Slashdot Mirror
Audit Finds FBI Abused Patriot Act
happyslayer writes to mention that according to Yahoo! News a recent audit shows that the FBI has improperly and in some cases illegally utilized the Patriot Act to obtain information. "The audit by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine found that FBI agents sometimes demanded personal data on individuals without proper authorization. The 126-page audit also found the FBI improperly obtained telephone records in non-emergency circumstances. The audit blames agent error and shoddy record-keeping for the bulk of the problems and did not find any indication of criminal misconduct. Still, 'we believe the improper or illegal uses we found involve serious misuses of national security letter authorities,' the audit concludes."
What are the chances that anyone will ever - ever - be arrested over this?
Who would have thought...
I mean, seriously does anybody really feel any surprise at all when reading this ?
...
And if so what drug are you on
Law enforcement agencies will abuse any law to get the maximum leverage that they
can, it does not matter that the laws they use were not originally intended for
the purpose they are being used for.
In NL we only recently got the obligation to carry ID, ostensibly to fight heavy
criminals that would not ID themselves. Of course now you can get arrested a
lot easier for say being a jogger and having no ID on you.
And that has already happened to a lot of people, but not to the so called heavy
criminals.
if you want to stop this trend I'm afraid it will take a lot more than a vote in
a ballot box at some point.
if that is still possible...
MP3 Search Engine
The Constitution was not made to protect criminals but to prevent the Government from becoming criminals.
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
Audit Finds FBI Abused Patriot Act
So did they snort it, or smoke it?
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
And this is news because...Just what did the framers of this law think would happen. You give people tools they will use them regardless of the intended purpose.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Funny. I seem to recall a lot of screaming about the possibility for abuse and I distinctly recall being told to shut the fuck up, we can *trust* them to do the right thing.
pfft.
Run. I like water. Push My rutabaga.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
We've been hearing about these kinda things since days after it went into effect. Why has it taken 5 years for our elected leaders to take action?
What's next? Libarachi was gay? Say it ain't so!
Chris Knight is my hero.
They needed an audit to find this out? It seemed readily apparent from the beginning that not only the FBI, but the entire government was "misusing" the Patriot Act.
I guess, maybe we can't trust those in power.
Welcome back, Tricky Dick!
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
The Constitution was not made to protect criminals but to prevent the Government from becoming criminals.
Yeah, but if you just change your reading of the Constitution, then you can do whatever you want! It's just a goddamn piece of paper, right?
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Wow, government abusing more powers given by its dumbass citizens. YA FUCKIN THINK!
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
These audits don't normally come to light over a popular issue. The patriot act had been declining in popularity (and consequently usefulness as an excuse to gather information). Is this perhaps a foreboding of things to come? Maybe public sentiment sent waves through federal government and the yield is a federal audit that culminates into the patriot act being revoked? One hand washes another, no arrests are made, no harm no foul. Could it be that some FBI agents will act as a scapegoat and the federal government leverages this unauthorized use as their good deed for the quarter to instill trust in the populace once more?
At least show the man some repect by spelling it right
http://www.liberace.org/
The act ITSELF was an abuse.
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
As a citizen of the People's Republic of China, let me be the first to say this is just another example of what a hoax America's so-called "free democracy" is. What has it gotten you? Constatn surveillance by your own government, a ballooning national debt, an endless, unwinnable war in the middle east, and the withering contempt of all other nations of the world.
I'd bet my Party membership that any randomly chosen citzen of the PRC is happier, healthier, and more truly free than an citizen of the USA. You people are going to be sorry you didn't switch to Communism when you had the chance.
And now it's too late. At least you have NASCAR, ha ha.
According to GW Bush, "They hate our freedoms." I guess he figures if we get rid of our freedoms, they'll quit hating us. Nothing else makes much sense.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
The simple fact is that human nature tends to cause us to use power whenever we can. This is the reason that there are checks and balances in our government. Some smart guys realized a few hundred years ago, that a position with unchecked power will eventually be abused by a person seeking personal gain.
This is a fact.
This is a truth of humanity.
Laws such as the patriot act, which remove checks and balances and allow individuals or small groups of like-minded individuals to act unilaterally in a way that is damaging to the rights of other citizens is a gross violation of this principle and is evidence to a loss of touch with what our government is put in place to do.
While protecting the people is a primary goal of a government, protecting the people must weigh protections both on the freedom and liberty of people against the PHYSICAL protection of people.
Unfortunately, our society is so sheltered from physical trauma, we have grown risk-averse in a disturbing way.
A few hundred years ago, when most people did not reach 60, and 1/4 of children died before adolescence, we had a realistic view of how important liberty is in our society. People dealt with death and destruction, as it was part of nature. Liberty, however, was not a constant and had to be protected at all costs.
Today, people take liberty for granted and so fear death and destruction that they will throw away their liberty for temporary saftey.
This is the trap which our founding fathers warned us against. They saw its power and also its danger.
We need to open our eyes to that truth as well.
Stew
There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
Welcome back, Tricky Dick!
The tactics (and some of the players) never really left, they've only refined the techniques and the spin to explain it away to an apathetic public. At least Nixon stepped down when he was caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
The Patriot Act *itself* is abuse of power.
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
Law enforcement oversteps legal boundaries. News at 11.
I agree, but not with your theory about what caused it. The people granting the government more and more power is directly attributable to people that have socialist leanings.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
.... should be just like using Vista:
"Your rights guaranteed by the constitution are about to be violated. Cancel or allow?"
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
LOL how often have we heard conservatives sniping at people who object to the expansive, unchecked powers of the Patriot Acts? Now do you understand what "nation of laws not a nation of men" means? This is why you don't give the government totalitarian powers (even if it's your party) and turn your back expecting them not to be abused. Let the March of the Frogs begin!
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
So all the people who regularly point out how much "better" a society Sweden is than the US, either have to: - entirely backtrack - agree that domestic surveillance really ISN'T that big a deal - just be hypocrites. (grabs some popcorn) OK, let's start discussing!
cops hardly ever give speeding tickets to other cops.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
I mean really, this is the FBI. Is anyone really surprised by this? It's against their moral code to play by the rules.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Ain't that the truth. I was surprised to learn earlier this week that Rumsfield and Cheney were both in the Nixon Whitehouse.
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who oversees the FBI, described the problems cited in the report as unacceptable and left open the possibility of criminal charges. He ordered further investigation.
"Once we get that information, we'll be in a better position to assess what kinds of steps should be taken," Gonzales told reporters following a speech to privacy officials.
Looks like Scooter will not be alone in line for a pardon from the Prez!
I lost my sig...
Justice Department audit of the FBI - 126 pages
Microsoft submission for an 'open' document format - 6000 pages
Let's have the Justice Department audit Microsoft.
The whole thing is whacked, but the end result is that if people need protection, and they are FORBIDDEN from protecting themselves, then the power either goes to government (who will botch the job) or criminals will become even more powerful. Guns only give power when the criminals are the only ones that have them. What do you think the incidence of street crime would be if you had a 90%+ chance of being shot if you tried something?
Exactly.
film at 11.
I both agree and disagree.
I think that people with FEDERALIST leanings are more to blame. Isolated pockets of socialism are not damaging when they are confined. At that point, it becomes a choice, rather than an obligation. For example, if California decided they wanted welfare, excelelnt. It is the nationwide push for such things that cause problems.
