Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FBI Hid Patriot Act Abuses

Posted by Soulskill on from the nothing-to-see-here dept.

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."

8 of 243 comments (clear)

  1. Needed with 1 in 300 being a terrorist by transporter_ii · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Needed with 1 in 300 being a terrorist

    With one out of three people being a terrorist, I think we should all be gratefull that they are doing whatever it takes to get their jobs done:

    http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/watchlistcounter.html?=main

    Seriously, I said all along that they didn't care anything about catching terrorist...that it was just smoke and mirrors to monitor us. And low and behold, they will get to monitor us legally, as one out of three of us is a terrorist.

    If this doesn't scare the hell out of you, I don't know what will.

    Transporter_ii

    --
    Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
    1. Re:Needed with 1 in 300 being a terrorist by molex333 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is my favorite. Marine Staff Sgt. Daniel Brown was blocked from flying while on his way home from an 8-month deployment in Iraq. He was listed as a suspected terrorist due to a previous incident in which gunpowder was detected on his boots, most likely a residue of a previous tour in Iraq. I was actually held for 2 hours once because one of the people in airport security because I smelt like gasoline. I was returning home from a business trip and I had to fill up a rental car with gas. There was some gasoline residue on my shoes. Do I really need to be searched and treated like a criminal for filling up a car with gas?

      --
      Somewhere in a dark place you will find:
      www.m1
    2. Re:Needed with 1 in 300 being a terrorist by Jimmy+King · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Sadly, that sounds about accurate. A co-worker of my wife has a husband who is doing federal time and is labeled as a domestic terrorist. You know what he did? He and a couple friends tried to blow up a port-a-potty in the middle of the night.

      Stupid? yep. Irresponsible? Yep. Terrorism? Only if damned near everyone I knew in highschool is a terrorist for doing similarly stupid and destructive crap.

  2. This is why we have the second amendment by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  3. Re:And? by EXMSFT · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That would require them admitting they did wrong. It's much easier to claim national security is at risk. Feels a sneeze coming on.... ahh... ahh... McCarthy!

    Whew. Much better.

    But really. It's all for the greater good.
  4. Re:And? by nschubach · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Oh, I'm sure it would have been. But let's (just for a moment) assume that the British government then, is like the current US government. They would have sent an "elite" force of troops to strategically capture Adams, Jefferson, Washington, et al. and have them disappear overnight. Anyone that spoke up against such crimes would also be silenced. The "New World Order" US government has become the tyrannical king.

    --
    Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
  5. Re:And? by eclectic4 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Therein lies the rub. I have still yet to find a true definition of what a terrorist is. Ask a gov official and he'll usually balk. I have been told that this is difficult to do as most definitions would then apply the "terrorist" tag to themselves...

    Kinda like when Israel and the US were the only abstaining votes at the UN when they were deciding what the definition should be... US backed Israel because most definitions would have applied to them, and us.

    --

    "The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
  6. Re:And? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The British Empire didn't get where it did by obeying rules of warfare.

    Against other Europeans it most certanly did. Parlays, breaks for lunch, meeting on the field of honor, not targeting officers, etc. All poor tactics, but adhered to by the British because of the rules of war.

    What they did to the Irish, Scots, Indians, Africans, etc, would make your blood curl.

    They were dicks once they won the wars to be sure.

    Calling Washington, Adams, Jefferson, etc terrorists is something I would expect a 4th grade history teacher to do or maybe just a 4th grader.

    I never did. However, I fail to understand how one would be offended by the concept. Did they not target the civilian population (Loyalists)? Isn't that the only true definition of a terrorist, one who targets a civilian population to sway their political opinion?

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!