Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Significant FBI Abuses of the Patriot Act

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the who-watches-the-watchers dept.

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."

18 of 672 comments (clear)

  1. once again... by utnow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...we show that a program with the best of intentions gave too much power to one tenticle of government, and now it's being abused. I'm not sure how many times we need to figure this one out before we stop gravitating to one part of gov't, giving it tons of control, ending up in a one-sided system, and then complaining about it (rinse, repeat)...

    1. Re:once again... by visgoth · · Score: 5, Funny

      I, for one, am aghast. Broad reaching powers being abused?! Inconceivable!

      --
      My patience is infinite, my time is not.
    2. Re:once again... by etrnl · · Score: 5, Funny

      I do not think that word means what you think it means...

    3. Re:once again... by TheUser0x58 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The best of intentions? I hardly agree that the PATRIOT Act was signed into law with the best of intentions. It was a huge power grab by federal law enforcement authorities from the very start, legislating control to the FBI et al. way beyond what they really need to combat domestic terrorism. 9/11 was just a convenient pretext to make this power grab.

      --
      -- listen to interesting music, support independent radio... WPRB
    4. Re:once again... by daliman · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, you know; most of us thought that the Patriot act allowed so much it would be impossible to actually breach!

    5. Re:once again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Quick! Throw all your tea into Boston harbour ... isn't that how you guys normally deal with tyrannical regimes?

    6. Re:once again... by Alien+Being · · Score: 5, Funny

      harboUr?

      Shuah, we put the tea in, but we took out 'u'. Most of us don't bothah with the ahhs eithah. The word is habah. So thayah.

    7. Re:once again... by jambarama · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That is such a patently false idea I don't know where to start. 'Starve the beast' is one of the most idiotic GOP strategies in decades. This is what is wrong:
      1. The programs that suffer lost funds aren't the ones we want to. You know what suffers? Education, NPR, et cetera. All you have to do is argue that this agency or that one, is in the interest of national security and you actually protecting all the kids who are losing funding for a theater department.
      2. The beast has been starving for years. We've run massive deficits for years, and not had a problem continuing. We haven't even had a problem expanding spending. The beast will not be starved into submission, we have to take political action.

      Write your legislators, tell them you want them to cut spending, kill the patriot act, or kill certain *ahem* agencies.

  2. Re:So by DeafByBeheading · · Score: 5, Funny

    I, for one, am shocked. I was under the impression that the Patriot Act gave the FBI such broad powers that it didn't leave us any rights for the government to abuse.

    --
    Telltale Games: Bone, Sam and Max
  3. Absolute power corrupts absolutely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. - Lord Acton

  4. To the sarcastic Americans by aussie_a · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    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 willl take them away.

    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.

    1. Re:To the sarcastic Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      I'm still working on becoming a billionaire so I can do something. Not quite there yet. But if you have any suggestions on something to do in the mean time that isn't standing outside with a sign and being laughed at by people with power, I'm all ears.

    2. Re:To the sarcastic Americans by SeaFox · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      Did you vote?

      Spoken like someone who has never voted before themselves.

      Lets see, do you want to drown in water or be burned to death? Whould you prefer your table lean too far to the Right or too far to the Left? It's not like there's always a choice that will make things All Right. Sometimes we can only choose between a devil with blue horns and one with red ones. Many of the people who I would be quite interested to see as President, Congressman, ect don't run. And is it any wonder? Would you want to be blamed for problems of at least a third of the country at any one time? How about that electroral college. Why the fuck do I go to the polls as part of the only blue city n a red state, I might as well not vote at all. Yeah, you heard me. It literally DOES NOT MATTER if I vote. When the reciepient of "my" support is already a forgone conclusion.

      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 willl take them away.

      And what would you suggest we do? A massive political movement only works when it is massive. There are too many people who like things as they are. Too many who aren't even aware of any of this because they are too distracted by mass entertainment. And too many more who are afraid to do something. More afraid of what would happen if they did something than if their rights be stripped away instead. Maybe it's from seeing those Eastern bloc countries that have revolutions or civil wars get plunged into a Third World status for a decade while they recover.

      People have retirement nest-eggs locked up in mutual funds and kids about to graduate college (or just being born) and the last thing they want is someone to overturn the boat and flush the economy and the country's infastrcture down the tubes over something they really aren't that worried about (even though they should). People are frightened of change.