Our country was designed (and was most efficiently operated) as a loosely coupled federation of states. The federal control extended to ALMOST nothing, except where it concerned one state accepting the laws of other states and where it concerned international trade, commerce, war and diplomacy.
In this structure, if California becomes corrupt with power, you are free to move to Oregon. Presumably, there would develop a certain state of homeostasis between locations as like minded individuals move together and learn to inter operate with other groups of unlike minded people.
On the far other extreme end from your socialist comment lies a society of laissez-faire corporate oligarchy, not seen since the "oil baron" days of entire cities, owned, policed and supervised by corporate regulations and institutions, where corporations oppress citizens in exactly the same way, from exactly the opposite direction.
Surely there is a balance in the middle?
Regardless, the balance must be approached seperately by a number of smaller state governments, rather than centrally by a bureaucratic federal dictatorship.
Stew
There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
I am so not surprised from that. I think I'm going to have a heart attack and die from lack of surprise.
Foremost, to become a criminal there must be a contract in place that provides for someone to commit or perform an unlawful act, the benefit therefrom, the acceptance and agreement thereto both parties to the contract, and the Consideration given.
The FBI abusing the Patriot Act is like proving the Mafia is abusing Brass Knuckles. The Patriot Act is unlawful to begin with. It is in the Admiralty Venue to accomadate the misplaced Trust to their administration or ministry. Next we'll see from the front page of Slashdot is how the Department of Agriculture and the US ARMY abused Anthrax on Plum Island; it's not lawful from the verry inception. Abuse and Patriot Act in the same sentance is, need I say, redundant. Believe me, I know; I'm a Network Redundancy Administrator!
without prejudice
The Moral is:
Never give the government a power that you would not feel comfortable in having your worst enemy exercise.
(Because someday they will)
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
They've been in the Bush '43 administration for over six years and you're just now learning enough about them to realize that they were also in the Nixon administration?
I hope you're not a US citizen of voting age. If you are, it's having a voting public dominated by people like you that is the cause of a good portion of our problems.
Jack : Bill? This is Jack!
Bill : Yes Jack, what can I do for you?
Jack : Bill, you'll have to go under the radar for this one. Nobody must know about this? I need you to use the CTU database to find a login/password for www.parisexposed.com.
Bill : Jack, this is illegal! We dont have a warrant!
Jack : Bill, I need you, this is our only lead!
The insurgency that is dying is the one that began 230 odd years ago, against a distant King in England, by a ragtag group of people who believed in liberty. What kind of country we have now, if our citizenry can be so scared by the loss of couple of skyscrapers and surrender the freedoms so quickly?
The insurgency led by Geroge Washington and Thomas Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers is really in its last throes.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
what is important is how they act on this audit.
http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
The present surge in non-liberal ideas is not being driven by socialist tendencies but by the statist tendencies latent in good old fashion conservatism. Recall that in the early modern era that the autocrats that were being overthrown weren't socialists so much as hereditary monarchs. While it is true that some forms (maybe even most forms) of socialism tends towards statism that doesn't mean that every tendency towards statism originates in socialism.
You must have gone to a great high school! By the way, no one puts much stock in guilt by association anymore or else both Bill and Hillary Clinton would be in jail right now.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
"is directly attributable to people that have authoritarian leanings" Fixed that for ya.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Nixon, Reagan, and both Bushes. Just take a look at the history of anybody in the current administration. 90% of them had a part in one of these previous administrations too. It's gotten to the point where it doesn't matter if the President has term limits. They can keep cycling in the same people at other levels of the executive branch and bypass this little limit on power.
Oh, and of course Democrats would do that too, but this bunch has the gall to keep bringing in people that should have been banned from the executive branch many times over.
of using intellegence to disprove intellegence. way to go.
http://wstewart.php0h.com - the sugarbuzz project blog
Wasn`t that the reason behind the patriot act anyway?
Surprised? Nah, not really.
These people took the power our congress gave to them and abused it. Maybe it was on purpose and maybe it was by accident. We'll never know.
Is the FBI a "good" organization or a "Bad" organization? Neither. The FBI is persuing its organizational goals which are to gather information about people. The fact that the information it gathers and the tactics it uses fall on one side or another of an arbitrary line defining "good" or "bad" changes nothing.
The fact is that gathering ANY information on ANY person in ANY way is inherently abusive.
Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
The concept of individual weapon ownership may have been a deterrent to both criminals and governments, from the times of the Greeks through World War 1.
Since World War 1, it is no longer a deterrent to governments.
As has been shown in overseas wars, a small detachment of a dozen or so trained marines with modern weapons can mow down several thousand citizens. This is not utilizing things such as cruise missles, air strikes, battleships, or even more feared weapons like tactical nukes, napalm, bio and chemical, etc.
The simple fact is that no matter HOW MANY guns and knives a person might have in their home, the government can destroy them from outer space, with no manpower, no risk and no fear. This nullifies the deterrent of weapons far more than any "gun control" does.
Stew
There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
>and so fear death and destruction that they will throw away their liberty for temporary saftey.
To put it this way is to fall into the rhetorical trap laid by the cynical power seekers. A statement like that one reinforces the idea that we're safer as a result of ignoring the Constitution.
The extra powers, for the stated purposes, are both unnecessary and useless. Unnecessary, because the FBI could have rolled up the 9/11 cells under pre-9/11 law (see the Colleen Rowley memo). Useless, as we see in practise. What real terrorist, as opposed to absurd wannabes, has been caught using the new powers created by USAPATRIOT?
We are not trading freedom for safety. We are giving it away for free.
"By the way, no one puts much stock in guilt by association anymore or else both Bill and Hillary Clinton would be in jail right now."
For?
before answering, bear in mind that all charges brought against them were investigated very heavly by republicans looking to get them. Nothing was found.
So, are you just completly ignorant, a FUD spreading turd? or do you bring new information to the table(always welcome)?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Much, if not the majority, of the US populace puts a large amount of stock in the notion of guilt by association. This is why the US Constitution prohibits it.
Government agencies misusing the powers they are given? Who would have thought such a thing possible!?
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
See also: Confederation vs Federation
The US Federal Government became an increasingly centralized concentration of power - a very choice plum, ripe for the picking by the neo-con ["fascist": I.E. "National Socialist"] regime that seized power in 2000 and instituted what has since become the Dubya Regime.
Did anyone expect that the so-called USA PATRIOT Act would not be abused by the FBI? If so, who? And when? The reason the Act itself is an abuse is very simply that it was designed and implemented specifically so it could be abused - the fairy tales told on Faux News notwithstanding. Does anyone not see that?
The real question is (imo): What about all those agencies that haven't been auditted yet? Remember, this obscenity of an Act of Congress (the USA PATRIOT Act) was mandated for use across the spectrum - from Federal to state and local levels.
"The Internet is made of cats."
Not all abuse is the same, and we should be clear here as to what the FBI actually did and didn't do. A good analogy here is that an FBI agent using their service firearm to unjustly shoot and kill a civilian is different from FBI agents failing to keep track of which agents have which guns and make sure they return them when they leave the agency. One case you expect criminal prosecution and the other case you'd expect some administrative action.
Same here. No one is alleging that the FBI used these Patriot Act powers outside of their intended purpose. What the FBI didn't do, that they should have, was properly account for the letters they did use, specifically, properly count the number used, and properly follow up with the recipients of the letters.
So yes, if FBI agents were using this power to get information that the law was not designed for them to get, then I'd expect criminal prosecution. But, as it appears is the case, the FBI just didn't properly ACCOUNT for the letters they did use, an administrative penalty seems perfectly sufficient to address the problem.
