Patriot Act Abuses

[Chilly]

Oh boy!

[UConn James]

The Bush Administration has all along operated under the premise that it's easier to ask for forgiveness than to get permission.

 

B/c it is.

 

<shrug>

[Bishop Hedd]

This is of course not news but I'm glad it is brought up and it should be brought up and again and again as Bush makes his daily Rose Garden plea (he did it again yesterday) to the public to allow telecommunications companies to violate their privacy with no chance of recourse.

 

Absolutely unbelievable!

[OCinBuffalo]

Looks like they screwed up:

 

1. first getting more records than they needed and then not getting individual subpoenas for each record because that would create a mountain of work

2. tried to get out of doing that work by creating one subpoena that covers everything

3. tried to cover for that by calling the blanket subpoena an "emergency" request

 

So I see this as bureaucratic laziness more than anything else. Plus, they shouldn't have gotten too many records in the first place. Another shining example of how well the FBI handles its Information Systems.

 

This is NOT some nefarious conspiracy to screw us. This is a couple of government employees trying to shirk the work they created for themselves. What a surprise!

[RuntheDamnBall]

There is a very good article by Scott Horton in Harper's right now about the movement to stuff DoJ with hacks, partly enabled by some obscure PATRIOT clauses.

 

This should concern everyone, not because conservatives are BAD! (I don't believe that). It should concern everyone because the administration has really politicized and massively increased executive power and appointments that aren't supposed to be political, to the point that you're really not going to like it when the other side gets in office and does the same thing.

 

I think the real litmus test on these matters should be -- would you be comfortable with the other/any side having this much power? If you aren't, you shouldn't be comfortable with the Bush administration having it.

[molson_golden2002]

Looks like they screwed up:

 

1. first getting more records than they needed and then not getting individual subpoenas for each record because that would create a mountain of work

2. tried to get out of doing that work by creating one subpoena that covers everything

3. tried to cover for that by calling the blanket subpoena an "emergency" request

 

So I see this as bureaucratic laziness more than anything else. Plus, they shouldn't have gotten too many records in the first place. Another shining example of how well the FBI handles its Information Systems.

 

This is NOT some nefarious conspiracy to screw us. This is a couple of government employees trying to shirk the work they created for themselves. What a surprise!

Ya, I don't think they would use this to gain a political advantage over the democrats or to do anything else illegal. No, never

[OCinBuffalo]

This is of course not news but I'm glad it is brought up and it should be brought up and again and again as Bush makes his daily Rose Garden plea (he did it again yesterday) to the public to allow telecommunications companies to violate their privacy with no chance of recourse.

 

Absolutely unbelievable!

Hey like I said this is not some political agenda. Do you honestly think that Bush is running some little company such that he can know what each and every one of his employees does? No, the ever increasing size of government has seen to that. There are millions of employees in the government and believe me when I tell you most of them test the limits of acceptable competence every day.

 

Tagging an obvious bureaucratic foul up, and an even lamer attempt by their bosses to get their employees out of a mountain of work, as part of Bush's personal political agenda, is frivolous at best.

 

You are kidding yourself if you think he even knows about it. That's why there is an attorney general, FBI Director, and 2-3 managers above the people who screwed this up. Those folks need to be reviewed for performance and dealt with accordingly.

 

Now as far as the request for immunity from liability by the telecoms, I'm not sure. On one side, I like the fact that keeping the liability might give the telecoms pause, however, the last thing we need is an opening for a whole new brand of frivolous lawsuits. As if we don't have enough already.

 

Ask yourself this: is the real reason the house Democrats won't support immunity because of the first thing, or is it because they get giant campaign contributions from the massive trial attorney lobby?

[OCinBuffalo]

Ya, I don't think they would use this to gain a political advantage over the democrats or to do anything else illegal. No, never

No, but I think dolts like you will distort the facts of this case to try and gain a political advantage. Besides, what possible political advantage can be gained by having a screw up by a government agency be exposed for what it is?

[molson_golden2002]

No, but I think dolts like you will distort the facts of this case to try and gain a political advantage. Besides, what possible political advantage can be gained by having a screw up by a government agency be exposed for what it is?

