FBI misused its authority? Broke the law?

[Mike the Lab Rat]

It's all good....Gonzalez and his buds say they're "sorry."

But, I'm sure it was just a big misunderstanding, all done with the best of intentions, in the name of truth, justice, and freedom. I mean, it's not like the FBI has ever had a history of misusing its authority, so no one could have seen THIS coming. And groups like the Cato Institute who expressed concerns about possible abuse? Alarmists....extremists.

Frigging FBI assholes.

I'm sure they've learned their lesson and no one will ever do this again....

Getting caught, I mean.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

I'm awaiting the defenses from the usual suspects, expecting the typical mindless drivel like:

- "hey, they're just trying to protect us, and frankly, unless you're doing something illegal, it should be perfectly fine for the feds to monitor your every move, as long as they're keeping us safe..."

- "if it wasn't for them doing this, we'd have had another incident like 9/11 by now!!!"

- "oh yeah, well Bill Clinton..."

Anyone who tries to defend what the FBI did is a moron, plain and simple.

[Cuda]

Keep flailing away, Lab Rat. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about

-sin
RackFu

[BSmack]

I'm awaiting the defenses from the usual suspects, expecting the typical mindless drivel like:

- "hey, they're just trying to protect us, and frankly, unless you're doing something illegal, it should be perfectly fine for the feds to monitor your every move, as long as they're keeping us safe..."

- "if it wasn't for them doing this, we'd have had another incident like 9/11 by now!!!"

- "oh yeah, well Bill Clinton..."

Anyone who tries to defend what the FBI did is a moron, plain and simple.

Oh, those responses are coming, Mike, and if you'd call the FBI to get taps on the mvscal/Cuda/et al phones, you could be lying in wait. Maybe Rack Fu could give you a copy of one of the "letters". Just a thought.

Mace

I suspect the the same people who once told you and I that we were crazy for thinking that the events post 9-11 would lead to further erosions in civil liberties will give this story the same level of attention that our troops at Walter Reed are getting.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

I suspect the the same people who once told you and I that we were crazy for thinking that the events post 9-11 would lead to further erosions in civil liberties will give this story the same level of attention that our troops at Walter Reed are getting.

Either that, or they'll claim that if it weren't for the expanded powers that the government were given (and now have been proven to have abused) that the feds wouldn't have been able to stop an unspecified number of threats ...... that they can't actually prove, mind you...since those are classified. But it's OK...just trust them on this.

The only idiots who would try to defend the FBI in this situation are the same morons who get a hard-on for "24" and Tom Clancy novels. 'Cuz ya know....that's what it's really like!

Sure, and every day at work for me is just like "Welcome Back Kotter."

[OCmike]

I for one am shocked by this. No, not that the FBI abused its power, but that someone in the Bush Administration not only acknowledged a fuckup, but apologized for it. Wait until Cheney hears about this... Gonzalez just signed his walking papers.

Mike, while I hardly take any gov't agency's word as gospel, their report did say:

Shoddy record-keeping and human error were to blame for the bulk of the problems, said Justice auditors, who were careful to note they found no indication of criminal misconduct.

It doesn't excuse the fuckups, but at the same time also doesn't make this the big "a-HA!" moment that the Cato Institute and other watchdogs group would like for it to be.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

I for one am shocked by this. No, not that the FBI abused its power, but that someone in the Bush Administration not only acknowledged a fuckup, but apologized for it. Wait until Cheney hears about this... Gonzalez just signed his walking papers.

Mike, while I hardly take any gov't agency's word as gospel, their report did say:

Shoddy record-keeping and human error were to blame for the bulk of the problems, said Justice auditors, who were careful to note they found no indication of criminal misconduct.

It doesn't excuse the fuckups, but at the same time also doesn't make this the big "a-HA!" moment that the Cato Institute and other watchdogs group would like for it to be.

Sure. The FBI was given expanded powers that it should never have been given, and -as many predicted- they frigging abused it. But it was "accidental." A result of nothing more than "shoddy record-keeping and human error."

