Slashdot Mirror
FBI Lied To Support Need For PATRIOT Act Expansion
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "It probably won't surprise you, but in 2005, the FBI manufactured evidence to get the power to issue National Security Letters under the PATRIOT Act. Unlike normal subpoenas, NSLs do not require probable cause and you're never allowed to talk about having received one, leading to a lack of accountability that caused them to be widely abused. The EFF has discovered via FOIA requests that an FBI field agent was forced by superiors to return papers he got via a lawful subpoena, then demand them again via an NSL (which was rejected for being unlawful at the time), and re-file the original subpoena to get them back. This delay in a supposedly critical anti-terror investigation then became a talking point used by FBI Director Robert Mueller when the FBI wanted to justify their need for the power to issue National Security Letters."
This is an excellent of example of why we need to be more vigilent and less complacent when it comes to government legislation. The fact that with no actual precedent for requiring stronger powers, the FBI would lie to get them, is a testament to the fact that everyone is susceptible to feeling, and succombing to, a hunger for power, even at the expense of the people they are meant to be serving.
There is a laziness in the way people react to such legislative measures - a laziness that ignores the very real danger that our comfortable Western democracies could fall in to dictatorship much more easily than people think.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
--Edmund Burke
Amnesty International
that the state of affairs is bad when a news like this doesn't surprise you!
This is a perfect example of why we should not have blindly given our rights up. To all those people that say, "Hey, I am not doing anything wrong so why should I care if the government taps my phone", I say THIS is the reason. The "government" may have "good" intentions, but the people in government will use the power they are given for other reasons. Next thing you know it wire taps are looking for tax evasion tips, or drug deals. Heaven forbid a mistake is made and your phone is recorded because you said "bomb", as in "last night's concert was the bomb. hey did you score that sack?". Next thing you know your door is kicked in because the police got a "tip" you were buying drugs.
There is something seriously wrong when an organisation charged with upholding the law and maintaining the moral society in which we all want to live feels it's acceptable to lie and cheat simply in order to grab more powers for its self.
I can perfectly understand the agents desire for greater powers; "I know this guys a crook so why do I have to jump through all these damn hoops just to lock him away" but there should be leadership from the top which balances these needs with the needs of society and it's here the problem seems to lie with an administration unconcerned with the needs of the society and over focussed on 'improving' it's own machinery.
I seriously hope the next US President is able to take charge of his apparatus properly and put it use for everyones good rather than fulfilling some dubious goals of your own because as I think we can clearly see now the wrong people in the Whitehouse can produce all sorts of nasty and counter productive behaviour even in areas they aren't directly interested in.
Fuck you for turning a story about the Director of the FBI deliberately lying to congress in order to get expanded, unsupervised super-subpoena powers into a left-right story.
9/11 might have scared you to the point where you'll allow the government to do whatever they like with your private life. Many of us, however, aren't nearly so cowardly.
Asshole.
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
Remember this the next time the so-called "good guys" explain how the sweeping new powers they need to defeat terrorists and save all the children and puppy dogs would never be abused.
These people have a sense of entitlement coupled with an iron-clad conviction that they're right and everybody else is wrong that makes them at least as dangerous to the long-term survival of democracy as any pack of terrorists.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Somewhere in heaven, he's wearing a dress and looking down with pride that his tradition of civil rights abuses, intimidation, and totalitarian thuggery was not forgotten after all.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
No search or seizure is reasonable unless determined by a court to derive from probable cause for the search or seizure.
NSLs are inherent violations of the Constitution. Every time, even when they're "properly" used. When they're not even used according to the FBI's rules, there is not even a flimsy excuse for violating the Constitution.
Thousands of times, as a matter of course, or on a whim. Mueller and every other official with their hands dirty from these crooked anti-American NSLs should be impeached immediately. And then charged with criminal penalties, then slammed in prison with the people they were charged with busting. Because they're all criminals. Some, like Mueller, far more dangerous than others.
In a slightly less civilized country (but one with perhaps more dignity), Mueller would have been hanged from a tree or ripped to shreds by an angry mob. He should be grateful that we have the decency to just throw him in jail.
--
make install -not war
Which traitors would that be?
People using their telephone to call their relatives in the middle east?
Or the ones in the White House who have violated their sworn oath to "...preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." ?
Spidey!!!
That's what I was thinking. On the other hand, if this is the kind of evidence that's left lying around, just imagine the contents of the documents that they've destroyed or don't acknowledge the existence of!
You don't understand. They can't be constitutionally suspect because you can't talk about them. That's the whole point to them being secret. If they weren't secret, the first person to receive one would have gone straight to court, and the whole thing wouldn't have gotten this far... ...oh, I see. You just haven't had your re-education training yet. Don't worry. Someone will be along shortly to help you readjust.