Are you kidding?

[Wacka]

Slashdot and Wired?

Much worse than having ~1000 FBI files of your enemies.

[Chilly]

Slashdot and Wired?

Much worse than having ~1000 FBI files of your enemies.

 

Now "/. bad"?

[OCinBuffalo]

There is a very good article by Scott Horton in Harper's right now about the movement to stuff DoJ with hacks, partly enabled by some obscure PATRIOT clauses.

 

This should concern everyone, not because conservatives are BAD! (I don't believe that). It should concern everyone because the administration has really politicized and massively increased executive power and appointments that aren't supposed to be political, to the point that you're really not going to like it when the other side gets in office and does the same thing.

 

I think the real litmus test on these matters should be -- would you be comfortable with the other/any side having this much power? If you aren't, you shouldn't be comfortable with the Bush administration having it.

See I don't know about the "political" part of the thinking. I think after 9/11 the Bush people got extremely paranoid and wanted everybody on every post in lock step so that they could ensure that they wouldn't be distracted by dissent, even when that dissent was reasonable = fortress mentality = always bad things to come from that. The reasoning being that they needed to get away from talking and start doing, regardless if doing meant doing something wrong.

 

I don't see fortress mentality = Republican/conservative agenda. In fact the two things share little in common, with exception of "illegal immigrants are invading the fortress". Free trade, deregulation, cutting the size of government all != fortress mentality and are all conservative values.

 

Now, since the fortress mentality has put people who probably don't belong there in important positions/seemingly politicized those positions, then yes I agree. That has unfortunately created a precedent for either side to put people in positions, due to their ideology, who are going to get us all killed.

[OCinBuffalo]

Are you kidding?

Are you trying to tell me that we won't be hearing:

 

1. see the Bush Admin. is responsible for everything everybody does, not matter what level they are, so this wiretapping is Bush's fault

2. therefore Bush is bad

3. therefore Republicans are bad

4. therefore vote for Democrats

 

from you for the next 2 months, and that this activity is not an example of gaining a political advantage?

[RuntheDamnBall]

See I don't know about the "political" part of the thinking. I think after 9/11 the Bush people got extremely paranoid and wanted everybody on every post in lock step so that they could ensure that they wouldn't be distracted by dissent, even when that dissent was reasonable = fortress mentality = always bad things to come from that. The reasoning being that they needed to get away from talking and start doing, regardless if doing meant doing something wrong.

 

I don't see fortress mentality = Republican/conservative agenda. In fact the two things share little in common, with exception of "illegal immigrants are invading the fortress". Free trade, deregulation, cutting the size of government all != fortress mentality and are all conservative values.

 

Now, since the fortress mentality has put people who probably don't belong there in important positions/seemingly politicized those positions, then yes I agree. That has unfortunately created a precedent for either side to put people in positions, due to their ideology, who are going to get us all killed.

I think if you are vetting people for non-political positions and turning them down because they gave money to a Democratic campaign once, it's definitely political. I think we can all agree for the most part that Bush has not really been emblematically conservative, so I do, to a point, agree that it's not a conservative agenda. It is the bunker/fortress mentality that so many Republicans did buy into, though. Regardless, the rest of what you have to say is spot-on.

[OCinBuffalo]

I think if you are vetting people for non-political positions and turning them down because they gave money to a Democratic campaign once, it's definitely political. I think we can all agree for the most part that Bush has not really been emblematically conservative, so I do, to a point, agree that it's not a conservative agenda. It is the bunker/fortress mentality that so many Republicans did buy into, though. Regardless, the rest of what you have to say is spot-on.

That's where they screwed up. They should not have vetted anybody for political leanings and simply got the best people they could find. Oops wait, isn't that what they should always be doing? I don't know if the fortress mentality is something most Republicans bought into. I do think that most of them bought into, "let's go kick ass on everybody who has pissed us off = axis of evil", and to hell with anybody who says "yeah but how exactly should we go about that?". I have to admit that I wanted to go kick ass after 9/11 as much as anybody. I even went to the recruitment office. But that thinking stopped for me around 10/11, and when they told me I would be managing computer projects. I still think that the entire Iraq war was simply as stepping stone to go after Iran, and that all of that goes back to simply an extrapolation of the "let's go kick ass" thinking.