Sorry, but I'm not buying it. The FBI has a record of abusing its power. Personally, I believe that if they hadn't gotten snagged, that there would definitely have been worse abuses, including "criminal misconduct." All Cato predicted was that if the feds were granted more powers in our post-9/11 "help me, big government, PLEASE" frenzy, that the powers would be abused....and they were right. At no point did Cato predict "Brave New World" stuff...

[OCmike]

Sorry, but I'm not buying it. The FBI has a record of abusing its power. Personally, I believe that if they hadn't gotten snagged, that there would definitely have been worse abuses, including "criminal misconduct."

Well of course it would have continued had it not gone unchecked. That's why we checked in the first place.

I'm not asking you to "buy it". I'd say that the chances are probably 50/50 whether any purposeful misconduct took place and wasn't reported, based on whether those investigating the issue were Republicans or Democrats. But you know all it takes is one Dem in the mix to blow the whistle, which is why I'm leaning towards believing the investigators when they essentially say, "The FBI broke the law because they are stupid and lazy." Hardly showering them with compliments there...

All Cato predicted was that if the feds were granted more powers in our post-9/11 "help me, big government, PLEASE" frenzy, that the powers would be abused....and they were right. At no point did Cato predict "Brave New World" stuff...

Not exactly going out on a limb, are they? That's like saying that "If Barack Obama is the DNC nominee for president, some white voters in the south may not vote for him based on the color of his skin."

[Mike the Lab Rat]

All Cato predicted was that if the feds were granted more powers in our post-9/11 "help me, big government, PLEASE" frenzy, that the powers would be abused....and they were right. At no point did Cato predict "Brave New World" stuff...

Not exactly going out on a limb, are they? That's like saying that "If Barack Obama is the DNC nominee for president, some white voters in the south may not vote for him based on the color of his skin."

On this we definitely agree.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

I'm awaiting the defenses from the usual suspects, expecting the typical mindless drivel like:

- "hey, they're just trying to protect us, and frankly, unless you're doing something illegal, it should be perfectly fine for the feds to monitor your every move, as long as they're keeping us safe..."
Sincerely, Bushice

- "if it wasn't for them doing this, we'd have had another incident like 9/11 by now!!!"
Sincerely, mvscal

- "oh yeah, well Bill Clinton..."
Sincerely, CTRL+ALT Cuda

Anyone who tries to defend what the FBI did is a moron, plain and simple.

[Cuda]

Anyone who tries to defend what the FBI did is a moron, plain and simple.

Rack Fu is going to be all over your ass for that.

Without a doubt, you're going to be put on any number of terrorist watch-lists and possibly even double-secret probation

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Anyone who tries to defend what the FBI did is a moron, plain and simple.

Rack Fu is going to be all over your ass for that.

Without a doubt, you're going to be put on any number of terrorist watch-lists and possibly even double-secret probation

Damn. I even have "Eye-talian" skin coloring and facial hair, so I even look suspicious.

I guess I'll be off to Gitmo soon...

[Mike the Lab Rat]

No real surprise to see the usual bedwetters hysterically overreacting to nothing.

"Hysterically overreacting?"

Nah....we've come to expect this kind of stupidity, lack of oversight, and callous disregard for the rights of citizens from our buddies in Washington, especially during Dumbya's "stellar" reign.

I'd have been surprised if the feds HADN'T abused their "Patriot Act" authority.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

No real surprise to see the usual bedwetters hysterically overreacting to nothing.

"Hysterically overreacting?"

Did I stutter?

No, but it's apparent that your penchant for hyperbole indicates SOME sort of neural misfiring...

You've shit your pants and you don't even know what the fuck we're talking about here. Any specific details on these so-called "abuses"? No?

Ah, there's that delightful exaggerated characterization of others' responses again. You equate hitting the "Submit" button on an obscure message board with intestinal evacuation? Outstanding. You'd think I'd have used more exclamation points if I were that upset. I guess your inability to take in information, correcty process it, and issue an appropriate response explains your support for the current administration and the Patriot Act. They seem to have the same problem.

As for specifics, read the frigging report yourself. That's what I posted the link for. The FBI broke da law.

Lack of oversight? Just how in the fuck do you suppose these "abuses" came to light in the first place? Allow me to jog your memory.

The FBI's transgressions were spelled out in a damning 126-page audit by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine.

