FBI broke law for years in phone record searches
 

The FBI illegally collected more than 2,000 U.S. telephone call records between 2002 and 2006 by invoking terrorism emergencies that did not exist.

Where's the outrage from Republican "anti-big government/law & order/personal accountability" zealots when their administration is found to have broken the law by illegally and systematically accessing phone records for years?

I find it endearingly quaint that the FBI felt they needed to have an excuse.

John

For real. Look at all of the blatantly unconstitutional stuff they did during the McCarthy Era, The Lennon Files, etc..........

Dave

And Dr. King.

John

When terrorists are invloved they will say no law applies. To some extent I agree, but certainly not completely.

Now turn the tables. What would the libs have screamed if they had the info on an attack from these calls and it was not used. Oh wait we been there all ready :)

Can't forget that.

You should see what one of my FAR-right friends posted on my Facebook page.

Sheesh!

Dave

Thankfully I am not far right, nor on facebook :)

I'm with you on that one, also twitter.

I have the Facebook account, but I'm rarely on it anymore. It's good for finding long lost friends, but then you discover what they have become............................:eek:

Tried "Twitter"---hated it.

Dave

Honest point here... I'd like to hear both sides in a civil, open minded manner.

We need to protect ourselves from terrorists. Although I don't want my private life made public, I have nothing to hide. Also, out of all the possible phone records that could have been illegally collected, 2000 doesn't seem like that many, in light of an inexact science such as intel gathering. How many of those 2000 records were used to do anything illegal or unethical to the individual to which they belonged?

What alternative is available to find terrorists other than covert surveillance? As has been said so many times, Freedom isn't Free; that doesn't just apply to those who have paid in war, but also to those enjoying peace at home. There is a price we all need to pay to maintain our liberty.

Alternatives?

Mike

It never bothered me, ofcourse I dont break any laws or plan attacks so why would it bother anyone living a clean life?

Don't forget what we're talking about here. The FBI (Under Louie Freh and his bosses John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales) concocted bogus threats to use as cover for surveilling people whose identities we are not to know. Frankly, it reeks.

After all, there's the FISA Act. It does a reasonable job of balancing security concerns with civil and privacy rights. If I'm not mistaken, it's even possible under the act to obtain ex post facto approval (which might actually be unconstitutional) for surveillance undertaken in the "heat of the moment".

Bush ignored the FISA Court. Since the Court all but never declines requests it's logical to assume that Bush either believed he was operating outside the law or that he wanted to subvert the authority of the FISA Court - or both.

John

While I understand your points, we are a nation of laws. Do we really want to have a system whereby the executive branch can pick and choose which laws to ignore and cite nonexistent emergencies to justify doing so? The reported instances were violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and FBI agents invoked nonexistent emergencies (retroactively) to support their illicit activities. Where does one draw the line in giving the executive "carte blanche" to do as it chooses? Keep in mind that we are told that the "war in terror" is necessary to "defend our freedoms." Do we simply toss out these freedoms in the pursuit of this objective? Seems a bit ironic (at best) to me.:confused:

It's a good point and a fair question. Here's my opinion. If we agree that it's necessary and best for America we should change the law. You can't just ignore it and later justify it by saying it was necessary. That's now how it works. But I wouldn't be too quick to start giving that kind of power to the government.

142EBC, It appears from your avatar and your screen name that you are one of those individuals who has chosen to serve his country. For that, I thank you. You certainly deserve the consideration to have your ideas considered for their merits without being branded as a right wingnut or the perjorative of the day for those who take a different world view.

I do, however, echo the statements in some of the other replies - we do not advance the cause of liberty by using terrorism as a convenient excuse to violate laws designed to protect personal liberty.

Unfortunately many who would also excuse the violation of constitutional protections in the name of anti-terrorism also define liberty or freedom as the ability to run their businesses any way they please. Therefore any government regulation is deemed over-reaching, while in the same breath government intrusion into private lives is excused.

