FBI broke law for years in phone record searches

[Writewing]

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

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by 142EBC

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

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

[finnbow]

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.

Originally Posted by 142EBC

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

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by 142EBC

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'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.

[d-ray657]

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

[142EBC]

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

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by 142EBC

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

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.

[merrylander]

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.

[142EBC]

Originally Posted by merrylander

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.

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

[finnbow]

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.