That looks suspiciously like oversight to me. Oh and, if they are breaking rules, laws or not following proper procedure, then they are not abusing the Patriot Act.

Actually, genius, if there was proper oversight, the abuses wouldn't have occurred AT ALL.

How the hell does not following the rules NOT constitute "not abusing?" The FBI "accidentally" skyrocketed the number of ILLEGAL inquiries in the name of the Patriot Act. Only a brain-dead partisan would, for a second, NOT consider what the FBI did "abuse." But then again, I'm sure that the Patriot Act supporters will file this under the "well, ya gotta break a few Constitutional eggs to make a life, liberty, and American way omelette...". I'm sure that their illegal idiocy helped stop a terrorist takeover .....somewhere.

[Mister Bushice]

This really doesn't surprise me at all. The whole intent of the patriot act was for this administration to have more control and to be able to pry into the private lives of any U.S. citizen they felt like looking into.

The worst abuses of the P.A. are still by non governmental law enforcement, using the P.A. illegally when they feel they have "just cause"

They were given too much power with not enough oversight.

Save it mvscal. "Oversight" after the fact is spelled "indictment"

[RadioFan]

The FBI's transgressions were spelled out in a damning 126-page audit by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine.

That looks suspiciously like oversight to me.

The audit was required by Congress, which the administration fought. So if the administration would have had its way there would have been no audit and this would have never come to light.

The fact is these morons abused their power, just as MANY predicted they would when the Patriot Act was passed.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

The FBI's transgressions were spelled out in a damning 126-page audit by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine.

That looks suspiciously like oversight to me.

The audit was required by Congress, which the administration fought. So if the administration would have had its way there would have been no audit and this would have never come to light.

Checkmate.

[RadioFan]

Yeah, I guess the AP is just making shit up again.

Fine's annual review is required by Congress, over the objections of the Bush administration. It concluded that the number of national security letters requested by the FBI skyrocketed in the years after the Patriot Act became law.

[RadioFan]

Yes, they do a lot of that these days.

Oh, OK.



Unless you can find a correction for that AP story -- which was run all over the country -- I'm not wasting my time proving a point that no one disputes except you. A point which is being repeated again today.

Keep on believing that the government is just out to protect us and didn't really mean anything by breaking the law, if it makes you feel good though, mvsroo.

Oh and btw, there is no dispute that the law was broken. Gonzalez and Mueller themselves said it was. What part of that are you having trouble comprehending?

I'm awaiting the defenses from the usual suspects, expecting the typical mindless drivel ...

Spot on, and just like clockwork ...

[Mike the Lab Rat]

I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.

It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.

The loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or imagined, from abroad.

The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.

The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted.

BODE Madison...

[Mister Bushice]

The whole intent of the patriot act was for this administration to have more control and to be able to pry into the private lives of any U.S. citizen they felt like looking into.

Why?

Because that is the way Dubya operates.

"Oversight" after the fact is spelled "indictment"

The only reason you know anything about this is because the government told you. That is oversight, you fucking moron.

Perhaps it's a matter of semantics.

I consider oversight to be something that should happen to prevent abuse of power.

You apparently consider oversight as an aftermath review.

[RadioFan]

Perhaps it's a matter of semantics.

Actually, it's a matter of partisan bullshit on this one, imo, given that mvs is generally one of those who doesn't approve of government intrusion upon personal lives in the form of FBI agents cruising through e-mails of folks who aren't "enemy combatants" or bearded lizard owners, just for fun.

[RadioFan]

Oh, and Bushice, if you're going to respond and chide others in here, can you at least get the basic html (i.e. quoting function) down? Jesus, dude.

[Cuda]

I was really looking forward to a good, RackFu meltdown on this one.

I think you guys are scaring him away.

[Terry in Crapchester]

I'm awaiting the defenses from the usual suspects, expecting the typical mindless drivel like:

- "hey, they're just trying to protect us, and frankly, unless you're doing something illegal, it should be perfectly fine for the feds to monitor your every move, as long as they're keeping us safe..."
Sincerely, Cicero

- "if it wasn't for them doing this, we'd have had another incident like 9/11 by now!!!"
Sincerely, CTRL + ALT Cuda

- "oh yeah, well Bill Clinton..."
Sincerely, mvscal

Anyone who tries to defend what the FBI did is a moron, plain and simple.