That all, of course, is separate from the issue of whether this law should exist at all (it shouldn't).
paintball
Well said.
The patriot act, is not constitutional, therefore is not and can never be legal. If the government is breaking the laws it becomes a criminal orgination much like the mob itself. It has no basis for its athority and rules most people out of fear just like the mob.. Part of the problem the people have getting rid of it might be.. people often try to change government with government.
Actually it could also be said "..to become a criminal one must *perform* an unlawful act. (emphasis on arresting people for actual crimes they commit vs. arresting people for crimes they *might* commit) The Patriot Act is more about stoping crimes before they happen.. and thats also a problem.
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
I think that is spelled FEUDALIST.
I understand that we all mistrust the government and its agents here. Question Authority (but not mine), and Stick it to the Man (but I'm not him) - right?
So somebody please explain to me who was harmed by these FBI "crimes." I would love to hear one actual, real concrete example of one person whose fundamental, inalienable rights were violated by this.
I'm waiting.
(and I probably will be for a while.)
In other news, the sky is still blue. More at 6.
Funny. I seem to recall a lot of screaming about the possibility for abuse and I distinctly recall being told to shut the fuck up, we can *trust* them to do the right thing.
The problem with this whole discussion is that it's about the FBI failing to keep track of how many letters they issued.
So now the government is saying "We'll keep better track of how many letters we issue, problem solved!"
NO! PROBLEM NOT SOLVED!
The *REAL* problem is that the government can compel release of private information WITHOUT A WARRANT! All this fiasco does is let the government substitute 'not counting the number of letters' for the REAL problem of 'being able to issue letters' and then pretend that since they've solved problem #1 that there is no problem at all.
paintball
The audit blames agent error and shoddy record-keeping for the bulk of the problems and did not find any indication of criminal misconduct
So, the audit showed they abused the Patriot Act in a way that impacts the citizenry... how, exactly?
Don't get me wrong. I'm sure there have been, are, and will be abuses: such is human nature. But will an audit REALLY (I mean, REALLY) catch it? I think not. If you're going to rely on audits by the government on the government to catch government abuse resulting in any punishment than someone rubbing their fingers together with "shame-shame" language, you really ought to rethink it.
If you were waiting until seeing an article like this to know that the Patriot Act is ripe for abuses and cause for alarm, I guess that's a positive thing. But your feelers should have been out about this sort of thing for a while now.
More Twoson than Cupertino
OMG The urban legend that won't die.
Show me a case where somebody was defending themselves against a burgler and went to prison. Unless it was plainly silly like the burglar was shot in the back while running away two blocks from where the break in happened.
Due to the Enron fallout, Congress passes the kneejerk reaction Sarbanes Oxley law to require publicly traded companies to perform audits every year dumping $++ down the drain to have auditors with CPA backgrounds to come in and review technical systems. In the event that companies dont comply, management is held personally/finacially liable for the actions and/or mistatements that occur.
Are we going to have to have a fully collapsed wing of the government collapse before they realize that someone needs to hold them accountable for what they do? Is this the first audit/review that has occured of the FBI? The PCAOB, the ones that set the Auditing Standards for public companies, should re-evaluate their standards, practice what they preach and audit each one of the government agencies. Then, the government agency management should be held personally and financially liable.
Also, from a project design/management standpoint where is the 'plan do check act' cycle here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDCA
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Since the first rule of National Security Letters is not to talk about National Security Letters, then ya, it will be a good while till you hear an actual example.
Or did you mean that surveillance, eavesdropping, searching and financial snooping aren't violations of fundamental, inalienable rights? If that's the case, I won't argue. If we can't agree on what's fundamental, there's nothing really to discuss. BTW, can I have your SSN?
I am not a crackpot.
and put clauses in the Patriot Act reauthorization requiring that Congress receive audit information about the FBI's use of the Act.
y _from_Patriot_Act_oversight/
But Bush appended a signing statement to the reauthorization of the Patriot Act stating he "did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act's expanded police powers." http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Bush_declares_immunit
The fact is, and remains, no terrorist has ever been arrested because of the powers granted by the Patriot act. However, many tax evaders, drug dealers and even the wayward Democratic members of the Texas legislature have been tracked down/apprehended using the powers granted in the Patriot act.
This is not legislation for the capture of terrorists! This is legislation for the abuse of citizens of the USA.
Fuck 'em! Just fuck 'em!
I suppose most people will start clapping their hands singing "I told y#($%#$%@![NO CARRIER]
Don't drag Cheney into this. Yes, he was hunting again, but he was hundreds of miles away when Captain America was shot.
Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.
The spokesperson of the Justice department has conceded that abuses have occurred. He categorized them as being ``small in number'' and asserted that ``it appears'' that no harm was done to either individual persons or corporations.
So your analogy isn't very apt; it's more like a police bureau not only not tracking the issuing of bureau firearms to officers but saying that it didn't keep track and in a large number of situations they have been fired in situations that did not warrant that extent of force but that situations where intent was malicious were small in number and that it doesn't look like any innocent bystanders were hit.
Read the government's own report on the matter. The incidents categorized as ``improper'' fit the analogy you brought up. These are incidents where the appropriate paper work simply wasn't done or was done incorrectly. But there are also incidents categorized as ``illegal.'' These are incidents where the FBI retrieved email, phone records, or financial information in an illegal fashion. The report lists four incidents of this type. This says to me that any FBI agent presently has the ability to get almost any information he or she desires. I'd feel a lot more comfortable if the report had detailed disciplinary actions taken against the agents responsible for these abuses.
But of more concern to me are the nineteen incidents where the recipient of the letter responded with information outside the scope of the letter that was (in most cases) illegal for the recipients to furnish without a court order. It isn't just the FBI at fault here, it's also the telecoms, ISPs and credit bureaus who are abusing their positions of power.
I remember a story on Boing Boing where a guy shot an intruder in his home. Turned out later that the intruder was a plainclothes police officer who did not announce his identity or intentions. I think he was facing a lenghty prison sentence but I don't know what eventually happened.
I'm also pretty sure that here in Finland it's definitely illegal to shoot an intruder unless you can demonstrate that you had no choice and were in mortal danger.
What are the chances that a government agency would ever overstep its bounds. No seriously, what are the chances? 100%? 110%?
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
Maybe not now, but sooner or later they will be.
Be absolutely confident, 100%, no doubt.
I mean, like DUH-- power always gets abused. That is why the founders of the US tried to mitigate it via separation of powers. That is why it is so important to limit the use of such things carefully, and not just buy off on pleas to "we're all in danger, trust us".
And today the abuse may may be inadvertent, but if nobody says anything tomorrow they'll remember they got away with it yesterday and use it intentionally...
but - it's the perfect word to get the anti-patriot act people worked up for sure. there's abuses in EVERYTHING, EVERYWHERE. does that mean the whole thing is wrong and needs to be canceled? there's abuses in how abortions are performed and that's regarding a human life, not just a phone call. but you don't hear people getting as worked up over it.
Our country was designed (and was most efficiently operated) as a loosely coupled federation of states[...]rather than centrally by a bureaucratic federal dictatorship.
As a resident of Alabama with practical reasons keeping me from moving, let me be the first to welcome our bureaucratic federal overlords.
Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.
