patriot act

[alien42]

FBI Slips Demand Patriot Act Cuts

"The Department of Justice Inspector General issued a report last week detailing the FBI's misuse of national security letters to collect information about innocent Americans without any connection to terrorism.

A national security letter, or NSL, is a special request for records that (unlike a search warrant) is never seen by a judge. Under the expanded powers granted by the USA Patriot Act, any FBI field supervisor can lawfully issue an NSL and serve it on libraries, telephone companies and businesses to get records on anyone in the country. All that's required is an FBI certification that that the records are "sought for" or "relevant to" an investigation "to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." There is no judicial or Department of Justice review, and the agency can keep the information it obtains forever.

With power like that, you wouldn't think that the FBI could push the envelope even further. But it has.

The IG's report (.pdf) details a host of errors and violations in connection with the issuance of NSLs. Out of a sample of 293 of the nearly 19,000 letters, covering 47,000 separate requests for information in 2005, the IG found 22 possible breaches of internal FBI and Justice Department regulations.

Agents used NSLs without citing an authorized investigation and claimed "exigent" circumstances that did not exist. In two cases, the FBI obtained full credit reports they should not have been allowed to have. In other cases, telephone companies, banks and internet providers improperly responded to national security letters with detailed personal information about customers, and the FBI kept that information.

Perhaps the biggest issue is that the FBI and Justice Department didn't keep track of how many letters they issued, as the law requires, or document the reasons why they issued them. They didn't turn accurate information over to Congress, leaving lawmakers and the American public with a grossly incomplete picture of what's really going on.

While FBI head Robert Mueller and attorney general Alberto Gonzales are responsible for the NSL problems overall, responsibility for failing to tell Congress the truth falls squarely on shoulders of the president.

When Congress reauthorized the NSL provision of the USA Patriot Act, it required the Department of Justice to report statistical data on the use of NSLs. The Bush administration not only opposed this reporting requirement, but when Bush signed the reauthorization into law, he issued a signing statement indicating he did not believe the administration was bound by the reporting requirement.

Bush pressed for the law; Bush opposed the reporting requirement; Bush stated that he would not necessarily follow the reporting requirement after Congress imposed it. If the president doesn't take reporting seriously, why would regional offices do so?

It has been a refreshing surprise to see Democratic and Republican senators alike suggest that Gonzales, who runs the DOJ and oversees the FBI, should step down. Congress now promises "extensive hearings" on the NSL problems, and is making some noises about repealing expanded NSL authority granted by the USA Patriot Act.

In response, the administration and pro-surveillance pundits have tried to minimize the problem as a procedural one within the Bureau, while lauding the importance of the letters in terrorism and spy cases. Their position is based on myths that recent history and the new report debunk....." (there is a page 2)


i am sure this comes as no surprise to all of us americans who truly value what freedom means and what this great country stands for. thanks again bush administration for corroding our freedom and attempting to destroy this great nation. fortunately we will bounce back and i have faith that our freedom and civil liberties will be restored.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: alien42
i am sure this comes as no surprise to all of us americans who truly value what freedom means and what this great country stands for. thanks again bush administration for corroding our freedom and attempting to destroy this great nation. fortunately we will bounce back and i have faith that our freedom and civil liberties will be restored.

That will NOT happen. The patriot act is the beginning, not the end of abuses. Any efforts they take to curb it will be limited in scope and then overwritten sometime in the next 10 years by a worse bill.

Government likes its power. If you want to restore freedom and civil liberties dissolve the central power the socialists have built before it turns to a communism Stalin would be proud of.

In other words, be a true conservative and limit government?s ability to abuse.

 

[Lemon law]

Like I said in another thread today---the public issuance of an apology is probably no longer going to cut it. There HOPEFULLY WILL be congressional investigations that will hopefully immediately establish that the apology is total fiction, its not the excesses of a few underlings, but in fact the policy of both Gonzales and Mueller that are at fault.

And will hopefully result in some resignations by public officials, the repeal of most of the Patriot act, and maybe some criminal charges against officials involved.

GWB&co. have yet to learn about the facts of what losing the election of 11/06 means. I hope our congress is up to the job of teaching a rather inept pupil that he is going to have to be more careful about issuing statements.-----I suspect that Gonzales will rapidly be exposed and be up to his eyeballs
caught in yet another baldfaced lie.

