Slashdot Mirror
Significant FBI Abuses of the Patriot Act
Noksagt writes "The Washington Post is reporting that recently discovered documents indicate serious intelligence violations by the FBI. This comes just months after the U.S. House voted to extend the Patriot Act, EPIC (the Electronic Privacy Information Center) has obtained documents through the Freedom of Information Act of thirteen cases of possible misconduct in intelligence investigations. The case numbering suggests that there were at least 153 investigations of misconduct at the FBI in 2003 alone."
The Senate should be reapportioned to reflect economic power. Let the corporations have their playground, but make it much weaker, except for negative delaying powers. That way the companies will have some place to focus all their lobbying money. At the same time, the House should be strengthened and held accountable and prevented from delegating their powers away. That's why they were supposed to face the voters every two years. Keep them on their toes.
And get the White House completely OUT of the budget business.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
I work for these organizations.
Totally agree with the poster above. See, people tend to get so wrapped up in the intentionally dramatic headlines (designed to boost ratings, nothing more) than to THINK about what is really going on. The FBI and all government agencies are really composed of good, hard-working folks that are trying to serve their country in the best way they can.
These people don't want to see their rights or ANY American's rights diminished. But it is tough for individuals to prove that when the media proclaims that the entire organization (composed of thousands of employees) seems to be bent of removing liberty and justice for all. Unfortunately, we live in an age where the vocal minority is given a voice ONLY when it agrees with the media company's desire for ratings or political expediency.
It's really sad that their service to the country is not given the proper respect deserved.
These actions were actually illegal, so they could not have been authorized by the Patriot act.
Also, from the article,
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance act was passed in 1978It seems to me that these are just old-fashioned FBI abuses of power - not abuses of the Patriot act specifically.
Perhaps the weeks following a terrorist attack are not the best time to write legislation regarding what to do about terrorism.
But all the senators were panicking, and all their constituents were panicking demanding they do something, although they (the constituents) had no idea what. So no wonder that a bad piece of legislation gets written.
My solution to terrorism? Take the amount of money we've spent in Iraq and direct it towards fusion power research. Once fusion power is achieved, we don't need to prop up those regimes in the middle east any more. At last, we will be able to leave and flip them off on the way out. Then when the middle east is still a hellhole they can't blame us.
People complain about government all the time, but the truth is, things really aren't all that bad... yet.
Things are eventually going to get worse, and it's gonna take another Rosa Parks (R.I.P.) to bring these wrongs lots of attention, and it's going to take some new, strong leaders to guide those of us who are just complaining to get up and actually make a difference. There isn't enough momentum to really "do" anything. We feel powerless and our efforts go to waste without any real leadership to guide us.
When it comes time for a change, it'll happen and those who want to make a difference will know what to do and will start acting. Until then, we'll just keep on complaining. :)
It's not an American idea. You guys might think you invented democracy, but the idea of 3 powers in a state came from the Greeks - about 3000 years ago.
Whatever the Greeks did or did not do, the US government was modelled fairly directly on the British system (of the late 18th c.). The main differences were, first, to acknowledge that authority to govern (sovereignty) resides with, and is granted by, the people, and, second, to have a President rather than a King.
The framers also thought that they were imitating to some extant the government of the Roman Republic, but actually they were pretty ignorant of how things really worked in Rome.
The FBI and all government agencies are really composed of good, hard-working folks that are trying to serve their country in the best way they can.
;) So I've been doing it in my own personal time) and I'm concentrating on Thomas Jefferson at the moment. And I've always thought he (along with the other founding fathers) were more then a little crazy. But when I see what they stood for, and what current America is like, I understand why they had the opinions they did.
The road to hell is paved by good intentions. That's how the quote goes, doesn't it?
But it is tough for individuals to prove that when the media proclaims that the entire organization (composed of thousands of employees) seems to be bent of removing liberty and justice for all.
