FBI Employees Face Criminal Probe Over Patriot Act

DevanJedi writes "According to an article at Wired.com , several FBI agents are under investigation for illegally acquiring information an American citizens. Overzealous agents used 'misleading emergency letters' obtain phone records of thousands of Americans. This marks the first time government officers have been prosecuted for misuse of the Patriot Act. From the article: 'Unit employees, who are not authorized to request records in investigations, sent form letters to telephone companies to acquire detailed billing information on specific phone numbers by falsely promising that subpoenas were already in the works. According to a third source, FBI officials also said at the meeting that some bureau employees have already been granted immunity from prosecution in the investigation. The third source, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, did not recall, however, that FBI officials described the investigation as "criminal."'"

Comments

Wow...just wow

[Anonymous Coward]

"FBI officials also said at the meeting that some bureau employees have already been granted immunity from prosecution in the investigation."

If this is true, I honestly don't know what to say anymore.

I'm moving to Antarctica.

Re:Wow...just wow

[morgan_greywolf]

"FBI officials also said at the meeting that some bureau employees have already been granted immunity from prosecution in the investigation."

If this is true, I honestly don't know what to say anymore.

I do. It's high time the American people hold the government accountable for its actions and use its power of the vote to alter the course of American history.

Pity no one gives a damn enough to do it, though.

Re:Wow...just wow

[AuMatar]

Immunity is usually granted in exchange for testimony. If they're granting immunity from prosecution to someone who knew about it but did not participate, or small offenders to convict a big offender, I can live with this. They should still be fired, but I'd rather punish the big offenders than every small fish.

Re:Wow...just wow

[cromar]

For some of us, who no one listens to and don't speak very well, the only course is to wait for a revolution.

I do what little I can and I vote. It hasn't been working for shit.

Re:Wow...just wow

[russ1337]

>>>the only course is to wait for a revolution.

You'll be waiting a long time my friend. Anyone vocal enough to suggest starting a revolution becomes the enemy.... or disappears.

Re:Wow...just wow

[Anonymous Coward]

And then of course the Democrats are a little short on action.

Then you should be voting for them every time. What's better for the people, a governemnt that does a lot, or a government that does less? Even the Republicans say smaller governemnt (despite the actions of the last 3 Republican presidents being the opposite of that philosophy). So, since the Democrats are ineffective, that means they get less done. That can only be better for us.

Make government impotent, vote Democrat.

Re:Wow...just wow

[beheaderaswp]

"If this is true, I honestly don't know what to say anymore.

I'm moving to Antarctica."

This isn't anything new.

The last time we had anything like this going on was during and after the Nixon administration. In those days it was an FBI program called COINTELPRO- which infiltrated (CIA style) and collected evidence against a semi-terrorist organization called the "Weather Underground". In fact their evidence was so tainted by rights violations, that with the exception of David Gilbert, who got a life rap for murder, they all walked.

Gilbert of course was involved in an armored car robbery in New York, and charged in New York, so even he walked in regard to the COINTELPRO charges.

The others, who used to blow things up (though they warned people about the bombs so that no one would get hurt), were summarily released one after another once the federal courts got hold of the evidence of FBI wrong doing.

In fact, the evidence that freed them, was in fact STOLEN by them out of an FBI office in Mississippi (If memory serves).

This is nothing new. And under this administration not suprising. And the courts did the right thing... evidence that is "fruit of the poisoned vine" should never be allowed.

Let's hope this latest flap is far less agregious.

Re:Wow...just wow

[CrackedButter]

They're sent to Siberia aren't they? Oh wait, you're talking about the USA?

Re:Wow...just wow

[CrackedButter]

I forgot about that place, wow, the parallels are even more scary now between the USSR and the USSA.

Re:Wow...just wow

[rbanffy]

I am pretty sure suggesting a revolution or anything similar would qualify someone as a terrorist under the Patriot Act or some other law that may be passed under the same spirit.

Despite that, revolutions have a pretty high probability to go awfully wrong. Just because one went right doesn't guarantee the next will.

You know the drill - register as a voter and mobilize your community (visit your neighbors, propose meetings and other forms of discussion where you can explore your differences and inform yourselves about all candidates) so everyone in it can and will exercise their right - and duty - to vote well.