The problems identified by the IG are problems of process in terms of recordkeeping and reporting, which are administrative. The process in terms of operation and use of the information was not found to be problematic. The IG found no deliberate or intentional misuse of authority, and there were no infringements on privacy rights or civil liberties. Even though recordkeeping and reporting was inadequate, actual use of information was appropriate.
The concept of individual weapon ownership may have been a deterrent to both criminals and governments, from the times of the Greeks through World War 1.
.223)? Now imagine pockets of the population with an AK or equivalent taking potshots. Terror will not win a war, but it sure as heck would make make a bad situation get uglier. It looks like the existing government structure in Iraq may get toppled over before they even get going. Guess what I'm saying is individual weapon ownership can be a very destabilizing element, was recognized as such, and deemed a reasonable deterrent from keeping the government from going into deep weeds with it's citizens. The government would be in real trouble, however, before something like this would come into play. I don't think America is even close to that sort of scenario but if you look at other countries where things are open riots, warlords, and things generally in chaos it may matter.
Since World War 1, it is no longer a deterrent to governments.
As has been shown in overseas wars, a small detachment of a dozen or so trained marines with modern weapons can mow down several thousand citizens. This is not utilizing things such as cruise missiles, air strikes, battleships, or even more feared weapons like tactical nukes, napalm, bio and chemical, etc.
The simple fact is that no matter HOW MANY guns and knives a person might have in their home, the government can destroy them from outer space, with no manpower, no risk and no fear. This nullifies the deterrent of weapons far more than any "gun control" does.
Yes and no.
Against a traditional battle scenario, tech/training/tactics can be crushing. The problem the US faces in Iraq today is the loosely organized militia units. Sure, we have superior technology and weapons. Even have kit that helps identify snipers. But... The hand made booby traps, the sniping, the hit and run tactics - all of these things make it damn hard to take advantage of those superior equipment/training. This was true 200 years ago when we successfully rebelled against the Brits as it is today. Do you remember what two people did sniping with a common gopher gun (semi auto
So anyhow, I agree that small arms are not a deterrent to a stable government. Something like the Middle East, I'm less sure I agree with you.
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
Now those cases do make me mad. If somebody kicks in your front door and yells (or doesn't) "POLICE!" how the heck are you supposed to know if they're telling the truth before it's to late to do anything about it. It's not like you can ask to see their badge.
As someone from outside the USA who recently witnessed a visit by Cheney I could tell the spirit of your constitution is being ignored - you elect your monarchs but it was still a visit by an unaccountable prince who expected to be treated with more pomp than our own royalty at every step. We even had to change our gun laws for his visit - ironic considering his recent history with firearms. Whoever comes after George III from whichever party has a lot of cleaning up to do, paticularly with situations like unaccountable spooks.
So, will they be contacting the individuals whose privacy was wrongfully invaded, or will they more likely sit on that information and shake fingers at the Mueller saying "don't do that again!"? What will they do now?
A lot of political commentators have made the case that what many people see as an enormous increase of power in the executive branch, was very specifically a result of people from the Nixon Administration, when serious curbs were put on the power of the Presidency, trying to reverse those curbs and restore the office back to its previous power.
To put this another way: they *liked* what Nixon was doing, and want Dubya to be able to do the same thing.
It's always good to be the dictator's friend, especially if you're responsible for the dictator having more power.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
How can you have the illegal use of something without having "any indication of criminal misconduct."
I mean it was either illegaly used or it wasn't. You won't hear a DA saying "we found evidence that suspect illegaly used the gun when the person was shot but we don't have "any indication of criminal misconduct." It was either illegal or not.
Unless this is just about paperwork here and the headlines and all are meant to cause a rucus. I just don't see how an illegal act isn't ciminal. Someone please explain this to me!
... water is wet
... drugs are bad
... slavery is freedom
... war is peace
it seems to me that even if these egregious clowns were, in fact, devoid of criminal intent (I don't know if I believe that, anyway) they should hardly be excused of criminal misconduct. Regardless of whether it was just bad recordkeeping, sloppy policework in general (I have a problem with that, in general) or whatever ... they were required to follow the law and they didn't.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
That the constitution also exist to prevent the government from making average citizens into criminals. One thing about making laws is that you can make a law to criminalize something that goes against your personal agenda (RIAA *cough* *cough*), but the constitution is to some extent a check against this (when constitutional rights are upheld by the courts).
Come on people wake the fuck up daa.
That about covers your argument, then.
Or did you mean that surveillance, eavesdropping, searching and financial snooping aren't violations of fundamental, inalienable rights? Actually, that's exactly what I meant. Look - are you American? If not, you're forgiven for being ignorant of the concept of fundamental, inalienable human rights. If you *are*, then you have no excuse - you should understand the basis of our government before you criticize it.
I won't argue. If we can't agree on what's fundamental, there's nothing really to discuss. OK, that's fine. Just know that what you characterize as a "disagreement" is, in reality, something called "you're wrong"
BTW, can I have your SSN? No. Oh... wait. OMG!!! You just totally disproved my point! Because I'm not willing to give my SSN to an anonymous stranger over the internet, I'm completely wrong about this whole debate!
Look - I understand your problem with the government surveilling private individuals. Despite all my sarcasm, I really would prefer that the government butt out of my life as much as possible. That includes butting out of healthcare, education, the free market, keeping an eye on me and my private life, etc. I believe that government should do what ONLY government *can* do. And national security is one of those things that *only* government can do.
So, as unfortunate as it is, I'm willing to accept a restriction on one of my DERIVED rights (the right to privacy) in order to protect one of my FUNDAMENTAL rights (the right to life).
How is this a suprise? More power they are given, the more they'll abuse it. That's why strict limits and penalties are needed for the government.
*It's not what you can do for the Dark Side but what the Dark Side can do for you!*
So somebody please explain to me who was harmed by these FBI "crimes."
Respectfully, I submit it was me, you, and every other American, as our collective rights and liberties have been squashed even more.
Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5
Did you miss the part of the fucking article that says they used it for personal gain and not for anything to do with national security?
after beating the crap outta the Obvious tag
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
According to their Constitution of the United States, no law may violate the law of contract.
I theorize most people think of when I said "commit or perform" is ubiquitous, when in fact I mean what I had thought and written as to assert the difference between an assertion in the Now to commit as different from one Future by Actors to perform. Reading your post, I thought it an opportunity to bump my Head to a sound mind. On matters of what people "might" commit, is a matter of establishing ID as to contract, committing thereto in its execution, and drawing from the value for those that benefit. If any discourse would cause the speculation of arresting the people for what they might commit in Consideration to whomever is party to that contract, to my studies it is found that only a Trustee is subject to arrest; because for a Trustee, the office is holding property on someone's behalf for the benefit of another; that property is Now in dispute to be set aside for a Rehearsel of the Rememdy in the Future. Thereby, all matter of arrest is a dispute over property; contained therein, is the key to comprehend the meaning of "resident" as defined in the earliest of American law jurisprudence and dictionaries origined to the Brittains: a "resident" is a thing (res), known (id), and cordially subject to the dispute. If it were considered for a man to be a thing, then that would need correction to move the verry true name to a man as the trademark(tm) affixed to the property (playwrite script) in dispute.
Looking to Court and its verry preparations would reveal it nothing more than determinations of said Contract to be Rehearsed by actors, as evinced by entry into the theatre in banc to Hear the matter to a wit of pro se or pro per; thereby Done at a time in the Future by those Actors inducted as Officers to the feuding Courts of competant jurisdiction representing the matter.