Of a couple of weeks, hasn't it? The FBI faking evidence so that it can get Congress to give it the power to violate the Constitution over and over again. And this comes on top of revelations that the Vice President, National Security Advisor, and 4 other top members of the Administration actually sat in a room and choreographed how the CIA would torture people who fell into their clutches.
And yet, there's no hollering and screaming in the public for heads to roll. The Democratic majority in Congress, our supposed check on this kind of abuse, still does not call for impeachment.'
Soon, my friends, very soon, there will be little recourse but to converge on Washington DC and burn it to the ground.
But in the small hope that that can be avoided, please call and write your Congresspeople and demand impeachment for these and all the many other crimes they've committed.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
This is the way that empires have fallen in the past, and how they will fall in the future. Not by an invasion or war, but simply because they started rotting from the inside, corrupted by power.
Or, alternatively, listen closely when Cheney and Rumsfeld talked about the unitary executive. They strongly believe that by definition, whenever the executive does anything, it is legal. Crises like 9/11 was in this context nothing but the fig leaf to cover what they thought is the way it ought to be.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
For one, linking to a news summary of a publicly available testimony is why slashdot sucks nowadays.
The second laughable problem is that the FBI shouldn't need to justify the emergency. The director is correct. But they should be held accountable to what's done in such an emergency. If a police officer turns on his lights and sirens simply to run a red light and causes an accident, you get a fat check! The FBI doesn't need to demonstrate that it has an actual emergency, but does need to be held accountable to what it's done after the fact. The same concept applies to anyone or anything else. The cops don't pull you over randomly in your car and ask if you've been speeding because you aren't guilty until it's observed. You don't get shaken down on the street for assault and battery because you have a baseball bat.
This is why slashdot has gone to the dogs. Without linking to the original context of the testimony, you can't possibly hope to have any meaningful discussion. DON'T YOU LOVE SPIN?
To Soviet Russia ?
A genuine desire to do good is not sufficient to avoid corruption. In fact it might make you more vulnerable to it, since you are able to rationalize away that corruption for being neccessary for greater good. When you bend the rules, or follow their letter while ignoring their spirit, you can silence your conscience; after all, you aren't pursuing your own good, but common good, so you aren't doing anything wrong.
And of course once you've bent the rules just a little, there's no reason not to bend them just a tiny bit more, and then more, and then even more, until one day you are doing shit like the summary said - all the time having nothing but the best of intentions. "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." That's one saying people working in intelligence agencies should really take to heart.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
You mean to tell me that the FBI is the evil FBI?! I'm shocked! Shocked!..Well not that shocked.
The First Amendment and Second Amendment are supposed to be "inalienable rights" though. You see, the Bill of Rights doesn't grant these things, it merely establishes that the government will respect them because they are rights that all people should have.
Thing is, it really IS "just a piece of paper" in that regard. It counts so long as the government agrees to respect those rights, and the day they don't (which could be next Tuesday for all we know), we're just as screwed as every other country.
The only consolation is that because the Second Amendment has been in place for so long, that the US citizenship is generally armed fairly well. By the time we actually have to stand up and use those arms though, the government will have certainly declared that little inconvenience null and void.
The same actually applies to voting though a lot of people are a bit naive on that. Voting out your leaders for better ones only works so long as those people are willing to concede to the results. If G.W. Bush announced this Novermber that he's sorry, but for the safety of the country and to protect us against the terrorists, he must "delay" the election results and maintain the presidency indefinitely, then he'd keep office, plain and simple, until "we the people" rose up against him violently. The ballot box is meaningless unless it can be enforced via the ammo box.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
We're never encouraged to think about the motivations of people in power who want to keep all their funding. Which is why we need to.
This is coming across as a bit grimmer than I really set out for it to be.
So, what you're left with is essentially ground armored vehicles that are of some limited use. Tanks, large guns, etc. Still, as was proven in Vietnam, these are largely ineffective against a guerrilla force that practices hit and run and sniper attacks rather than large engagements, and that inherently blends in with the rest of the population.
It's been proven time and again that it is extremely difficult to deal with a guerrilla force on it's own territory. The advantage of fully automatic weapons over semi or even bolt or pump action isn't as significant as you think, and with a population of over 300 million people in this country but less than 2 million in the standing army, you can be we have the numerical superiority to handle it. The question is NOT whether or not we COULD take back our government, it's a question of whether or not people will a) be willing to lay down their life for their liberty as they once did, or, no offense intended, but b) go with your rationalization that they have bigger guns so we should just drop the trousers, bend over, and ask if they wouldn't mind using some lube.
Because if you've already accepted your line of thinking, the only thing between us and slavery is the military's whim.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
The other thing you fail to understand is that the military is made up of brothers/sisters/mom's/dad's of civilians. When they really grasp what they are doing there is going to be a HUGE military fallout.
Sure we have 2 million standing. But how many do you honestly think will be left if they have to start killing their own people?