It's your country and your laws. Take them back.

Re:Wow...just wow

[ppanon]

Nah, the 7 million who died didn't do it in death camps; you're confusing them with the Nazis. Most of those 7 million deaths were in the Ukraine in the 30's. They were farmers who had a bunch of really bad crop years. The apparatchiks running things from Moscow didn't want to admit a problem to their masters and thought the farmers were holding back food. They had the police and army take all the food, including the seed grain for the next year, to feed the urban populations who might riot if they went hungry too long. So the farmers starved to death on their own lands.

Not that the Gulags were vacation spots. They were forced labour camps that didn't include much concern for worker safety. People often died there from "occupational hazards", for trying to escape, or for not being completely subservient to the overseers. Gulag convicts effectively had no rights. But the Gulags weren't death camps in the same way that German concentration camps like Auschwitz, Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka were designed to kill the convicts. Solzhenitzin got to write Gulag Archipelago because he lived through it. The Russians preferred to wring out as much cheap, effectively slave, labour out of them as possible instead.

Re:Wow...just wow

[shutdown -p now]

Nah, the 7 million who died didn't do it in death camps; you're confusing them with the Nazis. Most of those 7 million deaths were in the Ukraine in the 30's. They were farmers who had a bunch of really bad crop years. The apparatchiks running things from Moscow didn't want to admit a problem to their masters and thought the farmers were holding back food. They had the police and army take all the food, including the seed grain for the next year, to feed the urban populations who might riot if they went hungry too long. So the farmers starved to death on their own lands.

I have to point out that it is still disputed whether Holodomor was indeed just the result of bad crops and incompetency, or a deliberate genocidal campaign orchestrated by the communists to weaken the "problematic" region (Ukrainian Cossacks were mostly anti-communist, and there was a lot of them).

Pardons

[athloi]

Do the little guys get pardons too? It sure would be embittering to see Scooter Libby go free when salt of the earth NWO grunts got sent to prison.

Re:Pardons

[ArcherB]

Do the little guys get pardons too? It sure would be embittering to see Scooter Libby go free when salt of the earth NWO grunts got sent to prison.

Well, there is a big difference between what Scooter Libby did and what these guys are doing. Scooter was prosecuted for perjury. His "recollection" of a conversation was different than that of the guy he spoke with. No one was in danger over what Scooter did.

What these FBI guys are doing is unforgivable. They are literally endangering the lives of all of us. By abusing the PATRIOT Act, they are risking having it taken away from those agents who would use it legally to prevent some sort of terrorist attack from happening again.

That is inexcusable... or unpardonable.

Re:Pardons

[forrestt]

By abusing the PATRIOT Act, they are risking having it taken away

Then I, for one, say keep abusing it!!!

Re:Pardons

[terrymr]

I thought the claim was that scooter kept changing his testimony in order to obstruct the investigation.

Re:Pardons

[ArcherB]

Here is the quote from the actual indictment:

When LIBBY spoke with Tim Russert of NBC News, on or about July 10,
i. Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for
the CIA, and told LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and
ii. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was surprised to hear that
Wilson's wife worked for the CIA; According to Russert:

i. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife
worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew
it; and
ii. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that
Wilson's wife worked at the CIA; in fact, LIBBY had participated in
multiple prior conversations concerning this topic, including on the
following occasions:... Now it seems to me that this indictment assumes that it was Scooter who leaked the name. We now know that it was Armitage, who was never charged.

Re:Pardons

[7-Vodka]

I'm sorry but what scooter fucking libby did was to 'out' a CIA field agent on behalf of dick 'the dickhead' cheney. He then lied about it and tried to obstruct the investigation.

Believe it or not, when you 'out' a CIA agent, you could be putting in danger the lives of many potential assets as well as any other agents who have in any way interacted with the one you outed. And then the chain continues, if one of those agents is discovered in connection with her, all of their assets and connections are also in danger of death.

There are pretty serious consequences to 'outing' a CIA agent, even if the agent you out is not of some huge importance. What he did was very illegal, immoral and purely an asshole thing to do to get back at someone 'the dickhead' was pissed off at. People might have died because of it.

Imagine if you decided to do something that risked the lives of our heroes purely because you were annoyed at someone politically... I guess it's also typical of this administration.

