Pentagon Seeks A Loophole In The Privacy Act

CygnusXII writes "As reported over @ wired.com. It seems that Homeland Security isn't the only govermental body wanting to keep a database on the good old U.S. population. 'The bill would allow Pentagon intelligence agents to work undercover and question American citizens and legal residents without having to reveal that they are government agents. That exemption currently applies only to law enforcement officials working on criminal cases and to the CIA, which is prohibited from operating in the United States.' Kinda adds a whole new meaning to 'We want you!', or should it be 'We want all your secrets'?"

Comments

A soldier isn't a police officer...

[LostCluster]

That exemption currently applies only to law enforcement officials working on criminal cases...

Which is to say that the DoD is trying to get into the subject area that is presently the property of the FBI along with state and local police forces. It's not that this kind of work can't be done by the US Government, but that the wrong division is asking to do it.

The DoD runs our armed forces... they are not designed for law enforcement and when they are asked to do so they usually do a poor job of it. This provision in the law should be stricken and replaced with more funding to the FBI and other police forces so that the people who should be gathering info on US soil can continue to do so correctly.

Re:A soldier isn't a police officer...

[demachina]

Its only fair since the DOJ is apparently turning in to a global law enforcement agency, and will apparently be tasked to prosecute DOD and CIA contractors for torture in order to deflect attention from the people in the White House and Pentagon who probably ordered the torture in the first place.

An interesting case is the CIA contractor who apparently beat an Afghan detainee to death and was charged with assault this week. He is apparently being prosecuted under the Patriot Act, by the DOJ, in a really disturbing interpretation and extension of this already overly broad laws reach. The article being used was supposed to be for foreign terrorists who attack U.S. government facilities overseas but they are apparently reinterpreting it to cover a U.S. citizen, and government employee, attacking a foreigner at a government facility overseas.

The DOJ apparently had to stretch it this way or CIA and DOD contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan could quite literally get away with murder. The problem:

- Civilian contractors can be court martialled but only if congress officially declared war which it hasn't in Afghanistan or Iraq
- There is no way the U.S. will turn its citizens, especially a CIA or DOD employee, over to Afghanistan or Iraq which are the only entities with jurisdiction
-The U.S. has managed to exempt its citizens from prosecution by the international courts who prosecute war crimes wherever they occur. The U.S. blackmailed the U.N. in to this exemption by threatening to withdraw troops and support from peacekeeping operations in the Balkans in particular. China supported this, and helped pass it, but as of yesterday no longer will because of the obvious war crimes the U.S. is committing.
- The DOJ doesn't normally have jurisdiction outside the U.S. though it is rapidly taking upon itself the right to prosecute anyone for crimes anywhere, and become the worlds first truly global police force. The Bush administration is trying or has already given the DOJ the right to prosecute U.S. citizens who commit sex crimes anywhere in the world which is another huge extension of the DOJ's power. You can no longer count on escaping the long arm of the Bush administration by moving out of the U.S.

In an interesting twist it is quite possible the Bush administration was intentionally using civilian contractors to perform interrogations and torture, they've hired a lot of them, because they knew they couldn't be charged thanks to this long series of convenient exclusions.

It may only be because the Bush administration is under heat to make it look like they didn't approve torture in the first place, that they've been forced to go to these new extremes. So they turn to the Patriot Act to find a way to prosecute these contractors who were probably doing what the Bush administration wanted them to do in the first place when they tortured detainees.

If this use of the Patriot Act it upheld the DOJ gains broad new international law enforcement powers. If its not upheld CIA and DOD contractors guilty of torture and murder are given a get out of jail free card, at least until the UN cancels the U.S. excemption from international war crimes prosecution.

Re:A soldier isn't a police officer...

[welloy]

You are exactly correct. The military should not and cannot be expected to be a domestic police force.

This essay , which was awarded the top prize for the Strategy Essay Competition at the National Defense University presented by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Colin Powell in 1992, explains why.

Briefly, the US military has a very important job, namely protection of the US from external threats, which the military should not be distracted from by acting as the police.

Re:A soldier isn't a police officer...