[VRWC]

This is of course not news but I'm glad it is brought up and it should be brought up and again and again as Bush makes his daily Rose Garden plea (he did it again yesterday) to the public to allow telecommunications companies to violate their privacy with no chance of recourse.

 

Absolutely unbelievable!

 

That's not true! The law stipulates that telecommunication companies can not be sued based on a wire tape requested by the Government under FISA. The government needs access to those lines and right now there are no guards in place for someone suing them over privacy concerns. The telecom companies need protection from the courts in order for the U.S. Gov’t to gain access to intell. It’s not a law protecting the telecoms over anything they may initiate over privacy.

 

Now another point, everyone has a very short memory over 9/11. Why didn’t we “connect the dots”, why did we fail in not detecting the 9/11 plot. Blah blah blah. The dems blasted everyone over intel and not being able to gather and share information. Hence, the Patriot Act. You can’t have it both ways. Either we connect the dots or we don’t. If we don’t have the tools to gather information there are no dots to connect.

 

Even if we did catch the Mother F’ers before they boarded the planes, what were we going to charge them with? Boarding a plane with box cutters? The ACLU would have had them released in 24 hours. 9/11 changed everything, and now we have those same people who want to go back to pre-9/11 mentality. We are in a war and we better start acting like it.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Fred, you're acting like the information wasn't out there and available before 9/11. It seems from everything I've read that we could have figured this information out prior without the means that we're now calling essential to intelligence. Was it shared properly? Probably not. Fixing that is probably the best idea behind the PATRIOT / DHS changes. But it seems to me that for a self-proclaimed defender of freedom, you're far too willing to cede yours to the government.

 

I'm more than willing to listen to experienced hands talk about what is and what isn't necessary, though...

[molson_golden2002]

That's not true! The law stipulates that telecommunication companies can not be sued based on a wire tape requested by the Government under FISA. The government needs access to those lines and right now there are no guards in place for someone suing them over privacy concerns. The telecom companies need protection from the courts in order for the U.S. Gov’t to gain access to intell. It’s not a law protecting the telecoms over anything they may initiate over privacy.

 

Now another point, everyone has a very short memory over 9/11. Why didn’t we “connect the dots”, why did we fail in not detecting the 9/11 plot. Blah blah blah. The dems blasted everyone over intel and not being able to gather and share information. Hence, the Patriot Act. You can’t have it both ways. Either we connect the dots or we don’t. If we don’t have the tools to gather information there are no dots to connect.

 

Even if we did catch the Mother F’ers before they boarded the planes, what were we going to charge them with? Boarding a plane with box cutters? The ACLU would have had them released in 24 hours. 9/11 changed everything, and now we have those same people who want to go back to pre-9/11 mentality. We are in a war and we better start acting like it.

This is not true. The law suits are over trying to find out who the government illegally spied upon with the telecom's help. They did break the law, no one is denying that

[finknottle]

This is not true. The law suits are over trying to find out who the government illegally spied upon with the telecom's help. They did break the law, no one is denying that

 

Who is they - the companies or the government? Is there an explicit law that the companies broke?

[Adam]

Even if we did catch the Mother F’ers before they boarded the planes, what were we going to charge them with? Boarding a plane with box cutters? The ACLU would have had them released in 24 hours. 9/11 changed everything, and now we have those same people who want to go back to pre-9/11 mentality. We are in a war and we better start acting like it.

No matter how secure we try to make things, we can't make things perfect. Look at the Virginia Tech tragedy. Sure, you can up security, but is there really a way to stop that from happening? I think the answer is no, unless we have guys with guns standing at every corner of every street, then hope they stay on the right side.

 

I am not sure if I really got my idea across, sometimes I'm not sure I really have an idea at all.....things are just so f'ed up.

 

There are good people on both sides of our political divide, but I see the good people mattering less and less as the big names take over.