Re:Pardons

[soren100]

Well, there is a big difference between what Scooter Libby did and what these guys are doing. Scooter was prosecuted for perjury. His "recollection" of a conversation was different than that of the guy he spoke with. No one was in danger over what Scooter did.

That's ridiculous, and a lie in itself. Outing an undercover CIA agent endangers the lives of everyone else abroad who ever associated with that CIA agent or other undercover agents working for the same front company and their associates too. People are routinely killed for being "spies".

If Scooter didn't do it himself, he lied knowing he would go to jail for it to protect those who did do it. Probably because they were higher in the administration than he was and would have gone to jail themselves for doing it. Libby was convicted of one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury, and one count of lying to the FBI about how he learned Plame's identity. One count of perjury sent Martha Stewart to jail, got Clinton disbarred and nearly cost him his Presidency, but you are fine with Scooter getting off "scot free" for far more serious stuff.

As far as the Patriot act is concerned, more people die of lightning strikes or bee stings every year than die in terrorist attacks. Traffic accidents kill 40,000 people a year, but you don't see us quivering in fear every time we are about to get behind the wheel.

I am glad...

[cromar]

I am glad some small parts of our oppressive nanny state are breaking, at least. I hope it not too little, too late.

I'm so sick of this shit.

What we'll never know..

[foodnugget]

This is my main argument against the whole "we know what we're doing with this power" argument being put forward.

We, as citizens, have no idea why these records were sought, and what was done with them. Were they altered? Were the requests ultimately put to use that saved lives or harmed them? How many made it through without being caught? How will we ever know for sure?

The example for restricting power I like to put forward for arguments sake:
Lets say you're, say, 35 years old, recently divorced, ready to move on and find yourself a new girl. Looking around, you meet someone in a bar, she's recently divorced too. Things are going well for the two of you, when all of a sudden, some charges are brought up on you.
Turns out, her former husband is employed at [pick your favorite cloak and dagger agency], and not happy about his wife dating again.

Are these charges real? are they made up?

Of course, I'm not proposing that this searching power will only be used for such purposes, or that fraudulent data could be put in, but where is the recourse for when some unhinged person attempts to abuse their position?

Similarly, lets say you're in a car accident with the son/daughter of a similarly employed person. They have unknown, potentially damaging power to affect your life and cause you serious trouble in an effort to change the outcome of the situation/extract revenge.

This kind of unchecked power *will* be abused. BOFHs aren't just in server rooms, they're in every employment position imaginable, and there is a nonzero percentage of them who will abuse their position for any reason. I've only given two, I'm certain you can think of many, many more!

Re:What we'll never know..

[Mattintosh]

Unfortunately, it became legal precedent in the early, formative years of the USA (and probably before) to "undo" the proceedings against a criminal for which the evidence against him was acquired illegally. This is due to a lack of logical understanding and separation of duties. Now we have an entire legal culture built around loopholes and exploitation thereof. Consider a scenario in two different ways:

A murder is discovered, and a suspect is charged. The police illegally search the suspect to find a "smoking gun" piece of evidence. There's no question in anyone's mind that this person is the murderer. The person even admits that they did it.

Scenario #1 - "Reality": The weasel/lawyer defending the suspect gets the case thrown out because the police conducted their search illegally. All evidence against the murderer already presented in this case is considered inadmissable because it may have been affected by the illegal search. The killer goes free.

Scenario #2 - "The Right Way": The "tainted evidence" defense is pure crap and doesn't work. Heck, it's not even attempted. The killer gets what's coming to him. BUT... the police still carried out that illegal search. Bring charges against the officers responsible for the illegal search. Dismiss them (fire them) and fine them, then bar them from ever serving as a police officer ever again. In fact, disallow them from being a security guard, private detective, or even a toll booth operator. They should never be in a position of responsibility for the physical safety or authority to grant access to property in the primary responsibilities of their job ever again. This way, you get a system that properly punishes crime, while deterring counter-criminal-crime in the process.

Bottom line: these FBI agents are criminals and should be prosecuted as such.

Re:What we'll never know..