[G-Man]

"...that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..." (emphasis mine)

That was part of the oath I swore when I joined the military. I don't know where people get the idea that the only activity the military can conduct within our borders is training. What is the point of having a military if not to defend our own soil?

I agree that the military make lousy police officers -- no one in the military I know is keen on the idea. Where I disagree is the idea that searching for Al Qaeda operatives is strictly a law enforcement activity. By conventions of war they are spies or saboteurs, and we'd be well within our rights to summarily execute them, just as we did with German agents during WWII. (Well, we actually sent them to military tribunals, which is more than is required. Simply put, if you find a spy, you can shoot them.)

Now, if you were opposed to Eisenhower sending in the 101st Airborne to enforce desegregation, and to Janet Reno using Bradleys to help burn down the Branch Davidians, I'll at least give you credit for consistency. I would be plenty happy to leave it to the FBI if I had faith that they would faithfully follow up on intel given to them by the CIA, but there is a big disconnect there, which the previous administration was more than happy to exacerbate (i.e., the Gorelick memo).

Re:A soldier isn't a police officer...

[demachina]

What exactly are you talking about?

This is a civilian contractor we are talking about here. If you read my post you would see that civilian contractors apparently can't be court martialed except during times of war and the Congress has unfortunately not declared war in Afghanistan or Iraq so they can't be court martialed. This offense happened in Afghanistan so U.S. domestic laws against torture, which also enforce the Geneva rules, don't apply.

There should be a new rule, the U.S. should stop waging wars unless the Congress has the guts to actually declare war. It would fix a whole lot of evils. For example instead of passing a weak kneed authorization for the wars in Iraq or Vietnam Congress should have to actually declare war. When faced with this gravest of constitutional duties they might have come to their senses, do their jobs, investigate, contemplate, and decide if there is a reason to go to war. Iraq and Vietnam might not have happened as a result and the U.S. might be a lot better off.

The Gulf of Tonkin incident used to push the U.S. in to Vietnam was largely a U.S. fabrication. South Vietnamese patrol boats attacked North Vietnam, they fought back, there was a U.S. destroyer in the area that was apparently never fired on but Johnson claimed that it had been and used it to sucker Congress in to endorsing the disasterous escalation in Vietnam without declaring war.

And of course in Iraq the Bush administration fabricated the case for WMD's and ties between Iraq, Al Aqaeda and 9/11, launched a war that has alienated most of the world, resulted in war crimes and was once again not a declared war.

wow...

[tuxette]

First the start taking over foreign policy, now law enforcement...?? What's next for the DoD? (Patriotic) education? Will American kiddies have to start going to camp wearing red, white, and blue scarves?

Has anything changed for him?

[Rick Zeman]

Pentagon officials say the exemption would not affect civil liberties and is needed so that its agents can obtain information from sources who may be afraid of government agents, such as a green-card-holding professor of nanotechnology who formerly lived under a repressive government.

We're getting there....

Re:Has anything changed for him?

[Rick Zeman]

At the risk of looking silly replying to myself, this statement's even sillier than I thought at first: If you think about, who questions people? Cops and reporters. The man on the street doesn't walk up and start pumping you for information.
Last I knew, it was illegal for US law enforcement to pretend to be reporters. Is that next to fall? If they aren't going to be cops, what's left for them, if this example wasn't a total smoke screen?

Re:Has anything changed for him?

[Alsee]

Holy fucking shit! Pardon the french.

A blanket exemption from any Federal regulation, rule, standardized administrative policy, process, or procedure, pretty much at will.

Federal laws? What federal laws? We're the GOVERNMENT! We're EXEMPT from any laws that are inconvient.

-

God Bless America

[QEDog]

Thank God, I feel safer already.

Whatever...

[Anonymous Coward]

question American citizens and legal residents without having to reveal that they are government agents.

I'm sorry, but if someone wants to ask me questions, and they A) aren't wearing a police uniform or B) identify themselves as law enforcement/criminal investigators, I'm not saying jack.

All Your Secrets Are Belong to Us

[dealsites]

Well, We have this, traffic light cameras, security cameras everywhere, probably tracking via cell phone and GPS, personal and rental cars with built in GPS, grocery store coupon cards, etc... Where will it end? I guess it probably won't ever stop. Data mining is becoming the hot feature of buisnesses and goverments. Is it still worth the fight for privacy? If you abide by the laws, then there shouldn't be any problems.

