FBI Hid Patriot Act Abuses

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Wired is reporting that the FBI hid Patriot Act abuses with retroactive and flawed subpoenas, and used them to illegally acquire phone and credit card records. There were at least 11 retroactive, 'blanket' subpoenas that were signed by top counter-terrorism officials, some of which sought information the FBI is not allowed to have. The FBI's Communication Analysis Unit also had secret contracts with AT&T, Verizon and MCI, and abused National Security Letters by issuing subpoenas based on fake emergencies."

Comments

Happens all the time.

[morgan_greywolf]

Of oourse, it gives those convicted using such information grounds for appeal. The evidence gathered could be thrown out and their convictions overturned.

The FBI should know better.

Re:telco immunity vindicated?

[schwit1]

This revelation doesn't exonerate anyone.

There's a big difference between being asked for communications to or from an internet account or phone and being given unfettered access to all provider traffic.

Re:This is why we have the second amendment

[morgan_greywolf]

So - all you guys with guns, who maintain that they can protect us from a corrupt government. Where are you? We need some protecting from a corrupt government. I think you're looking for this guy.

Re:And?

[sm62704]

Naw, I'm not bitter

And people wonder why geezers like me are cynical. There was a book several decades ago called The Peter Principle. The premise was "In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence." It explains why things are so messed up.

The last Governor here in Illinois is in a Federal prison for bribery and other misconduct, another example of what you illustrate well in your comment.

Re:And?

[JasonTik]

Undoing accidental Moderation. Sorry for the random post. This moderation system NEEDS a confirm button, not a javascripted, auto-committing box.

Re:And?

[smooth wombat]

Could you link to some sources? This is an interesting statement.

Follow this link about halfway down to see a list of officers, including generals, as of late 2005, who were forced out because of their honest views. Since that time, others, including the most recent resignation of Admiral Fallon, can be added to the list.

Certainly there are those in the above list who retired rather than wait to be forced out but the concept was the same: these were people who had long, distinguished track records of getting the job done but when they gave their honest opinions, they were told to leave or were forced out.

Re:With great power comes great responsibility

[Dr Caleb]

"We all agree that crime prevention and the provision of justice is one service that government must provide."

No, we do not. Most of what you say I agree with, but this I do not.

'Crime Prevention' is a misnomer that has given police departments carte blanch to do many of the things we see above. The government must investigate crime, and prosecute those responsible in a fair trial.

I have yet to see a police or law enforcement that has 'crime prevention' in it's charter, because it is impossible. Just as 'preventing terrorism' is, or 'suicide prevention'. If someone wants it to happen bad enough, no law enforcement agency can prevent it. Giving them the tools to 'prevent' what got us here to begin with. Give them the tools to find out what happened. Nothing more.

Re:And?

[techpawn]

Admiral Fallon, can be added to the list.

I love that we put an Admiral in charge of a land war. Granted, he may have been a genius about the art of modern evolving warfare. But Fallon claimed ongoing misperceptions about differences between his ideas and U.S. policy where making it too difficult for him to operate.

a simpler explanation

[u8i9o0]

You're thinking about this wrong.

With blanket immunity, all civil trials will stop completely.

Without blanket immunity, the civil trials will expose any wrong doings that did occur. If the telcos were persuaded illegally by law enforcement to commit wrong doing, then such evidence will be used in oversight and criminal investigations against the law enforcement offices and officers themselves.

Analogy time:
1. A cop threatens to kidnap/disappear you unless you kill someone.
2. You kill that someone and now face trial for the murder.
Two outcomes:
A. the cop 'silences' you before trial.
B. the cop has serious connections and manages to get you immunity, hoping you shut up about the whole affair.

To protect the law enforcement offices, they have to protect the telcos.

Don't think about this as some cultural thing: it's strictly about covering up previous wrong doing. If it happens to allow for future wrong doing, well that's just an added bonus.

Re:Well

[kiddailey]

You asked: "How is it possible that a special 'right' to employ physical force against peaceful human beings -- the defining prerequisite of all government -- is NOT abuse?"

It's not hard to find the answer:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ..."

The problem is when the government no longer derives its power from the consent of the governed. As in, the governed are manipulated into allowing a shift of power from them to the government.