[grcumb]

Lets say you're, say, 35 years old, recently divorced, ready to move on and find yourself a new girl. Looking around, you meet someone in a bar, she's recently divorced too. Things are going well for the two of you, when all of a sudden, some charges are brought up on you. Turns out, her former husband is employed at [pick your favorite cloak and dagger agency], and not happy about his wife dating again.

Are these charges real? are they made up?

Congratulations! You just described The Trial , by Franz Kafka. The story was written in Czechoslovakia, just prior to the rise of Fascism in Europe, but I'm sure that the purest coincidence.

Re:What we'll never know..

[fishbowl]

"Scenario #1 - "Reality": The weasel/lawyer defending the suspect gets the case thrown out because the police conducted their search illegally. All evidence against the murderer already presented in this case is considered inadmissable because it may have been affected by the illegal search. The killer goes free."

As it should be. The justice system has an overarching responsiblity to follow its own rules consistently, and in particular, to not abridge the rights of the accused -- illegal search and seizure being very high among those rights that shall not be abridged. The consequences for failing to meet this basic obligation are *dire* -- they may indeed find themselves letting a criminal go free. This alone should be sufficient to cause police and prosecutors and courts to follow their own rules to the razor's edge. It's not only that a criminal might go free or an innocent person might get convicted or a person may have rights that are abridged, but also, the reputations and careers of police, attorneys, judges, administrators, *should* be on the line and *should* be forfeit if mistakes like the ones you complain about are made.

You seem to regard "killer goes free" as the net effect, or the most serious consequence, but I do not. There is a more serious breakdown of the system that is *causing* "killer to go free".

I don't know why, but it seems to be hard for some people to accept that on balance, the rights of the people, and the integrity of the system as a whole, are far more important factors than any particular case -- even when your strawman brings up a particularly frightening case such as "killer goes free."

By the way, can you actually cite one case where "killer went free" because of procedural error or on grounds such as illegal search and seizure or Miranda warnings, or something of that nature? Or are you just trying to scare people?

Re:What we'll never know..

[Pendersempai]

The problem with your suggestion is that there is never any political will to go after the corrupt cops the way there is to go after the (obviously guilty) suspect. The cop performs an illegal search? "Whatever," think the prosecutors, fellow cops, and voting public, "it was for a good cause, and now this dangerous criminal is behind bars." You think these same prosecutors for whom the bad cop did such a favor will prosecute him? Not very likely.

The exclusionary rule, on the other hand, is enforced by the judge who is insulated from the political process and can take the long view and see that the gradual erosion of civil liberties is a much graver harm than one bad guy going free. It's a pure alignment of incentives: the only reason to violate a suspect's civil rights is to get him behind bars, and if violating his civil rights sets him free, there is no reason left to do it.

This incentive works well enough that it is the VERY RARE CASE where a suspect actually gets sprung by the exclusionary rule. These very rare cases are highly publicized so they probably seem like a higher proportion than they are, but that's also a good thing, since it wakes up the electorate and holds the corrupt cops and prosecutors responsible for their violations of suspects' civil rights.

The exclusionary rule is an enduring genius of the American legal system.

don't get too excited

[mytrip]

There is no chance of anyone getting more than a slap on the wrist over this. The government hasnt let the law gets in its way yet.

not yet prosecuted!

[c_jonescc]

The abstract claims that this is the first prosecution of Patriot Act abuse, however, the article claims only that this is an investigation that has the POSSIBILITY to lead to the first prosecution.

And looking at prosecutions of government abuse under the current admin, I wouldn't exactly count on it happening.

So let me get this straight...

[RingDev]

Someone said that they think a few people who were probably working for the FBI may have done something that could have been construed as illegal, and that there may, or may not be an investigation, and that if there were an investigation it could possibly be of a criminal investigation nature, all of which may be rendered moot because someone thought they heard someone else say that the people that someone thought might have committed a crime may have already been granted immunity?

I'm all for the investigation of the allegations, removal of the perpetrators from the FBI, as well as imprisonment for any of them that are convicted of committed criminal offenses. But how about we wait 15 minutes before printing this story and figure out what the hell is actually going on first?!?

-Rick

Press core, grow a pair

[SuperBanana]

The third source, who also spoke on condition of anonymity,

Sure would be nice if the US Press Core grew a pair. Everywhere else in the world, officials put their name to their comments because the press won't print comments without any name; there's no accountability, so people have no incentive to tell the truth, so there's no point in printing the comments. I'm so fed up with US politicians and officials covering their asses with "anonymous" comments, and the press core lapping it up.