I'm sure there are people out there that detest all the personal surveillance, but if a crime is committed and caught on tape, I think it should be used to prosicute the criminal. I personally don't want to be tracked everywhere I go, but if I was mugged in an alley, I would hope a camera would catch the criminal. It would bring some justice to me and *help* to justify the big brother tactics.

--
Please submit any spare Gmail invitations that you might have

Re:All Your Secrets Are Belong to Us

[base3]

The problem is that all this surveillance won't be used to benefit the ordinary citizen. Do you really think that if your car is broken into near a surveillance cam that (unless you're rich and can afford a drawn out legal process) you'll ever get your hands on the evidence?

This is the part I like best.

[khasim]

"Pentagon officials say the exemption would not affect civil liberties and is needed so that its agents can obtain information from sources who may be afraid of government agents, such as a green-card-holding professor of nanotechnology who formerly lived under a repressive government."

And this is supposed to make him feel better how? By HIDING the fact that he's talking to a government agent?

You're right. The DoD is not designed for law enforcement. And there is no reason for the DoD to have undercover agents checking on US citizens (and legal residents).

Do you really want Military Intelligence officers spying upon US citizens on US soil?

From the article:
"In February, Army intelligence agents improperly sought information about attendees at a University of Texas law school conference about Muslim women. Conference organizers refused to provide a videotape of the event to the officers and publicized the request, leading to an apology by the Army."

The only way to keep the government honest is to keep it open.

Re:This is the part I like best.

[kfg]

Why should a professor holding a green card, having come here specifically because our government is at least less repressive than the one he/she left, fear a government agent who properly identifies him/herself and asks reasonable questions in the professor's area of expertise?

If our government is, indeed, not repressive, they have no right to expect answers to such questions and he has a right not give answers.

Do you understand what a right is?

He may give or withhold information to whomever he choses and for whatever reason he choses. Even if actually charged with a crime (pre "PATRIOT", of course) he still retains the right to just shut the hell up and not utter a word.

This is exactly why this law is being sought, to infringe upon that right and lend credence to the idea that he has not traveled very far from government repression.

The secret police may be looking for him.

KFG

Re:The Big Brother is watching you

[Homology]

Hello, Doesn't it ring the bell to you? I wonder whether they understand the meaning of the word privacy.

Well, they probably understand the concept of privacy very well. It's just that they want to want to cover their asses legally. As an example of this, look at the current US administration (and Pentagon) handling of the concept of torture :

For members of the military, the report suggested that officials could escape torture convictions by arguing that they were following superior orders, since such orders "may be inferred to be lawful" and are "disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate." Examining the "superior orders" defense at the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals, the Vietnam War prosecution of U.S. Army Lt. William Calley for the My Lai massacre and the current U.N. war-crimes tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, the report concluded it could be asserted by "U.S. armed forces personnel engaged in exceptional interrogations except where the conduct goes so far as to be patently unlawful."

When one starts examining the defence of convicted war criminals in order to avoid prosecution, I think someone should be paying attention.

Kind of like the Stazi...

[dot_borg]

...or the KGB, eh?

the sad truth...

[tuxette]

For starters, the US is an apathetic country as a whole when it comes to affecting politics (what was it, under 50% who even bother voting?). Next, as much as I hate to say it, most Americans are daft. All that dumbing down of school curriculum and junk food supersizing and reality TV (a way for people to start accepting loss of privacy?) rots their brains. So when Bush & Co. say that the military playing police is a good thing in order to catch terrorists, people will believe and accept it.

What needs to be done is very active campaigning regarding privacy and civil rights, and why it is so important to preserve these rights and never ever give them up, especially now that there is this "war against terrorism." And it has to be done in a way that the above-mentioned people can understand.

Our government is a ruling class of the rich.

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

The rich who rule over and dictate our lives fear that you are a terrorist and will possibly cause harm to beverly hills.

You are now a suspect because you are poor and have no voice (no money)

Vote the Republicans out of office based on their ACTIONS.