Another irony is that the people who have championed the necessity of invading Iraq have not been willing to pay the financial cost of the military action. The war has been charged on a credit card issued by the Bank of China, but no one wants to raise the necessary funds to pay the bills (i.e. raise taxes). Clearly the cost of the military action should not all be borne by the men and women who have volunteered for service to the country, but also those who have chosen to earn their living free of personal military obligations. Those of us on whose watch this war was prosecuted should have made the monthly payments up front rather than passing them on to later generations. Immediate financial responsibility for the cost for prosecuting a war against what was a sovereign country might have made more citizens question whether such a war actually advanced the cause of liberty.

Regards,

D-Ray

All good points. In this day and age, how do we protect ourselves from terrorists. They will deceive us and use our Constitution to impose their will on us. If they get their way, our present liberties will be non-existent.

So that begs the question, what is a legitimate means for stopping these terrorists? How can we be proactive, yet not infringe on the liberties of our citizens?

I don't know if there is a perfect answer, but something needs to be done.

Mike

Hi Mike, welcome aboard.

Well I would say that I really don't care who listens to my phone calls because there is nothing in them out of the ordinary. That said as an immigrant (legal) I swore to honour and defend the Constitution, and that documents says that we are a nation of laws. The FBI already had a method of obtaining all the legal paper needed to tap my phone or yours. Why did they break the very laws they are supposed to enforce?

I have responded, rather vehemently I will admit, to "Freedom isn't Free" and I will more calmly suggest to you that Iraq was no threat to your freedom or mine, that is a rather large smelly red herring. To elevate a gang of thugs and murderers by declaring war on them is counter-productive. This means that our troops must follow the "Rules of war" as defined in many of our own documents.

Picture this; our soldiers are burdened with a 150 pound pack against others in loose robes out there in 120 degree heat. Much better to use aircraft and large bombs. Oh but innocent people . . . Do you ever stop to think about innocent cockroaches when you call in the exterminator? Hard hearted? No simply practical, spilling the blood of our young men and women when there is a cleaner alternative is simply wrong.

To follow on to my last post, we royally screwed up in the events up to and after 9/11. That is water under the bridge now but General Franks should have at least been in Kuwait, not Florida, wars are only run with remotes in computer games. We had bin Laden at Tora Bora and screwed-up.

So now where are we? Well the Iraqi shia have elected themselves a corrupt and inept government, no reason for more of our bravest and best to die. Leave the Kurds plenty of arms, etc. and just get out.

The Afghans are beginning to wake up to the simple fact that alQuaeda and the Taliban have killed more muslims the anyone else. We are quite certain that the nasties are dug in in the mountain caves along the border. "Hello, Diego Suarez, I would like ten B-52s with bunker busters, here are the co-ordinates . . .". Bring the troops home and when the dust settles keep the over flights by the Predators with Hellfires for a year and take them out as necessary.

The other problem Iran is likely on the way to solving itself. The Iranians realize that they went from the frying pan to the fire. Sure the Shaw was bad but the Ayatolla is worse. We might fan the flames very quietly but under the radar.

As politically incorrect as this sounds, I must agree. Unfortunately, war is not clean, war is not sanitary. War sucks (I've been there, done that, got the scars to prove it).
I have to wonder; the amount of innocent civilians killed by homocide bombers, etc. vs. the amount that would have been killed if we could fight this war in a way that would be swift and effective, such as suggested by Merrylander... which would be less?
There is no good answer for this. It's a no win situation for someone. And I don't condone killing or disregarding innocent civilians. It's an ugly situation. When I was in Iraq my goal was PEACE, not killing. Unfortunately, VERY UNFORTUNATELY, that is not always a viable alternative.
One thing I always try to keep in mind: we know what we learn from the media. The facts shared behind the doors in the Oval Office and Pentagon are not always what can be shared with the general public. When decisions are made that seem unreasonable, stupid, unfair, etc., I try to remember that what I know is only a fraction of the complete story.
I wish I had the right answer...???
Mike

At the risk of providing a trite response to a serious question, one way to beat terrorists is not to let them terrorize us. Consider for a moment that the best that Al Qaeda could do recently was send over an impressionable young nimrod with PETN in his skivvies. If such an (unsuccessful) act can elicit a response whereby we greatly diminish our own civil liberties and expend trillions in lives and treasure in the process, they win. If we invade a country like Iraq without justification, they win even bigger. Unfortunately, I think one could argue that bin Laden is playing us like a fiddle.