For chrissakes, some of these people are even telling the press exactly how to "anonymously" describe them: Cheney, for example, always demands to be quoted as "a senior Bush administration official."

Re:Press core, grow a pair

[RepelHistory]

I'm so fed up with US politicians and officials covering their asses with "anonymous" comments, and the press core lapping it up.

While on principle I agree with you, I imagine government officials would be far less likely to talk to the press if they knew their identities would be revealed - especially in an administration such as this, where complete lockstep is required from everyone in the executive branch. The recent testimony) of the former surgeon general is a perfect example of this - he described how Bush is extremely controlling of everything his underlings say. If government officials talked to the press without the safety of anonymity, their jobs would be on the line. This is the only way we'll be able to hear what these people have to say, and while I agree that it is less than ideal, it's probably the best we're going to get.

Re:Press core, grow a pair

[Phleg]

Repeat after me: "corps".

Prediction.

[nick_davison]

Wow, if only there was some way we could have predicted this?

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
  - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

Politics

[BrookHarty]

Please Please Please, let one of the FBI agents be working on request of the whitehouse staff.

I'd hate to see it be just average schmoes just stalking their ex-girl/boy friends.

Also, subpoenas first you lame ass telcos, checks and balances....

Bush Fatigue

[PopeRatzo]

I'm getting tired of seeing so many stories about the illegal activities of the Bush Administration here at Slashdot.

But not nearly as tired as I am of having a president and vice president who have corrupted the entire structure of the Executive Branch and who have weakened the foundation of our Nation.

To those of you who think these stories don't belong at a site that's for "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters", I'd say that while the illegality and corruption of the Bush Administration, and their poisonous use of technology to take away our rights and consolidate power is no longer "news", it certainly qualifies as "stuff that matters".

I invite any of you who don't think that both Bush and Cheney should be removed from office to please explain. Today, I learned from the Wall Street Journal that there are still 26% of the population (Harris Poll) who support the President. I really need to know why. I have enough faith in the fairness and decency of the American people that it surprises me that Bush's support is still in double digits.

Re:Bush Fatigue

[SatanicPuppy]

Your faith is based on the assumption that the majority of people are intellectually honest enough to change their opinion in the face of new evidence.

The bulk of those who are still solid bushies are living in a persistent fantasy world. They think the war in Iraq will be "won"...whatever the hell that means, since we still don't seem to have a defined goal other than it going away. They think we went there in the first place for the "right reasons." They think the reason the terrists haven't blown up the Sears tower is because we're "fighting them over there" and not just because terrorists as a whole tend not to be all that successful.

I don't think anything would convince them they're wrong. I mean literally anything; if he was caught on tape having sex with an underage boy, they'd say it was a liberal framejob. There is practically nothing they won't believe is someone else's fault. They're emotionally wedded to their position. If things were reversed, we'd see a similar number of liberal weenies blaming it all on the conservatives.

It's sad to say, but there just aren't a lot of free-thinkers in the world. It just shows up more here because things have gotten so polarized.

Re:Bush Fatigue

[Cheesey]

That 26% would support the devil himself if he was (or pretended to be):

1. Christian (ironic isn't it?)
2. Republican

"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis, 1935

I must admit I was initially unsure about voting for Adolf Hitler, but when I heard about his sensible pro-life stance and opposition to non-Christians, I was all for him. I mean, those are the issues that really matter, right? His foreign policy decisions have also been first rate. I think the invasion of France has been a damn good idea, and we'll definitely defeat the insurgents in the next few months. And with their new powers, the Gestapo have been doing a fine job of eradicating the terrorist threat in the Fatherland. I often see them making arrests, which just goes to show how lucky we are to have them - our enemies are everywhere. I'm sure that the stories of human rights abuses in internment camps like Auschwitz are just liberal lies. So that's why I support our President. He's a fine Christian man, and I will not even listen to anyone who doesn't think so.

Re:Bush Fatigue

[Chris Burke]

Your faith is based on the assumption that the majority of people are intellectually honest enough to change their opinion in the face of new evidence.