Does this look like LESS GOVERNMENT?

I cant beleive the amount of brainwashed republicans out there who go fuck crazy over their $300 tax return. "its your money" Yeah well "It's your country" and look at what these folks are doing to it!!!

These are not republicans.

Vote Bush Out!

And the dems are just as currupt, but i think they're learning a little.

Frankly in an ideal world we would have a 3rd party president win this election. Someone like Nader. Someone who is completely seperate from the two party system that is bought and paid for buy the enrons, the fords, the mcis, the halleburtons, krafts, aols, etc...

I'd vote for a fucking steel worker from PA if he was running. Oh yeah we dont really manufacture much of that anymore here in america.

state of the US...

[sinner0423]

It really is quite sad.

The government can raid my house, throw me in prison, and ruin my life - all in the name of national security. It's an extremely disturbing thought.

Big government / brother is not science fiction anymore, it is a reality. It's disturbing, to say the least. RFID imbedded in to everything you buy, is just the next step. This database doesn't suprise me in the least. They've kept records for years, it's what they do.

I live in illinois, it's a police state. I've already been fined several hundreds of dollars for jaywalking, and owning a NOT USED, CLEAN, TOBACCO pipe. You are guilty until proven innocent, around here.

I'm 24, an american, and I want to leave. This is a nightmare. A law may come in to fruition, that if I leave and a draft is reinstated, I will be sent back here and possibly thrown in jail, or be forced to serve for a country I don't believe in. We aren't all greedy capitalist pigs, you know. Some of us are actually decent human beings.

I hate to be such a pessimist, but if you live in the states, your life is going to be more difficult, and if anything - MORE dangerous than it is now. Throw a wrapper out of the window of your car? You could be signaling terrorists that are on the side of the road planting IED's. Think i'm joking? Just wait. It's a pretty far fetched example, but with this administration, would you expect anything else?

Osama wants the White House!

[khasim]

"We need to stop looking at terrorism as a crime issue and realize it is a National Security/War issue."

That's right! Everyone! Please REMEMBER to NOT VOTE FOR OSAMA IN NOVEMBER. Terrorist forces are only MONTHS away from overthowing the US government and forcing ALL US CITIZENS to attend Islamic schools!

"He is fighting a war, not shoplifting."

The same as various mafia families fight "wars".

The same as various drug gangs fight "wars".

More US citizens die from drug-related crime than from terrorists.

Terrorism can be reduced by simply applying the same techniques that law enforcement does. Track the money. That's how all of those other terrorist cells have been found in Europe.

identifiability of enemy soldiers

[karzan]

There is a reason why under the Geneva conventions, it is illegal for a soldier to operate dressed as a civilian. Because the laws and customs of war are based on the assumption that war is carried out by combatants who make themselves obvious in one way or another as combatants. In guerrilla war, people become obvious combatants when they attack, or when they are searched in a known war zone and found likely to be combatants based on having lots of grenades or whatever.

A 'terrorist' on the other hand, is defined as 'anyone who the State Department says is a terrorist'. If we were to use your logic and treat terrorists as 'enemy soldiers', then that would mean the ability of the authorities to shoot on sight anyone classified by the Department of State as a terrorist. But how do you identify a terrorist--unless he is packing weapons or you find out about his plans?

The fact is this is *not* a war. The USA is *not* a combat zone, any more than London was a combat zone when IRA attacks were frequent. Terrorism is political crime, but it is crime nonetheless--not carried out by a sovereign state subject to treaty law, not carried out by centralised organisations with clearly defined hierarchies, and most importantly it is damn near impossible to identify a terrorist 'combatant' until it is obvious that they are going to actually carry out an act of terrorism.

And the State Department has already decided that loads of people are terrorists who do not fit this criterion--for example anarchists, like a 14-year-old kid I knew who was arrested and interrogated by the FBI because he had an anti-war leaflet in his bag at the airport, and added to the 'terrorism list' before they let him off.

Who is an enemy soldier is a very clear question. Who is a 'terrorist' however is an extremely subjective judgement. And by your logic my 14-year-old friend should have been shot on sight, or at least taken to a POW camp for indefinite detention and military trial.

