Slashdot Mirror


Congress Expands FBI Powers

Dave writes "Well, since the Patriot Act II never got off the ground, looks like Congress has done the Justice Department a favor, according to Wired News, and added in some of the most controversial provisions into a non-descript intelligence spending bill. Now the FBI can subpoena information about you from practically any business or organization - without approval or permission from a judge, and with a gag order on the targeted organization. These spending bills are generally considered confidential and usually are not subject to public debate, so despite the far-reaching implications of these new powers, it's not being publicized like the Patriot Act was. Time to get out my patriotic hat and pin before it's too late."

6 of 954 comments (clear)

  1. Time to move to Canada... by ScooterBill · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I guess the administration couldn't get their way by "taking it to the people" so they just said "fuck the people" and did it anyway.

    I am saddened and ashamed of our government. While I don't expect to like everything the government does, I do expect to have a government that operates in the open. Otherwise we're no better than the corrupt regimes that we criticise.

    M

  2. Re:Conservatives Sell Out Again by pr0t0plasm · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you assume that there was ever any substance to the 'smaller government' rhetoric, then this administration has been a great betrayal of Republican ideals.

    If, however, you view the singular goal of the Republican party as the expropriation of taxpayer wealth for the enrichment of the entrenched industrial elite, and all of the cultural conservatism and libertarian rhetoric as tactics to achieve this goal, then this has been the most successful Republican administration ever.

    --
    - - - Patent applied for and deliver us from evil
  3. Re:More? by Frymaster · · Score: 5, Interesting
    it's not like the fbi wasn't running amok yesterday though... yesterday they were justifying spying on anti-war prosters by claiming that lawful dissent was potentially terrorism. their big argument to support this assertion? anti-war demonstrators have attended "training camps"... and terrorists often attend "training camps". ergo: protesters == terrorists.

    don't trust me. trust the sf chroncial

    fbi scrutinizing anti-war protestors

    choice quote:

    Particularly chilling, he said, was the use of the phrase "training camps'' to describe instruction on nonviolence given to demonstrators. That phrase is often used to describe terrorist training sites.

    i predict with these new powers the fbi will be surveilling all suspiscious "training camp" attendees such as major league baseball players.

  4. Re:who can stop this? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Interesting
    It appears as though armed rebellion is a right enshrined in the constituition.

    Only in New Hampshire:
    [Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.]
    Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance ag ainst arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
    June 2, 1784
    C'mon up, the snow's just about to start.
    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  5. Re:who can stop this? by Groovus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The problem is, this bill has already been passed. We never saw it comming. Certainly writing now will let your congresspeople know your concerns, but it's too late for this one. That's the real stench of this, it got snuck in and the public didn't even know it was being voted on.

    I know we have a wonderful history of attaching riders and pork barrel legislation in congress, but isn't it about time we took steps to abolish such things? I have a hard time seeing any benefit to such practices anymore. Bills should address a single problem, should be clearly named/described, and should always be made available for public analysis - The U.S. government has much more capacity to ruin the lives of U.S. citizens than any band of "terrorists" ever will, there is no justification for refusal of public disclosure of laws or proposed laws affecting U.S. citizens, period. There is no valid reason for a spending bill to have this kind of legislation attached, period.

    In relation to this bill, I fail to see how having this additionaly capacity will help prevent "terrorism" moreso than what the FBI already has. Lack of information was not the problem in 9/11 - lack of correctly addressing the known information was. In any proposed expansion of powers such as this one should have to affirmatively answer the question "would the powers in question, if granted, have prevented an event like 9/11". The answer in this case is no, thus indicating ulterior motives for this legislation, and subsequently the undesireability of the proposed legislation.

    Then again appealing to common sense seems to have become a waste of time in regard to the U.S. government.

  6. Re:who can stop this? by Quixadhal · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The big problem is that the constitution doesn't recognize money as a form of power.

    If you look at all the various checks and balances in the constitution (and the Bill of Rights), it does a wonderful job of restricting Powers and ensuring that each branch of the government has some way to control the others... except that Money can be used to override all of them.

    Sure, you have to have a majority vote by representatives to do thing X, but since those with the most money are leaning on the reps, guess which way the votes go?

    Yeah, the judicial system doesn't accept bribes... but the dockets are done via percieved urgency, and again money makes a thing seem more important, or can make lots of other things jump ahead of a thing.

    The executive branch might be ok, but in each place that government money is controlled, private funding and personal wealth of the members can be used, and thus again ensure that money wins.

    Until some way to control the amount of money spent on a given bit of legislation (or to bury it) is found... that will be how things work. The only hope of the common man is that ENOUGH of us all stop spending LONG enough to have a noticeable impact on the wallets of these people. Not an easy thing to do in this day and age.