I suppose the only way for the Patriot Act to facilitate the estoppel in transitu of the execution of a contract (criminal side of determinations), would be if the administration was Party to that crime with a controlling interest. That is bonded with a Security Agreement, is it not?
My thoughts on changing government has been met with preparations, that execution of contract law derived from a prepondered estate in its original mode can't be detracted to any other Country without a Verified Statement of Right by their Executive Administrators. Is this not found in the Congressional Supplements to Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims? Property in the jurisdiction of another or cometing administration may be seized proper, that it be returned to the retinue of their Office. Is this not the evidence of diversification of citizenship?
without prejudice
This is the problem, we Americans are such big pussies. We are so terrified of a few little brown people with box cutters, or a few tweakers wanting to steal our TVs, that we can't hand our freedom over fast enough to the government (do you really think they can protect you anyway). I like the idea of an armed populous to deter crime or the government from abusing power, but I really can't imagine most Americans actually having the balls to pick up their weapons and stand up to the tyrants. Since 9/11, I have been amazed by the irrational fear of all the people around me. I recognize the threat to my safety posed by terrorism. I also recognize the threat to my safety posed by lightning (only slightly less) or car accidents (way more), But I still drive and I still go out in stormy weather. The reason terrorists attack us is because we are the perfect victims. Their weapon is terror, it's right there in the name, they know they can't really do any significant harm to us, so they just try to scare the shit out of us, and it has worked so far. People need to wake up and realize where the dangers really are. We need to demand that the government protect what really matters. Not just our liberties, but also physical dangers that are real threats, like disease and poverty.
rant over
Quoth the W:
All of this was brought upon us in a single day -- and night fell on a different world, a world where freedom itself is under attack.
That's funny, I thought TIA was ordered a year before 9/11/2001.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Back in the 1960s and 1970s, as a result of FBI abuses including targeting of dissident groups, new laws were passed and court decisions occurred putting restrictions on the FBI and on state and local police because of agency misconduct. Consider Bull Connor and his thugs at the Birmingham (Alabama) Police, who felt the appropriate response for peaceful protests was attack dogs and firehosing. We did not 'hobble' them because we wanted to let criminals get away with things, we put restrictions on police because they could not be trusted not to abuse their authority.
You didn't get decisions like Miranda , Escobedo , Mapp , and others because it was thought that it would be a good idea to make the job of law enforcement more difficult, but because law enforcement was acting in an improper and often illegal fashion. Depriving police of the ability to use illegally obtained evidence, of suppressing forced confessions and other such things would, it was claimed, destroy law enforcement. And you know what happened? Police officers learned, generally, to act within the rules, to be professional and to work on finding evidence in a proper manner. But it still wasn't enough.
The Govenor of Illinois had to commute the death sentences of over 150 because of police and prosecutorial misconduct, including cases where prosecutors sought death sentences and sent people they knew were innocent to death row. The incident was so bad that some prosecutors were arrested for misconduct.
There is an old saying in Latin, Quos custodes ipsos custodes?, i.e. Who will watch the watchers? When the police don't have serious restrictions, they will do anything they can get away with. Sometimes the police act properly and in a professinal manner. Sometimes the police can be almost as bad as the people they are supposed to catch.
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
What we are seeing though is a sort of "socialism through the corporation". This is the problem. Liberals and socialists are happy to vote for Democrats that increase welfare to corporations that do "socially good things" (think Medicaid, WIC, and other corporate subsidies). Conservatives are happy to vote for Republicans that increase welfare to corporations that build things like Humvees and bombs and rebuild the countries we blow up.
The end result of all this is that we are funneling trillions of dollars from the taxpayer to a few hundred corporations. This is socialism turned into its worst form, socialism of the corporation, i.e. fascism.
On the other end of this the large corporations, through lobbies, leverage directly the coercive force of the government with laws like the DMCA, UCITA, etc.
The only solution I see is to strip the federal government of power. If the government has no power, it cannot be wielded for these corporate ends. That will truly restore the balance.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
How do you know if it is the real police? Simple, legit bad guys will number 2 or 3 and have shot guns and/or pistols. Real police will number 12 or more and have fully automatic AK-47's and hand grenades.
What? ®
Sadly, I don't see what the surprise is here. Congress passed these crappy laws limiting our civil liberties. All of us crazy, un-patriotic Libertarian wackos said that these laws would be abused. Washington and the general populace said that they would only be used to arrest the terrorists. They passed with flying colors. Everyone except the crazy, un-patriotic Libertarian wackos was happy. Lo and behold, 5 short years later, we find that these laws are being abused. Big surprise. Sadly, I am too jaded and cynical to even get upset. It's not like we didn't see this coming.
-Arthur
Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
SHOCKED that governments abuse power.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
In The USA, the bad guys would probobly have more firepower than the real cops. Does anyone recall the Hollywood shootout? The LAPD had to BORROW weapons from a gun dealer to take on these guys.
-William
God is everything science has yet to explain.
You are right about that and it was a real eye opener for police all across the country. Things have changed now. I get the impression that SWAT teams seem to be available in every small town, not just big cities.
What? ®
Yeah and they have a really bad habit of using SWAT teams in the most innapropriate of circumstances. Nothing like watching a bunch of guys jump out of unmarked minivans in ski masks carrying automatic weapons to go kick in your neighbors door in the middle of the afternoon.
So somebody please explain to me who was harmed by these FBI "crimes."
In the short term, Alberto Gonzales will be harmed when the Democrat whiners get their way and he has to resign. After that, the American people will be harmed when he's replaced with an AG who's too timid to do what needs to be done to protect the country.
So somebody please explain to me who was harmed by these FBI "crimes." I would love to hear one actual, real concrete example of one person whose fundamental, inalienable rights were violated by this.
and you responded:
Respectfully, I submit it was me, you, and every other American, as our collective rights and liberties have been squashed even more.
OK. Let me repeat the part of my original question that you ignored:
one actual, real concrete example
I am still waiting.
Um, yeah I missed that part. Mostly because it exists in your own head, not in the actual text of the article. Seriously, I read the article pretty thoroughly before I even started posting. You sounded so certain that you convinced me that I missed something the first time, so I went back and read it again. And again.
Which part of the article was that again? Show me a quote. And remember, I'm not wearing the same tinfoil hat that you are, so it should probably be a pretty clear, unambiguous quote about how specific FBI agents used private information obtained illegally for their own, specific personal gain, and it would help if the quote said what that gain was - you know, fraud, blackmail, etc.
Good luck with that.
I think that people with FEDERALIST leanings are more to blame. Isolated pockets of socialism are not damaging when they are confined. At that point, it becomes a choice, rather than an obligation. For example, if California decided they wanted welfare, excelelnt. It is the nationwide push for such things that cause problems.
...
Presumably, there would develop a certain state of homeostasis between locations as like minded individuals move together and learn to inter operate with other groups of unlike minded people.
Unfortunately based on the civil rights history in this country, individual states haven't had a very good track record of making sure all their citizens are afforded basic human rights. We've tried this technique with slavery, and all that accomplished was such resentment between states that embraced slavery versus those that had previously abolished it that nearly half a million people died fighting over it.
It took 80 years for this country to recognize the fact that states had the same duty as the federal government to uphold the rights granted to all citizens in the Constitution and its amendments. It took about another 80 before serious efforts to enforce the 14th amendment were made. In 1950, blatant racism was rampant throughout the South and most Northern cities and prejudice against Catholics, Jews, homosexuals, and other groups was common across the country. It wasn't until the federal courts started to recognize "separate but equal" was a bunch of BS and acted to get states in line that blacks started getting even a modicum of rights in most parts of this country.