I have no idea about majority, but a lot of people are, even if they are reluctant to do so. After Bush started his second term, support for Bush and the War was hovering at around 60%. Now it's more like 25%. So a majority of those who supported the war were able to change their minds about it, with the result that the Republicans lost control of Congress and next year perhaps the Presidency if they don't put forward an anti-war candidate (sorry McCain).

I just wish they had changed their mind before giving Bush another four years to fuck things up. I've been reading Iraq-related news constantly, and while sure the upswing in sectarian violence starting the with mosque bombing in early 2006 was a bad sign, overall the picture doesn't really look any worse to me than it did in 2004 -- a mismanaged clusterfuck quagmire that at best ends in civil war after we leave and the puppet government collapses. But I do suppose that even if you support the war you can only hear "stay the course" so many times before you wonder when this course is actually going to get you somewhere.

But better late than never, right? People change their minds, but most of us are hesitant to admit we were wrong, and BOY were they wrong.

Re:Bush Fatigue

[DNS-and-BIND]

Hitler was a sensitive man
He went to art school when he was younger
He wanted to be a painter
Hitler was a vegetarian
He was also a non-smoker
He was concerned about overpopulation
He was abused by his father
If Hitler was alive today
He'd listen to The Cure, The Smiths, and Depeche Mode
Hitler was a pagan
He kept every single one of his campaign promises
Hitler was a Time Magazine man of the year
Hitler was also very good with children, and set up a special Youth program for them

"Employees"?

[A non-mouse Coward]

Slashdot editors make it look like the administrative assistants, custodians, and assembly line workers are evil or something. Call it like it is: try "agents".

What these FBI guys are doing is unforgivable.

[falconwolf]

They are literally endangering the lives of all of us. By abusing the PATRIOT Act, they are risking having it taken away from those agents who would use it legally to prevent some sort of terrorist attack from happening again.

I hope it, the PATRIOT Act, is gotten rid of. It's not needed. And I was against it to begin with as well as against renewing it. They already had all the power needed to reduce the risk of terrorist attackes. Yes, I said "reduce the risk", as the risk can't be eliminated even in a police state run by a military dictator.

Falcon

Re:What these FBI guys are doing is unforgivable.

[_Sprocket_]

Someone please respond to this post with a verifiable example of a terrorist action that was stopped by using provisions of the Patriot act. So far I have only seen it being used to lock up Americans doing stuff totally unrelated to terrorist activities and infringe on peoples privacy and liberty. I wouldn't hold your breath. Not because its not possible that the PATRIOT Act hasn't been used to do what it was sold to do but simply because anyone who's in the know isn't likely to publicly publish anything about it. Consider that this is all about Intelligence and much of the handling of that involves "need to know" practices. Even vague details about what was collected or how it was collected can betray far too much information.

I don't doubt someone, somewhere out there knows how the PATRIOT Act has been used to combat terrorism. But that misses the point. The real issue here is one of abuse or, at the very least, risk of abuse.

If we could trust that power wouldn't be abused, we wouldn't have to worry about civil rights. We could allow those entrusted with our welfare complete power, safe in the knowledge that their actions weren't being guided by personal gain or bias. We'd know that they carefully considered their actions before taking them. And we'd be safer for it.

The reality is that people are human - even those who are entrusted with the duty to safeguard us all. As such, they are prone to all the bias and temptations people are always confronted with. Our laws, complete with checks and balances, are there to not only safeguard the population but to give pause to those who are entrusted with authority and take action against those who abuse that authority (or prove to be otherwise unworthy).

In short, the issue with the PATRIOT Act isn't whether it's effective against terrorists. It's a matter of whether it has the right checks-and-balance to ensure that it is both effective as well as resistant to abuse. History is proving abuse is widespread. And critics already point out that much of the power involved in the Act already existed... we've just stripped away the checks that are designed to curtail abuse. Odd, that.

Re:What these FBI guys are doing is unforgivable.

[ResidntGeek]

What, do you expect the government to release a statement saying "Check it out guys, we stopped some terrorists who were trying to blow up three major metropolitan areas with nukes Russia lost track of back in '82... no need to panic, or grab all your guns and head for the hills, or start lynching brown people, kthxbye!"

anonymous sources

[falconwolf]

I'm so fed up with US politicians and officials covering their asses with "anonymous" comments, and the press core lapping it up.