No, what's tough to prove it is this secrecy your organization (along with other organizations like it) demand. When government agency works in secret (which the FBI does, even if it does have to explain itself to a court, that court is also secret so therefore it doesn't count), it takes the power out of the people's hands, and once the power no longer resides in the people's hands corruption is soon to follow. From what little information that has been able to be wrest out of the FBI's hands, it depicts a picture that it they're making mistakes on a regular basis. Even the FBI who defends the report that has been public said that most of them were clerical errors. Most.
When the FBI refuses to explain itself to the people (no matter what justification it uses to keep it's actions secret), then the people have lost their power, and the FBI becomes a danger to freedom. I've been reading about the founding fathers of America (in Australia we don't get it shoved down our throats at school
Thomas Jefferson in particular fought against what America has become. And the FBI is only a small part of the problem (although I'm inclined to say it's a symptom of the problem, with the problem being the people have stopped protecting their rights).
I'm always impressed and humbled when someone not from the US can quote our founding fathers -- hats off to you. I myself just began trying to learn past PMs of the UK to be more worldly.
/.ers are merely bitching machines.
I myself have called my representatives whenever there's an issue that is of concern to me (Real ID, USA PATRIOT Act, broadcast flag, etc.). Of course I also vote, and proselytize when I have the chance. So not all
Yes!! That is exactly the problem!
See, we have SO may people creating the regulations, and each one can only add little pieces to the entire project. So imagine having a thousand people creating the parts to an airplane, and they all have their own ideas as to how the final plane will look/operate/etc. When they get together to put that plane together, do you really think it is going to be a streamlined, efficient, or cohesive product?
To make matters worse, you can't create the plane (or process) in one go either. It must be done over time, then tested, then changed, voted on, etc etc (remember that phrase in HHGTTG about the Vogons saving their own grandmothers?). Man, this is exactly the problem!
How to fix? Well, first is to recognize that this is the truth as to how legislation and processes are created or changed. Don't blame the current administration for a screwed up process that we ourselves haven't taken steps to improve over the many years it took to create. Also, don't blame the few people in the current administration when there are hundreds of others who helped create or modify the proposed legislation.
As long as we have independent forums for discussion by individuals (electronic and otherwise) then people will be watching the government and discussing every minute detail of their actions. Throughout human history power has been abused and throughout human history the abusers have ultimately been bitchslapped to the dung heap of history be replaced by a slightly improved abuser who is in line for another bitchslap. That's why they call it a revolution. Power corrupts, people get pissed, corrupted get spanked, and the world keeps on spinning.
I support the Bush administration. They can't run the country but they're shortening the time it'll take before the whole regime gets an overhaul. And keep on whining people, the whiners of today become the dissenters of tomorrow.
To the Americans who are posting comments like "wow. I never thought that would happen" I ask one question. What have you done to protect your rights, that the FBI are trampling? Posting sarcastic comments isn't doing anything to protect your rights.
/. crowd is probably leaning more to the left, even those that are conservative (though the current Administration is far from the original Republican philosophy, less central Government, more State power) still care about the country. We have, it is in our everyday lives, you sit down in your break room with a cup of joe and news paper, what is there to talk about? Or while havin' a smoke? Some people go to protests, I hear of one every week, I live in Salt Lake, when the President came here within the last few weeks, the Salt Lake Mayor, Rocky Anderson (he's a Democrat, Salt Lake City is mostly Democrat, while the rest of the state is most Republican) was required to greet him, but right after he met the President, he proceeded to a rally protesting what Bush is doing. So don't shove blame in our face, because we're well aware of what is going on.
A large majority of us have, by voting, expressing our disgust with current administration, and so forth. The majority also would probably not risk criminal life in America of any sort, a lot people are still, for lack of a better word, still 'content' with their lives. Yeah, I hate Bush, economy has had brighter days, and on some days I'm almost ashamed to be an American because of my embarrassment of the administration.