Even now, I suspect nothing would have come out of the Rodney King beating, the Charles Stuart case in Boston ("blame it on a black man"), or the Matthew Shepard tragedy if the feds weren't there to enforce people's rights. Many in those areas supported the injustices committed, and DA's and AG's would be unwilling or unable to successfully prosecute such cases.
It's one thing to leave tax policy, welfare, alcohol laws, and most business to the states, provided the laws in theory and in fact treat everyone equally. However, when cities and states fail to respect the rights of citizens, someone needs to hold them accountable. And unfortunately when people really get the shaft, they're incapable of doing much about it. Think not being able to vote because one's polling place ran out of ballots or gets mysteriously closed for "health reasons." Or being denied an education so basic that they're incapable of using the Yellow Pages to look up a job training center or a welfare office. When you've got people that are so poor in these circumstances that they're incapable of affording a $20 ticket on Greyhound, the idea that people will be able to move around to better themselves doesn't go very far.
The balance of power may be somewhat biased towards Washington, but completely stripping the federal government of its powers has its own issues that are equally scary as the the trend we've seen in recent years. Are 50 tyrannies any better than one? Not as far as I'm concerned. The federal government needs to check against the abuses of individual states and the states need to check against abuses of the federal government
And the states do have a method of recourse against the federal government. Contrary to popular belief, Congress is not required to amend the Constitution. If 34 states pass legislation proposing and amendment and 38 state constitutional conventions then ratify it, the amendment is enacted, Pennsylvania Avenue be damned. It's a shame that we haven't been inventive enough yet to use this technique against Washington.
Yes, I completely agree with you that it's a tradeoff. Like I said, I would like to not have to wonder if every weird 'click' I hear during a phone conversation is some FBI agent listening in on me.
I would like to believe that the threat of terrorism is a myth, and that we're really not in any significant danger.
Look - I'm not going to say this in an attempt to convince you of anything. I could just be some random self-important interweb liar for all you know. I only want to explain why I feel the way I do. I work for the DoD and a while ago, I was 'volun-told' to be a force protection (FP) representative for my unit - basically, I had to start going to local anti-terrorism working group meetings. Normally, these are pretty benign affairs - practice your FP posture, know what happens if the force protection condition (FPCON) is elevated, etc.
Well, a little while ago, some MI folks started coming to our meetings and briefing us on specific threats, as in "Here's a picture of a guy who teaches people how to blow stuff up, and he's a native of this country, and lives in your town, and he recently went to a foreign country and met with these guys (more pictures) who are Islamic fundamentalists with known ties to known violent agents who have a history of blowing themselves up. We think they're waiting for a group of natives to escort them into the country to this area to carry out their mission."
It was a sobering experience, to say the least. Before I started hearing all this stuff, I kind of figured that it was all being blown out of proportion, too. But, based on my experience, it's not.
Like I said, I don't care if you are convinced by my (intentionally vague) story. I just wanted to give you my side of it.
No.
With power comes the desire for more power.
We really won't know the full extent of the Bush Administration's abuses of power until well after 2008. IMO, we are going to be shocked as the scope and depth of their illegal activities.
--tmk
Now that I'm sufficiently scared, where do you live, so I know where to move away from?
Oh wait, unless your Islamic fundementalists posses large arsenals of nuclear weapons (or exquisite biochem tech) it doesn't matter if I live in the same town, because I'm still pretty goddamned unlikely to get killed by them. I work for the DOT; and we don't need a war on terror, we need a war on cars because I can't make it through a single night in ops without someone dying on the road.
LOL - point taken. I guess my point is that shit like that probably happens all over (not just where I live), it's just that we never hear about it. It doesn't change the fact that we truly *are* less likely to be killed by a terrorist attack than in an automobile accident, or by drowning, or by taking aspirin (I can't remember if it was this article, or another, but someone pointed out the true fact that more people die each year from OTC drug overdoses and drug interactions than are killed by acts of terrorism).
I guess I just wanted to make the point that there's a reason why it's true that terrorism isn't really that likely to happen, and it's not because terrorists aren't really that dangerous.
No, we only need enough guns to beat the cops. The cops are the only ones inculcated with an adversarial relationship withthe public.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
What are the chances that anyone will ever - ever - be arrested over this?
With this Inspector General - no chances.
Also another good point. The difference between terrorism and automobile accidents is really simple, but also really weird. For some reason, we accept that 40,000-50,000 fatalities a year is worth being able to drive 55. I know that sounds strange, but if we truly believed that even a single traffic fatality was one too many, we would lower then national speed limit to 10 mph. I mean, that would pretty much eliminate traffic fatalities, right? So why don't we do it? We could say, "Well, it's just not practical! We would never get anywhere! interstate shipping would be impossible! The economy would collapse!" But the (again, weird) unsaid piece of that argument is, "and we're willing to accept that 40 to 50 thousand people will die on the roads each year in order to keep our national economy running, and to allow us sufficient mobility."
At this point, most people (I think...) probably feel that even one death caused by an act of terrorism is one too many. So we have all these really expansive Homeland Security laws that not everybody agrees with (i.e., domestic spying, etc.).
Now, I'm willing to trade away some of my less-noticed derived rights, like phone and email privacy, to prevent even a single death caused by terrorism. I'm OK with the NSA/CIA/FBI looking at my phone records and listening to me talk dirty to my girlfriend. But I probably wouldn't be willing to allow random, warrantless, baseless searches of my home. And I definitely wouldn't be willing to trade away one of my fundamental rights for *any* measure of safety - give me liberty or give me death, and all that.
So, I guess my point is that, yes I acknowledge that it's a tradeoff. I'm willing to trade my derived right to phone/email/bank transaction privacy for safety. Others of you aren't. We probably *all* agree that we wouldn't be willing to trade a more overt kind of privacy, or a truly fundamental right to prevent even a single death caused by an act of terrorism.
This whole debate is about finding what level of tradeoff is acceptable to the most people.
the FBI et al have always abused whatever powers they have. Hoover persecuted a whole bunch of people in the name of fighting communism. His victims included Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcom X. Later the cointelpro program was used against black nationalist organizations, the American Indian Movement, the anti-war movement. Later after the abuses of cointelpro were exposed the very same tactics were employed against people who opposed Reagan's Central American Proxy wars and death squads. The same crap was used against the environmental movement in the 1980s. In fact during that period I personally knew people who's mail regularly arrived crudely torn open and taped closed. Since you can always expect the government to push the limits and abuse it's power it makes sense to limit that power so that the abuses are relatively benign. When you give the government expansive powers then the abuses tend to be expansive as well. I guarantee that the government is doing terrible things that will only be proven 15 or 20 years from now when it is history and we can all calmly claim, "well thank goodness that doesn't happen anymore!"
-- QED
The report...
A Review of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Use of National Security Letters
Today, people take liberty for granted and so fear death and destruction that they will throw away their liberty for temporary saftey.
My fear is that this tendency will only increase as boomers age closer to their final day. And there is no shortage of fear-mongering marketers to help this phenomenon along.
Surely there is a balance in the middle?
Surely, "balance in the middle" and "United States of America" are mutually exclusive concepts, no?
You have to know that if there is an insurrection, a good number of marines will be convinced that the "freedom fighters" are, in fact, terrorists. The brass will instruct them to "wipe out the terrorist threat" and they will do as ordered. Perhaps some will refuse and will be summarily arrested.
