs we have in this country.There is no reason for immigration.It should be banned.As for loss of rights,if they want to see me look at porn on the internet then fine.Maybe we can share pictures.If they wanna tap my phone,fine.I have nothing to hide.Should we single out Arabs and have them watched? Yes.They are the enemy and if you cant tell who is good or evil then you watch them all.This country is too worried about being politically correct.We have to kiss the butts of minorities so the majority can suffer.

You should be taken out back and shot 3 times my friend...

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
I am going to make a wild guess that the vast majority of people in this thread who are complaining about losing some nebulous "freedom" have never in their lives done anything which might bring physical harm to themselves in order to preserve those "freedoms" that they seem to hold so dear.

I have read pretty much all the posts in this thread and what I get is that most of the posters are a bunch of spoiled brats who want everything, but they don't want to give up anything. What the hell do you people think "WAR" is?

Happy, give it a rest. I'm 35 years old and was a TOW gunner in the US Army for four years (88-92). My father was a WWII veteran. My mother's father was a WWI veteran. I think my family and I have more than paid our dues.

Freedom is not some "nebulous" thing. It is something our country men have given their lives to protect. To throw it away in an effort to save ourselves from people who hate us for our freedom is really an ironic and sick joke.

 

[FlashG]

I wonder if anyone here has actually gotten with their representative and shared their concerns with them? I haven't done so yet but I'm leaning toward that direction.

I have to admit that right now I can't even remember who my representative is. Do you know yours?


Side comment:

Listening to the president?s speech last night gave me a lot of mixed feelings. On one side I agree that reorganizing the gov. is the right thing to do. But on the other we have to be extremely vigilant over those that try and seize power for themselves.


Constructive comments anyone?

 

[JellyBaby]

Listening to the president?s speech last night gave me a lot of mixed feelings.

Listening to Tom Ridge last night gave me shivers. He's JAP (just another politician). Wouldn't answer anything straight. I'm not confident at all the new Department of Home Security will be very effective at least under Ridge's tenure. What's to prevent it from succumbing to the same bureacratic meltdown that caused the FBI to drop the ball? Still, I'm hopeful Congress might shape it into something a little better...man it's hard to say that with a straight face.