Did you vote? For the fraction of you that did, what else have you done? Because you can't just protect your rights by once every 4 years (it is 4 in America, right?) ticking a box and not doing anything else until the next 4 years. I think it was Thomas Jefferson that said once the people stop fighting for their rights, the government will take them away.
Yeah, I voted, I've voted for the Mayors, Senators, Representatives, Presidents, etc. that I've wanted in Office, though obviously not all came out how I wanted, so a lot of us really do try to change what is happening to our country. Though also, for the most part _unfortunately_ being locked into only two possible candidates (Republican and Democrat) who will win, that is part of our election process that should be reevaluated just for the overall greater good.
So people posting here obviously do care. But what have you done to protect them? I'm betting the majority of you haven't done a damn thing (except vote). Well this is what happens when you do nothing but vote. You've got no-one to blame but yourselves.
The general
-Brandon
Ah yes, but if the less corrupt bastard wins, then next time an even less corrupt bastard will run, since obviously the less corrupt you are the more likely you are to win. Naturally, the time after that, Mr. L. C. Bastard will be outflanked by a much less corrupt bastard, who will win, because the gosh-darn voters keep preferring the less corrupt candidate, no matter what the other guy promises....and, by and by, you'll have bastards that are as pure as driven snow running for office. Evolution in action!
O' course, if you the predator of politicians don't do your part to cull the herd every four years, then natural selection doesn't work. That was the point, eh?
Can anyone honestly say that there are benefits to the average American citizen from the passage of the Patriot Act? If such a thing as government corruption did not exist at all in the US, the added powers it gives to law organizations might be helpful. The simple answer to that is that government is like any other organization, and can become corrupt. With the buying of representatives, illegitamate and fraudulent elections (why is there no outcry after the 2004 election? Oh wait, we have a compliant corporate media! yaay!), and rampant, well, pretty much everthing going on at what seems every level of American government, it's sad that we aren't revolting in the streets. Those who created our government (or at least the paper documents supposedly followed) knew that governments were a sort of necessary evil that needed to be thrown out. I think Jefferson is quoted often here, "patriots and tyrants". I believe one of that group also thought that the entire governmental structure should be replaced like every 20 years. I don't think it's a bad idea. Some of the problem is that the Constitution doesn't really say what kind of laws Congress has the power to pass and enforce; I'm thinking in areas of business here, where Congress could theoretically pass a bill, just giving a billion dollars to whoever they wanted (which is basically what they do now anyway, but without any attempt to even appear legit).
OK, so I don't really know what the point of my post is, but I'm just feeling really sick when I look into what could happen during my lifetime. Hopefully the US will begin its fall, and with it some reasonable minds will prevail. Why not try a new formula?
When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?
Historically, showing faith in your government will inevitably lead to that faith being abused. The scariest examples of this are probably the communist regimes (which is why you'll see phrases like "If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear, Comrade" appear so often on Slashdot) - people were expected to show complete trust of the ruling party regardless of their actions. Same goes for Nazi Germany.
Conversely, the American ideal is to place as little trust in the government as humanly possible, with the result that the government is comparatively trustworthy (cos it'll get caught out if it isn't). This is why (iirc) the US Constitution contains the right to bear arms - it's cos the Founding Fathers felt that a revolution every so often was both inevitable and necessary for healthy government, and wanted to make it fairly easy to rebel.