Rummy and Libby are two rats tossed overboard---but too many are still left doing their dirty work in the dark----to some extent---all that needs doing is to simply let the sun shine in.

 

[Genx87]

Record expansion of our govt and bills like the patriot act are not coincidental.

 

[thraashman]

If Congress really pressed the issue, Bush can be held accountable for breaking the law in refusing to adhere to the reporting. Signing statements don't give the president free reign to disregard a law he disagrees with. Signing statements have the purpose of allowing the president leeway in interpretation as to how a law is enforced. But if a president disagrees with a law enough, he can veto it. If I sign something and say "but I'm not gonna follow part 2.c" I still have to follow it. I really hope that the next Congress is even more Democrat and the next President as well, so they can start getting rid of EVERY stupid piece of legislation the current admin has done. AND I believe a constitutional amendment needs to be added preventing signing statements that challenge a law so that future presidents don't think they're God like Bush does.

And we need to punish the FBI for this, we've tortured Iraqis and Afghanis for less, lets put FBI members in Guantanamo for a while for their disregarding of laws set forth in the Patriot Act.

 

[Genx87]

You really think a bigger democrat majority and a democrat president will fix any of this? Havent we learned what rubber stamp congress's can do?

 

[thraashman]

Originally posted by: Genx87
You really think a bigger democrat majority and a democrat president will fix any of this? Havent we learned what rubber stamp congress's can do?

No, they'll make their own screw ups, but we'll get rid of this admin's screw ups. I only want the democratic rubber stamp for like 2 years. Then we'll get partisanship and move forward from there.

 

[Lemon law]

To Genx87---who says---You really think a bigger democrat majority and a democrat president will fix any of this? Havent we learned what rubber stamp congress's can do?

I disagree---the problem we had before is a congress rubber stamping an administration out of control. And willing to accept an I am sorry excuse without examining to stupid policies that caused the failures.

And now the blunders will be examined in detail---and congress will be merely reasserting its legislative role as one the three co-equal branches of government. The GWB administration is an anomaly and not a US Government norm.

And I also reject the bigger democratic majority stuff--the Republicans are still a key minority in congress---and they are likely going to have to work with the democrats to get productive business done----this take no prisoners partisan politics is another anomaly almost unique in American history
that people like Gingrich, Delay, and GWB brought to a toxic flowering of abuse---and the message of 11/06 is that that kind of thinking stinks. I very much hope that this congress will be far more bi-partisan.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: thraashman

Originally posted by: Genx87
You really think a bigger democrat majority and a democrat president will fix any of this? Havent we learned what rubber stamp congress's can do?

No, they'll make their own screw ups, but we'll get rid of this admin's screw ups. I only want the democratic rubber stamp for like 2 years. Then we'll get partisanship and move forward from there.

Heh this is the problem with the American voter. We will gladly trade oursides screwups so we dont have to deal with the other sides. When you look at the screwups, there isnt much difference.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To Genx87---who says---You really think a bigger democrat majority and a democrat president will fix any of this? Havent we learned what rubber stamp congress's can do?

I disagree---the problem we had before is a congress rubber stamping an administration out of control. And willing to accept an I am sorry excuse without examining to stupid policies that caused the failures.

And now the blunders will be examined in detail---and congress will be merely reasserting its legislative role as one the three co-equal branches of government. The GWB administration is an anomaly and not a US Government norm.

And I also reject the bigger democratic majority stuff--the Republicans are still a key minority in congress---and they are likely going to have to work with the democrats to get productive business done----this take no prisoners partisan politics is another anomaly almost unique in American history
that people like Gingrich, Delay, and GWB brought to a toxic flowering of abuse---and the message of 11/06 is that that kind of thinking stinks. I very much hope that this congress will be far more bi-partisan.

What leads you to believe a democratic congress with a big majority and a democratic administration wont be out of control? Blind faith perhaps?

 

[Phokus]

Obviously we need to keep voting for the asshats that Genx87 keeps on defending then.

 

[Lemon law]

To Genx87---who asks--What leads you to believe a democratic congress with a big majority and a democratic administration wont be out of control? Blind faith perhaps?