The world is not different to what it was before 2001, terrorism has existed for hundreds of years, the difference is that it's being used as an excuse for the biggest crackdown on opposition in the west and in fact in the larger world since the 1930s.

Re:An honest man...

[John Courtland]

Not again.... Look, that's just fucking retarded. Should everyone open their lives to gevernment scrutiny? How about the motherfucker who doesn't have a SS number and isn't trackable? How do you propse to spy on him if he "doesn't exist?" Come on. Any system like this is flawed and only harms the law-abiding. Criminals are not stupid. Terrorists are not stupid. They will find a way to do their business regardless of the magnitudes of purported anti-terrorist systems we employ. How about solving the real problem? The United States should stop fucking around in other countries back yards for a change. Stop pissing off people, and maybe they won't come back and blow your shit up.

Dont answer any questions

[nurb432]

Unless you are ordered to by a judge under agreement of protection, you dont have to say boo to anyone...

So.. i suggest that if ANYONE asks you questions, you politly decline. If they turn out to be feds, then they will have to take you to court to get anything out of you.

Cant trust anyone.. BB is watching..

Shades of Tyranies Past ...

[quarkscat]

Really just a natural extension to
Poindexter's TIA (Total Information
Awareness) project (which lives!)
I could have sworn that the only
military arm that has ANY LEGAL
DOMESTIC charter is the Nat. Guard.

Once DoD gets involved in domestic law
enforcement investigations, the next
step is assigning "political officers"
to each brigade, just like the Nazis
and Stalinists, as well as "Cuban-style"
neighborhood watch/informers ...

Oh, wait, we already have that bit with
the establishment of the HSA, via phone,
letter, or website. (Amaze your friends,
and strike fear into your neighbors:
file a suspicious report against them
and watch the fun ensue as various Fed
agencies trip all over themselves trying
to "score" the next "big terrorist plot".)

Don't think that the Patriot Act & HSA
are not being used to counter domestic
political opposition: that has already
happened when FAA, FBI, & HSA got involved
in the search for the "missing" Texas
Democratic legislators, as well as the
computer server "breakins" at the US
Senate.

These bastards that have taken over the
government all swore an oath to protect
the US Constitution and Bill or Rights.
Their actions already qualify them (IMO)
for impeachment and trial (and prison).
How hard is it going to be to get these
"national socialists" voted out of office?
(Especially considering their $6 billion USD
initiative for "upgrading to eVoting" ?

Apathy

[Inexile2002]

It seems that for some strange reason I've been using the word "Orwellian" allot in the last three and a half years. I'm not going to venture a guess as to why...

Seriously though, it's funny how utterly apathetic people are these days. People bandy about the term "freedom" but as long as they have the "freedom" to buy things people don't seem to care about the rest of it. A minority talk about what rights are slipping away, but still cast the valiant few who take to the streets as hippies and whackos. It's sick really.

What is it going to take for it to be too much? Seriously, stop and think about what exactly the government would have to do for you to be willing to do more than talk. Then think about how effective your protest will be if it gets bad enough for you to protest at all. Will you wait for a total suspension of civil liberties? Mass arrests? Until there are turrets on the street corners and "papers" required to move across state lines? Seriously. I want to say that people need to do something now, but the truth is that people needed to do something a year and a half ago. I'm not talking about revolution or anything... just make the dissenting voices impossible to ignore by adding your own.

The current administration isn't ready (yet) to start ignoring elections and the army wouldn't follow orders from people who lost elections. So go out and freaking VOTE! And then make it clear to the people you get put in that they're there to fix things. Politicians want job security because it takes more than a couple of terms in office to really secure the personal fortune. Make them fix things or throw the buggers out.

Opens new avenues for crime

[Invalid Character]

Wouldn't such a bill that allows government agents to not reveal their government employment also help crooks? Now they too could question potential victims and obtain very sensitve data and go under the disguise of a government agent saying "I'm sorry I can't reveal that. Its clanssified". And how would we be able to verify their identity? We can't even complain in some situations. If this bill is passed to law it would really help social engineering, and screw the rest of us. What are the repercussions for Canada? Will we have to comply through our various pacts and treaties?