Trust the government and sooner or later you'll be sorely disappointed. Mistrust the government and you'll keep the buggers on their toes.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
> I suppose you could do it by allocating the
> Senators based on the wealth of the states
> the way the House is allocated based on
> population. However, I feel like it's more
> honest to just make it a direct reflection of
> the money. If Microsoft has 5% of the wealth,
> then let's just give them 5% of the Senators.
what a seriously fucked-up idea. it's so stupid that if you weren't an american i'd just assume that you were being ironic - but since you are, irony is unlikely.
this is about the third or fourth time in this thread that i've read an argument which basically just accepts the fact that corporations control the senate, without any hint of opposition.
don't you americans have any idea of what a Senate's proper function is? for a people that go on and on about "checks and balances" you seem remarkably eager to concede - even ignore - one of the most powerful check & balance there is.
a Senate - or Upper House, or whatever you want to call it - has as its main function the role of reviewing any legislation passed by Parliament (or, in your case, Congress), and voting to either pass it, reject it, OR send it back to the Lower House with recommended amendments.
they are also representatives of the people and thus should be directly elected by them, not appointed by corporations, state legislators, royalty or anyone else.
speaking of royalty, you also need to seriously limit the power of your president - everywhere else that still has a constitutional monarchy has passed laws over the centuries that reduce the monarch's official powers to little more than that of a figurehead - and that is the way it should be...a president or king/queen with real power is just too much power concentrated in one person. unlike the rest of the world which has steadily removed powers from their Head of State, you americans have steadily and radically increased the powers available to your elected King. is it any surprise that the world is now suffering the reign of Emperor George I?
what you americans need is serious electoral reform that creates a reasonable balance and separation between powers.
and one thing you really need is compulsory voting (or at least compulsory attendance at a voting booth on election day, which is how it actually works in practice) - that way the bastards can't rely on the apathy and ignorance of the population to get their way, they have to take a far more middle-of-the-road stance in order to appeal to all the disinterested voters who would be offended by extremism....and reminded of past offense due to their resentment of having to blow a perfectly good saturday afternoon in a voting booth.
It's unfortunte that so few people seem to understand that the only way to prevent a government from abusing broad reaching powers is to take away its ability to use those powers. People argue for tax increases and then wonder why new and more efficiently intrusive government agencies pop up. The only way to non-violently ensure things like this won't happen is to starve the beast, i.e., cut taxes and then slash them some more.
You say that the law/program had "best of intentions". I'm not sure it did though, noone has been able to explain to me any realistic way the Patriot act would help convict terrorists or prvent terrorist attacks in a way that couldn't have already been done under previously existing laws.
You just implied one of my problems with disarming common people. The bad guys will always have guns because they are willing to illegally obtain them. In most cases, I alone can defend my family and myself from gun toting criminals. It would take a minimum of 15 minutes for police to show up at my house which I believe is statistically longer than most violent crimes take. And that's assuming I can call them without getting shot in the first place. They would come to collect innocent bodies and take a statement. I'd prefer they come to collect the criminal's body if it had to come to that.
The other reason we have guns is to protect ourselves against the government. Granted, they have better weapons, but even small arms are a deterrent to governmental violence. It's not as silly as it may sound after you think about it for a bit. The US has a significant number of troops in the Middle East yet look how poorly they've preformed. The US is bigger and has about a 100 million more people than Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
http://www.marxist.com/
Two truly excellent and insightful posts, but one thought occurs:
"The Senate should be reapportioned to reflect economic power. Let the corporations have their playground"
So the US is institutionally corrupt[1], sliding towards political corporatism, and your solution is what, to give corporations an official seat at the table, and legitimise their actions from popularly-ignored corruption to official policy?
The mind boggles...
Surely the correct action is merely to drastically reform (and enforce) campaign finance regulations, crack down on (ideally, eliminate) pork, make professional lobbying illegal, increase financial transparency and mandate jail time[2] for any political figure found guilty of financial or procedural irregularity.
Sure, it's pretty radical, but you don't turn around the decline of an entire country with a few nice words and a pat on the back.
[1] What's lobbying, if not institutionalised corruption?
[2] We hold doctors to high professional standards, and they only hold one person's life in their hands at a time. Politicians hold the entire future of our society in their hands, and (with the right amount of cash and the old-boy network in place) they seem practically immune from prosecution.
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
That's true.