      Maybe wherever you are it's normal to hear mortar fire at night and have a differnt President get overthrown every nine months, or have friends die fighting the police but to the people of a country that hasn't seen a war on it's own soil in several decades the idea of doing anything drastic with our nation's leadership is downright terrifying.

      So people posting here obviously do care. But what have you done to protect them?

      Becoming one of a few who end up as martyrs is not nearly as productive as staying alive to work for change other ways. Until the sentiment is held by a larger view all we're asking for is to be labeled paranoid fools by acting up. Another Ruby Ridge for the 11 o'clock news.

  5. Re:Power only exists to be abused by Timo_UK · · Score: 5, Informative

    > The American idea of dividing the powers up 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.

    --
    Timo's Audio Software http://www.esseraudio.com
  6. Re:More Paranoid Rhetoric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    300 steps? If it's already that much trouble, why not make it 301 steps by... say... going through the judicial branch to get a warrant? Actually, I have a feeling doing it that way might take out about 200 of those other steps. But then you'd actually need -evidence- to invade people's privacy, so nevermind.

  7. Re:Power only exists to be abused by ip_fired · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Something does need to change. It seems that it has become too easy for politicians to give away our rights in the name of fighting terrorism. However, I don't think those suggestions will help the situation.

    The Senate is there to provide each state with equal representation. Each state gets 2 senators. If it were reapportioned as you suggest, California would have 50 senators, New York would have 40 and the remaining 10 would be split among the other more wealthy states.

    In addition, the White House (the Executive Branch) needs to be a part of the budget process because they need to inform Congress about the amount of money that they need to do their jobs. After all, they "execute" or actually enforce the laws and actually "do" stuff. Without them, gov't would be pointless. Congress still passes the budget, so the money generally isn't given to the executive branch if there is a disagreement (ie, when the gov't is shut down for a week or more because the budget hasn't be decided yet).

    --
    Don't count your messages before they ACK.
  8. Jefferson should be required reading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Why suspend the habeas corpus in insurrections and rebellions? The parties who may be arrested may be charged instantly with a well defined crime; of course, the judge will remand them. If the public safety requires that the government should have a man imprisoned on less probable testimony in those than in other emergencies, let him be taken and tried, retaken and retried, while the necessity continues, only giving him redress against the government for damages. Examine the history of England. See how few of the cases of the suspension of the habeas corpus law have been worthy of that suspension. They have been either real treasons, wherein the parties might as well have been charged at once, or sham plots, where it was shameful they should ever have been suspected. Yet for the few cases wherein the suspension of the habeas corpus has done real good, that operation is now become habitual and the minds of the nation almost prepared to live under its constant suspension." --Thomas Jefferson--

    "The following [addition to the Bill of Rights] would have pleased me:...No person shall be held in confinement more than __ days after he shall have demanded and been refused a writ of habeas corpus by the judge appointed by law, nor more than __ days after such a writ shall have been served on the person holding him in confinement, and no order given on due examination for his remandment or discharge, nor more than __ hours in any place of a greater distance than __ miles from the usual residence of some judge authorized to issue the writ of habeas corpus; nor shall that writ be suspended for any term exceeding one year, nor in any place more than __ miles distant from the station or encampment of enemies or of insurgents." --Thomas Jefferson--

    "Our [legislators should not] be deluded by the integrity of their own purposes and conclude that... unlimited powers will never be abused because themselves are not disposed to abuse them. They should look forward to a time, and that not a distant one, when corruption in this as in the country from which we derive our origin will have seized the heads of government and be spread by them through the body of the people; when they will purchase the voices of the people and make them pay the price. Human nature is the same on each side of the Atlantic, and will be alike influenced by the same causes." --Thomas Jefferson--

    "By a declaration of rights, I mean one which shall stipulate freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce against monopolies, trial by juries in all cases, no suspensions of the habeas corpus, no standing armies. These are fetters against doing evil which no honest government should decline." --Thomas Jefferson--

  9. Re:Power only exists to be abused by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Informative

    England is where the modern idea of a constitutional democracy took root with the signing of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_carta. Interestingly, the English parliment was formed by a group of wealthy Barrons who forced the king to divest some of his power because he was screwing up their bussiness interests (seems aggressive lobbying is nothing new).

    The parent post is however correct, the Greeks invented the basic "seperation of powers" concept, every other democracy since that time has simply tinkered with the details.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.