So, you want to get rid of anonymous sources then? Perhaps you didn't live through Watergate which eventually led to Nixon's impeachment. "Follow the money" said one source to a newspaper reporter.

Falcon

"Slashdot liberal whining"?

[TomorrowPlusX]

One of the tags for this article is "slashdotliberalwhining".

Just seeing that broke my heart, makes me want to cry. What have we come to when holding our officials responsible for their actions accounts to "liberal whining"?

I know we'll never hold Bush accountable, nor Cheney nor any of the real players in this situation. But still, America is supposed to be free, and part of that is punishing police, soldiers, fbi agents, or even presidents when they break the law. The idea that somehow they are above the law, the very *idea* that they are above the law kind of obviates the whole fucking spirit of freedom and why America was founded.

Let me say this exactly once: These FBI agents are *citizens*, and so are soliders, and so are Bush and Cheney. They are not above the law.

I'm not saying this as a liberal ( though I am one ) nor as a libertarian ( though I also sort of am one ) but as a human being, and as an american. A deeply frightened and ashamed-for-my-countrymen american.

Re:Good Point

[Valdrax]

Why was Saddam Hussein described as living in a spider-hole and Cheney's bunker is described as an undisclosed, secure location?

Because Saddam Hussein lived in an actual dirty hole in the ground big enough for one person, and Dick Cheney was off hunting at the estates of rich buddies.

Has Cheney ever gone on a publicly-known vacation? No, he's always been at "undisclosed locations" which the American people falsely assumed were secure bunkers in our post-9/11 delusions that the administration was competent. The whole Harry Whittington shooting blew the lid off of that. The whole "undisclosed location" bit is just another manifestation of Cheney's obsession with secrecy.

Equal Justice?... yes try not to choke on that

[Anonymous Coward]

What I want to know is when do we get to spend $70 million in taxpayer dollars and sick a Ken Starr-like special investigator on the current administration? Somehow 70m spent on finding out if our president lied about spooging on an interns dress seems kinda foolish and contrite compared to the antics of this current crop of criminals.(oops I meant politicians) Although, I wish Bill had thought of executive privilege when it came to his admin being forced to testify. Seems to work well for Bush/Cheney & Co.

Patriot Examples

[Descalzo]

Someone please respond to this post with a verifiable example of a terrorist action that was stopped by using provisions of the Patriot act.

This page lists several instances in which the provisions of the Patriot act have helped fight terrorism. Several of the facts on the page have links to corroborating stories. The one I most wanted to read is on the uscourts.gov site and was timing out.

I had heard before that the Patriot Act had more to do with inter-agency cooperation than with anything else, but I don't know how to verify that short of reading the law myself.

Speaking of which, can someone please post a link to an example of an American locked up using Patriot Act provisions? I'm not talking about abuses like the one in the OP, but lockups.

PATRIOT Act

[falconwolf]

roving wiretaps

Roving wiretaps were already allowed before the PATROIT Act. They were allowed as late as 1988.

Expanding the warrants that can be issued by a judge to include targets more specific to terrorism.

What, warrants couldn't of been used before the act?

Created new crimes related to money laundering and financing terrorism

Like need more laws making things illegal.

Permits the confiscation of the property of those convicted of participating in or planning a terror attack

HAHA!!! Like RICO couldn't have been used for this? If they can use it to pull over someone driving because they fit a profile then confiscate any money found then it should be usable for terrorism as well.

Increased border security provisions to help stop illegal aliens from entering the country, with added provisions for the Canadian border.

You're talking to wrong person about so called "illegal aliens". If you do want to talk about them then what Native American Indian tribe are you from? If you're not Indian then you're an illegal alien. Those wanting to make it illegal to immigrate are no better than the Know Nothings who wanted to exclude the Irish from immigrating to the USA, or those who supported the Chinese Exclusion Act.

If you really want to argue that the Patriot Act is "not needed", you need to specifically address which of these provisions you don't like

Such as searching book store and library records? What of sneak and peek search warrants? The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 was specifically setup so the president could get warrants after Nixon abused his office. Or being barred from talking about what you know like Sibel Edmonds was by a Gag order issued by the admin?

Falcon