Senator John McCain and others were able to garner enough support to add an amendment to a military appropriations bill that made the Army Field Manual's policies on interrogation the standard by which the military would be judged. He wrote what I think is an amazing letter to Pres. Bush on the matter also.
Mr. President, war is an awful business. I know that. I don't think I'm naÃve about how severe re the wages of war, and how terrible are the things that must be done to wage it successfully. It is a grim, dark business, and no matter how noble the cause for which it is fought, no matter how valiant the service, many veterans spend much of their subsequent lives trying to forget not only what was done to them and their comrades, but some of what had to be done by their hand to prevail.
I don't mourn the loss of any terrorist's life nor do I care if in the course of serving their ignoble cause they suffer great harm. They have pledged their lives to the intentional destruction of innocent lives, and they have earned their terrible punishment in this life and the next.
What I do regret, what I do mourn, and what I do care very much about is what we lose, what we -- the American serviceman and woman and the great nation they defend at the risk of their lives - what we lose when by official policy or by official negligence - we allow, confuse or encourage our soldiers to forget that best sense of ourselves, our greatest strength - that we are different and better than our enemies; that we fight for an idea - not a tribe, not a land, not a king, not a twisted interpretation of an ancient religion - but for an idea that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights.
I have been asked before where did the brave men I was privileged to serve with in Vietnam draw the strength to resist to the best of their ability the cruelties inflicted on them by our enemies. Well, we drew strength from our faith in each other, from our faith in God, and from our faith in our country. Our enemies didn't adhere to the Geneva Convention. Many of my comrades were subjected to very cruel, very inhumane and degrading treatment, a few of them even unto death. But everyone of us knew, every single one of us knew and took great strength from the belief that we were different from our enemies, that we were better than them, that we, if the roles were reversed, would not disgrace ourselves by committing or countenancing such mistreatment of them. That faith was indispensable not only to our survival, but to our attempts to return home with honor. Many of the men I served with would have preferred death to such dishonor.
The enemies we fight today hold such liberal notions in contempt, as they hold the international conventions that enshrine them such as the Geneva Conventions and the treaty on torture in contempt. I know that. But we're better than them, and we are the stronger for our faith. And we will prevail. I submit to my colleagues that it is indispensable to our success in this war that our servicemen and women know that in the discharge of their dangerous responsibilities to their country they are never expected to forget that they are Americans, the valiant defenders of a sacred idea of how nations should govern their own affairs and their relations with others - even our enemies.
Those who return to us and those who give their lives for us are entitled to that honor. And those of us who have given them this onerous duty are obliged by our history, and by the sacrifices - the many terrible sacrifices -- that have been made in our defense - we are obliged to make clear to them that they need not risk their or their country's honor to prevail; that they are always, always - through the violence, chaos and heartache of war, through deprivation and cruelty and loss - they are always, always America
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
> People argue for tax increases and then wonder why new and more efficiently intrusive government agencies pop up.
A) who arugues for tax increases, I must have missed that one (oh repeal the tax cut to the rich, sure I am for taxing someone else, I assuming that means less tax for me in the future, cause I am still young enough to have to pay for the current debt)
B) currently those arguing for more tax cuts, are the same ones passing more goverment intrusion (conservitive my ass)
I do agree with the other post, that was the Regan (era) economics, pass every spending measure and tax cut, to bankrupt the govmt, so someone else will have to do the hard work of cleaning out the gov't, so you can stay popular. That didnt work (well the popular bit did.)
"I see alot of procedural abuses by the FBI, but what did they have to do with the patriot act?"
Well the Patriot Act was basically "just trust the police, because we're going to let them do whatever they want", so if the FBI had procedural abuses before, then that trust starts to look rather misplaced...
Ah, Sibel Edmunds. Most people I know haven't even heard of her, never mind know that she was fired for complaints she made about incompetence in the translation unit she worked in. To be fired for pointing out problems then to be slapped with a gag order when she files a lawsuit and having the info "classified" after testifying before congress.
FalconShould there be a Law?