Mike, Pat,

That is the real point, we need to lose this irrational fear. We kill more people in a year texting while driving than the terrorists have, should we have a war on texters?

Declaring war elevates them above the common criminals that they are, that they do not deserve. Perhaps my solution sounded brutal, is it any more brutal than the twin towers? Were all the people in there guilty? As you wrote, war sucks (Glad you are safe home and I hope the scars are not too deep). We did not ask for 9/11, hey maybe some oil companies did bad things over there, the world trade center is not Exxon HQ AFAIK.

So you know where I am coming from it is quite simple, I mind my own business, try to help those less fortunate, and lead a quiet retirement.

However as I told one man "If you mess with me you will live to regret it one day. If you mess with my wife, you may live to regret it, much depends on what sort of mood I am in." Way back Florence was managing a large dress shop, working up to 120 hour weeks.
One day after we were married, she asked me what I thought about her job, I told her to tell the Regional Manager shove it, so she quit. Well this a**hole manager started bad mouthing her publically (her employees loved her and kept us informed) and to make a long story short, he was demoted, had to sell the house he just bought because they moved him out of the territory. All I had offered to do was horsewhip him at high noon in the mall. The threat of legal action (he was an employee of the company) may have had summat to do with it.

So I have no feelings of kindness toward these people who harmed us for no real reason, only their warped minds. The women are just as bad, they hide quite a lot of explosive under those burkas, and they raise the children with this same warped outlook. Innocents? I hardly think so.

I lived through WW II, the so called police action in Korea and watched Vietnam from Canada as I did not come here until 1984. I have never visited the Memorial as they probably would not like to see a grown man cry, as far as my heart tells me they were all my sons and daughters. I can't watch the NewsHour when the show tha faces of the fallen without tears, Dear God, many of them had not even had a chance to live, still in their teens. I am supposed to forgive those that are responsible? I don't think so, forgive me Lord but that asks too much.

Rob, I wish you would tell us what you really think.;)

Mike, I think I am going to enjoy reading your contributions to this board. I think it is a much wiser man who understands that he does not know the answers than a man who deceives himself, and tries to deceive others by claiming that he has all the answers.

I have often wondered how difficult it is for a man of conscience to be involved in a war. It is clear that you think about the issues presented and do your best to make sense of ugly situations.

BTW, you have a great signature. Although several years of haze stand between now and the last time I read Aristotle, I remember some thought by him about being forced to be free. Only by educating ourselves and being able to understand the world around us, can we be fully free. Have a good day.

Regards,

D-Ray

yes, this is way more serious than drunk driving yet we do nothing to combat it

I thought I had.:rolleyes:

Yeah, I don't have all the answers either but having been around for near 80 years I have seen what works and what does not work, so that should count for summat.

As noted before Mike, welcome to the funny farm, hope you stick around.

Yeah, I'll probably stick around for a while. I like discussing controversial subjects with folks who are willing to keep a civil tone, especially when there is disagreement. It's about broadening one's horizons and learning to think for one's self. Wisdom is garnered by listening; and I want wisdom, ya know what I mean?
Besides, I posted something over on AudioKarma and it was politely removed. I was referred here, so here I am.
So, thanks for the welcome.
Mike

I don't pretend to be a military strategist. But lets look at recent events and see what we can learn from our actions and their results. We've been messing with Bin Laden for years. I'm busy today so can't do my typical research, so please bear with me. I don't know the specific attacks, but he's been at it for a while. We've always responded in some manner with cruise missles or what have you.

Result: It didn't take care of Bin Laden. He can still attack us.

More recently we started two full on wars.

Result: It didn't take care of Bin Laden. He can still attack us. It has cost us more lives than he has taken through his attacks and more money than I can wrap my head around. It has divided our country and even lead to patriotic Americans being called un-American.

On the whole, it seems our current approach approach seems to be doing Bin Laden's work for him.

BINGO!