Given the certainty that we now have a GWB&co. administration totally out of control vs. the possibility
that we MIGHT HAVE a democratic congress and President that are equally out of control---its a no brainer that certainty trumps a mere might.----and hardly a ringing endorsement of what we have now
in terms of a President.

There is another realty based argument you ignore---whoever come to power in 08 is going to have their hands full just fixing GWB screw ups on nearly every front---and will be far too busy just starting on fixing those problems to have much time to engage in much other mischief.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Record expansion of our govt and bills like the patriot act are not coincidental.

Thank you Bush voters.

 

[5to1baby1in5]

I really hope that the next Congress is even more Democrat and the next President as well, so they can start getting rid of EVERY stupid piece of legislation the current admin has done.

Once the Democrats are the ones in power, these laws may not seem so nefarious to them.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium

Originally posted by: Genx87
Record expansion of our govt and bills like the patriot act are not coincidental.

Thank you Diebold.

Fixed that for you...

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Phokus
Obviously we need to keep voting for the asshats that Genx87 keeps on defending then.

Well why dont you cry about then?

 

[shira]

Why is it that when Federal laws are broken by those in power, it's almost never the case they get prosecuted? The Attorney General is sworn to uphold the law, but apparently that means "those other laws," the ones that don't serve the interests of the Administration.

 

[Termagant]

Originally posted by: shira
Why is it that when Federal laws are broken by those in power, it's almost never the case they get prosecuted? The Attorney General is sworn to uphold the law, but apparently that means "those other laws," the ones that don't serve the interests of the Administration.

The historical precedence for this is pure Machiavellian abuse of power, but the dangerous precedent that the Bush administration sets is that many of its agents actually rationalize these abuses and claim the Constitution warrants them under the philosophy of Executive preeminence/privilege. That is, that the executive branch of government trumps the legislative and judicial in terms of prestige and heirachy (not that controversial), but also in terms of obedience to separation of powers, especially in times of war. Hence the use of executive signing statements in which the President adds caveats and can basically construe the enforcement of a law to mean anything. Furthermore, with a perpetual "War of Terror" against nebulous enemies, the "time of war" argument can continue forever.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Termagant

Originally posted by: shira
Why is it that when Federal laws are broken by those in power, it's almost never the case they get prosecuted? The Attorney General is sworn to uphold the law, but apparently that means "those other laws," the ones that don't serve the interests of the Administration.

The historical precedence for this is pure Machiavellian abuse of power, but the dangerous precedent that the Bush administration sets is that many of its agents actually rationalize these abuses and claim the Constitution warrants them under the philosophy of Executive preeminence/privilege. That is, that the executive branch of government trumps the legislative and judicial in terms of prestige and heirachy (not that controversial), but also in terms of obedience to separation of powers, especially in times of war. Hence the use of executive signing statements in which the President adds caveats and can basically construe the enforcement of a law to mean anything. Furthermore, with a perpetual "War of Terror" against nebulous enemies, the "time of war" argument can continue forever.

Personally, I'd like to see another Clinton-ish President (but not Hillary) and a Repuiblican Congress.

I am completely revolted by the idea of one party controlling two branches since there is a strong possibility of the 3rd being taken, if the party's control can last long enough. Would a 2/3 have worked 50 years ago or 100 years ago? Probably, but then we are in a completely different environment where having control means abusing it in all aspects.

 

[Lemon law]

To LegendKiller,

I think there is something to what you say---and a strong two party system being somewhat of a deterrent to the abuses we are now seeing. But I don't totally buy into the absolute power corrupts absolutely argument.

And our salvation and peril always rest with the character people on top---and with what they won't do to feather their own political nest. Sadly with GWB&co, it seems that everything is fair game. Including the very constitutional ideals set up by our founding fathers.

If we go down the list of immediately past Presidents---Ford, Carter, Reagan, GHB, and Clinton, none of them perfect and all with some skeletons they wanted to hide---I still think its not in any of their characters to even dream of wanting or using the powers GWB&co. is employing--even Nixon, in his most paranoid moments had more of an understanding of our system of government.----as for GWB&co, the whole rotten lot are just constitutionally clueless.