Spin is powerful. Especially with people who are extremely dedicated to their chain of command.
Stew
There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
AGH! Now my secret is out. I'm not a cop. And I suppose you are right. Thanks.
What? ®
No! Say it aint so! What's the world coming to when the FBI abuses it's power! Surely a sign of the apocalypse! [/heavy sarcasm]
Abused the Patriot Act? You mean there were things that it didn't allow the Feds to do?
My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
But with murder or accidental killing, there is still criminal charges. Homicide is a lesser punishment and yet there are justified/justifiable homicide laws for when the killing is a public service.
Homicide itself is not a crime. A homicide is the taking of a life of another. There are criminal (murder, manslaughter), excused (non-criminal negligent), and justifiable (self-defense) homicides. And there aren't "always" charges filed in homicides. Accidental deaths are often excused.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
I don't doubt for a minute that there are very dangerous people out there who would like nothing more than to kill Americans. What I doubt is that the government needs the types of power it has been demanding in order to mitigate the threat. I'm more than willing to allow the government to tap my phone, for example, provided they have probable cause and get a warrant to do it. In fact, I'm willing to go with the FISA rules that allow a warrantless tap of my phone for a short time as long as they have to go before a judge to get a retroactive warrant and go on record with another branch of government as having tapped my phone.
What I'm not OK with is broad, sweeping police powers with little or no oversight. I don't think that there has ever been a time in history when a government with those types of powers didn't abuse them. There's a reason we involve two branches of government with search and seizure or wire tapping, and it's not just to get second opinion. The fact is, if one person or organization has the power to tap your phones or go through your bank records or search your house without having to justify it to anybody, they'll eventually start doing it for less than justifiable reasons.
"I thought he was involved with terrorism" eventually becomes "He was involved in organized crime" which becomes "We thought he might be committing mail fraud" which becomes "We thought he used pot" which eventually becomes "He's a member of the opposition party" or "I want to date his wife, so I'll try to ruin their marriage by digging up dirt on him." With nothing to stop them, there's no reason to think they'll stop at legitimate police action. I accept that the government has the right to search me, try me, deprive me of property, and even execute me as long as they do it for justifiable reasons that are accepted by a demonstrably neutral party. As for acting on their own with no checks and balances, I have a hard time even accepting the idea that we let them use scissors.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
A few years ago, I posted several comments from the point of view of a Canadian, on how crazy it was that the American system allows a president to kill constitutional rights, how wrong it is that your congress and senate can approve destroying your constitution, how it is your responsibility as Americans to protect your constitution instead of watching it crumble under the weight of the Bush Fear Machine, and how in Canada judges not only have the power to rescind unconstitutional laws, they have the responsibility ... and the balls... to do it when our politicians try to take away our rights.
... all justifiable reasons for Canada not joining the war in Iraq.
... and meanwhile, the true justifiable war, fighting real terrorists in Afghanistan, is being lost due to a war strategy that the average person learned is no good by playing the boardgame Risk as a child. Fools! you must leave troops behind to defend the ground you take! You can't just invade and move on! Of course the taliban is sweeping through re-taking towns - you abandonded them!
I pointed out how there was no evidence for attacking Iraq, how any WMD's they had were destroyed in the first gulf war, and that Hussein was keeping alqaeda out to protect his own power and that Bush himself stated publicly that there was no evidence of Hussein working with alqaeda to enable 911. I pointed out how Bush was manufacturing evidence (not merely using 'bad intelligence'), and how hundreds of thousands of innocent iraqi people would die as a result of an invasion and occupation and millions more would be driven to fight against america while they had a relatively stable life under Hussein, as bad as he was
And I was shouted down over and over by Americans blinded by one horribly tragic moment in time, unable to see the bigger picture.
Seems it's payback time. The American people are realizing several years too late that they were had by the greedy fools they put in charge, they don't like how more americans have died in a totally unjustified war against a country that had nothing to do with 911, then died in 911!!
Enough already. Please try not to take down the rest of the free world as you reel under the self-imposed destruction of your way of life.
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
Oh I just can't believe it (took this long) So call me a cynical bastard.... Can you say J Edgar Hoover? Check out some of the crap THAT guy got away with.
Unfortunately, those who wrote this law made it illegal to disclose both proper and improper use of it. So it is unlikely there ever will be any concrete examples disclosed to the public (but I note that the auditor's report makes it pretty clear that there are such concrete examples to be had, and its extremily unlikely that those whose rights were violated even know - it could be me or you and we wouldn't know, but this is not a case of what you don't know can't hurt you - it very much can). If under such circumstances you are waiting around for a concrete example before you will agree that there is a problem, then I suggest that a) you will be waiting a very long time and b) you have much more blind faith in our government and its current leadership than I do.
Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5
GNAA announces switch to Windows Vista (2007/02/25) CNN HQ Stormed By Elite GNAA Operatives, Classified 9/11 Information Broadcast (2007/02/03) Jewish pedophiles delete GNAA article from Wikipedia (2006/12/03) Lik-Dong closure leaves Noted Gay Nigger jobless (2006/10/25) GNAA Issues Apology In The Death Of Rob Levin's Bike (2006/10/25) GNAA investigators make unprecedented breakthrough in Reiser case (2006/10/13) GNAA suspected in death of Rob Levin (2006/09/16) GNAA CLAIMS RESPONSIBILTY FOR ASSASINATION OF TV HERO (2006/09/06) GNAA Claims Responsibility in Loli-Chan Raid (2006/08/22) GNAA campaign against PHP and ZEND bears fruit (2006/07/29) GNAA Adopts Trusted Platform Module (2006/07/28) Ten-thousand Freenet User Identities Compromised (2006/06/22) MARK SHUTTLEWORTH AND CANONICAL ANNOUNCE LINUX FOR NIGGERS (2006/06/01) David Blaine Fails, GNAA claims responsibility (2006/05/10) GNAA Announces Cleansing Of The Star Trek Gene Pool (2006/04/24) GNAA member JacksonBrown succeeds it, GNAA declares yet another victory over Apple (2006/03/22) GNAA Announces OneNigger Suite of Collaborative Trolling Utilities (2006/03/04) GNAA discovers Scientology's shocking roots in the association (2006/02/28) GNAA Announces Full Cybermilitary Support of the German Government (2006/01/20) Mehmet Ali Agca confessed who paid him to assasinate pope John Paul II (2006/01/18) Recent findings from the GNAAU prove that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was gay (2006/01/17) GNAA unveils "New for Jew Thousand and Six" product lineup (2006/01/01) GNAA announces 2005 a success (2005/12/31) GNAA Announces Corporate Downsizing and Administrative Reformation (2005/10/03) GNAA Mourns the Death of l0de and the l0de Radio Hour (2005/09/11) GNAA pledges aid to Katrina victims (2005/09/11) GNAA outreach program hailed as an overwhelming success (2005/08/06) GNAA Research Division exposes long standing Zionist plot (2005/08/05) GNAA sues the CDC for patent violations (2005/07/04) GNAA Announces Immediate Release of OSX_x86_YHBT (2005/06/14) Apple Bets Farm on Heterosexual Computing - GNAA Members Offended (2005/06/07) GNAA Congratulates the Debian Project on the Release of Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 "Sarge" (2005/06/06) GNAA exposes the dangers of hiring Latvians (2005/05/06) GNAA copycats arrested in LastMeasure child porn scam (2005/04/30) GNAA RESEARCH UNVEILS STARTLING DISCOVERY (2005/04/20) GNAA Bioresearch unveils the Ubernigger Project (2005/04/07) GNAA Mourns Passing of Litigious Nigger (2005/03/30) GNAA releases surprising new Easter research (2005/03/26) Terry Schiavo Announces Support for GNAA (2005/03/21) GNAA announces victory over the state of Georgia (2005/03/14) GNAA announces open source, object-oriented political revolution (2005/03/11) Niggersoft Announces GNAA/Hard (2005/02/11) Michael Sims Fired, Joins GNAA to Troll Slashdot Full Time (2005/02/02) GNAA unveils new 2005 product line (2005/01/25) God Exiled From Information Superhighway (2005/01/22) GNAA Declares ownership of 99.9% of all IRC networks (2005/01/21) GNAA declares boycott of all foods that make sperm taste bad (2005/01/12) Giant Tsunami of AIDS hits America (2005/01/05) GNAA announces Xanga-dotting of Something Awful (2004/12/27) GNAA more effective than Viagra, Cialis, study finds (2004/12/21) GNAA Announces Gay Porn Avalanche (2004/12/21) Low-Carb Movement Gains Internet Celebrity Support (2004/11/23) GNAA Member Arrested for Trolling (2004/11/10) Dremel Stock skyrockets amidst rumors of GNAA takeover (2004/10/31) GNAA freedom fighters attack mbonig into submission (2004/10/25) GNAA declares victory over Wikipedia (2004/10/07) GNAA introduces first open-source corpse (2004/10/01) LastMeasure hits the 100000 watermark (2004/09/27) GNAA Lysol on the 2004 Florida Presidential Ballot (2004/09/23) GNAA supplies arms, expertise to Iraqi Freedom Fighters (2004/09/21) GNAA reactionaries take Condoleezza Rice hostage (2004/09/13) News Agencies Deny NK Blast was a Nuke (2004/09/13) GNAA Announces l0de's Death (2004/09/12) GNAA Launches Attack on Slashdot Parent Company (2004/09/11) Happy 9/11 Fro
GNAA announces switch to Windows Vista (2007/02/25) CNN HQ Stormed By Elite GNAA Operatives, Classified 9/11 Information Broadcast (2007/02/03) Jewish pedophiles delete GNAA article from Wikipedia (2006/12/03) Lik-Dong closure leaves Noted Gay Nigger jobless (2006/10/25) GNAA Issues Apology In The Death Of Rob Levin's Bike (2006/10/25) GNAA investigators make unprecedented breakthrough in Reiser case (2006/10/13) GNAA suspected in death of Rob Levin (2006/09/16) GNAA CLAIMS RESPONSIBILTY FOR ASSASINATION OF TV HERO (2006/09/06) GNAA Claims Responsibility in Loli-Chan Raid (2006/08/22) GNAA campaign against PHP and ZEND bears fruit (2006/07/29) GNAA Adopts Trusted Platform Module (2006/07/28) Ten-thousand Freenet User Identities Compromised (2006/06/22) MARK SHUTTLEWORTH AND CANONICAL ANNOUNCE LINUX FOR NIGGERS (2006/06/01) David Blaine Fails, GNAA claims responsibility (2006/05/10) GNAA Announces Cleansing Of The Star Trek Gene Pool (2006/04/24) GNAA member JacksonBrown succeeds it, GNAA declares yet another victory over Apple (2006/03/22) GNAA Announces OneNigger Suite of Collaborative Trolling Utilities (2006/03/04) GNAA discovers Scientology's shocking roots in the association (2006/02/28) GNAA Announces Full Cybermilitary Support of the German Government (2006/01/20) Mehmet Ali Agca confessed who paid him to assasinate pope John Paul II (2006/01/18) Recent findings from the GNAAU prove that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was gay (2006/01/17) GNAA unveils "New for Jew Thousand and Six" product lineup (2006/01/01) GNAA announces 2005 a success (2005/12/31) GNAA Announces Corporate Downsizing and Administrative Reformation (2005/10/03) GNAA Mourns the Death of l0de and the l0de Radio Hour (2005/09/11) GNAA pledges aid to Katrina victims (2005/09/11) GNAA outreach program hailed as an overwhelming success (2005/08/06) GNAA Research Division exposes long standing Zionist plot (2005/08/05) GNAA sues the CDC for patent violations (2005/07/04) GNAA Announces Immediate Release of OSX_x86_YHBT (2005/06/14) Apple Bets Farm on Heterosexual Computing - GNAA Members Offended (2005/06/07) GNAA Congratulates the Debian Project on the Release of Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 "Sarge" (2005/06/06) GNAA exposes the dangers of hiring Latvians (2005/05/06) GNAA copycats arrested in LastMeasure child porn scam (2005/04/30) GNAA RESEARCH UNVEILS STARTLING DISCOVERY (2005/04/20) GNAA Bioresearch unveils the Ubernigger Project (2005/04/07) GNAA Mourns Passing of Litigious Nigger (2005/03/30) GNAA releases surprising new Easter research (2005/03/26) Terry Schiavo Announces Support for GNAA (2005/03/21) GNAA announces victory over the state of Georgia (2005/03/14) GNAA announces open source, object-oriented political revolution (2005/03/11) Niggersoft Announces GNAA/Hard (2005/02/11) Michael Sims Fired, Joins GNAA to Troll Slashdot Full Time (2005/02/02) GNAA unveils new 2005 product line (2005/01/25) God Exiled From Information Superhighway (2005/01/22) GNAA Declares ownership of 99.9% of all IRC networks (2005/01/21) GNAA declares boycott of all foods that make sperm taste bad (2005/01/12) Giant Tsunami of AIDS hits America (2005/01/05) GNAA announces Xanga-dotting of Something Awful (2004/12/27) GNAA more effective than Viagra, Cialis, study finds (2004/12/21) GNAA Announces Gay Porn Avalanche (2004/12/21) Low-Carb Movement Gains Internet Celebrity Support (2004/11/23) GNAA Member Arrested for Trolling (2004/11/10) Dremel Stock skyrockets amidst rumors of GNAA takeover (2004/10/31) GNAA freedom fighters attack mbonig into submission (2004/10/25) GNAA declares victory over Wikipedia (2004/10/07) GNAA introduces first open-source corpse (2004/10/01) LastMeasure hits the 100000 watermark (2004/09/27) GNAA Lysol on the 2004 Florida Presidential Ballot (2004/09/23) GNAA supplies arms, expertise to Iraqi Freedom Fighters (2004/09/21) GNAA reactionaries take Condoleezza Rice hostage (2004/09/13) News Agencies Deny NK Blast was a Nuke (2004/09/13) GNAA Announces l0de's Death (2004/09/12) GNAA Launches Attack on Slashdot Parent Company (2004/09/11) Happy 9/11 Fro
I can't disagree with this. The problem with the situation we've got is that we have no visibility into the internal workings of the FBI/CIA/NSA to ensure that stuff like this isn't happening. I tend, personally, to be a little too trusting of these organizations and the individual motivations of their agents. I also believe that some people are a little too cynical. The optimal solution is possible only because of people on both sides who believe very strongly that they're right.
But I think that's OK. As long as we agree on the big stuff (i.e., not being blown up on any given day), we can work out the small stuff in exactly the kind of debate we have here. (as long as everyone votes, and holds their representatives and congresspeople accountable for what they do.)
Anybody want a peanut?
Ceci n'est pas un sig.