FTFY.

[Cuda]

If you think this is a good place to hide from Rootbeer, Terry, you've got another thinkie coming

He'll find you

[Mister Bushice]

I consider oversight to be something that should happen to prevent abuse of power.

And exactly how do you prevent FBI agents determined to ignore or break the law from doing so beforehand.

Take your time.

Easy. Oversight.

If they were able to catch them after the fact and have proof, there is absolutely no reason why they could not have been monitored while they were engaging in those illegal activities.



( and come on RF. It was late and I missed a "/" cut me a leetle smack slack and cipher it out.

[Eaglebauer]

Or maybe the fucking Chief Executive shouldn't encourage it.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/ ... index.html

Friday March 9, 2007 08:57 EST
The FBI's lawbreaking is tied directly to President Bush

(updated below - updated again - Update III)

Multiple media outlets are focusing on the unsurprising story that the FBI seems to have been abusing its powers under the Patriot Act to issue so-called "national security letters" (NSLs), whereby the FBI is empowered to obtain a whole array of privacy-infringing records without any sort of judicial oversight or subpoena process. In particular, the FBI has failed to comply with the legal obligations imposed by Congress, when it re-authorized the Patriot Act in early 2006, which required the FBI to report to Congress on the use of these letters.

That the FBI is abusing its NSL power is entirely unsurprising (more on that below), but the real story here -- and it is quite significant -- has not even been mentioned by any of these news reports. The only person (that I've seen) to have noted the most significant aspect of these revelations is Silent Patriot at Crooks & Liars, who very astutely recalls that the NSL reporting requirements imposed by Congress were precisely the provisions which President Bush expressly proclaimed he could ignore when he issued a "signing statement" as part of the enactment of the Patriot Act's renewal into law. Put another way, the law which the FBI has now been found to be violating is the very law which George Bush publicly declared he has the power to ignore.

It was The Boston Globe's Charlie Savage who first drew attention to the Patriot Act signing statement in a typically superb article, back in March, 2006, which reported:

When President Bush signed the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act this month, he included an addendum saying that he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act's expanded police powers.

The bill contained several oversight provisions intended to make sure the FBI did not abuse the special terrorism-related powers to search homes and secretly seize papers. The provisions require Justice Department officials to keep closer track of how often the FBI uses the new powers and in what type of situations. Under the law, the administration would have to provide the information to Congress by certain dates.

Bush signed the bill with fanfare at a White House ceremony March 9, calling it ''a piece of legislation that's vital to win the war on terror and to protect the American people." But after the reporters and guests had left, the White House quietly issued a ''signing statement," an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law.

In the statement, Bush said that he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that, despite the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would ''impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties."

Bush wrote: ''The executive branch shall construe the provisions . . . that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch . . . in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information . . . "

The statement represented the latest in a string of high-profile instances in which Bush has cited his constitutional authority to bypass a law.

When a country is ruled by an individual who repeatedly and openly arrogates unto himself the power to violate the law, and specifically proclaims that he is under no obligation to account to Congress or anyone else concerning the exercise of radical new surveillance powers such as NSLs, it should come as absolutely no surprise that agencies under his control freely break the law. The culture of lawlessness which the President has deliberately and continuously embraced virtually ensures, by design, that any Congressional limits on the use of executive power will be violated.

That NSLs are a dangerous and oversight-less instrument which entail enormous potential for abuse is hardly a new revelation. But those who tried to warn of such dangers were tarred and feathered as allies of the Terrorists, people who wanted to prevent the Commander-in-Chief from protecting the American people. Who else would possibly express concerns about The Patriot Act?

As a result of that commonplace, debate-precluding cartoon campaign, Russ Feingold -- the only Senator to vote against the original enactment of the Patriot Act -- was able to convince only nine of his fellow Democratic Senators to oppose re-authorization of the Patriot Act. And though the media aided the White House in obscuring the substantive objections he raised to that bill, Feingold repeatedly emphasized that he was in favor of many of the provisions of the Patriot Act, but was concerned about the lack of safeguards to protect Americans from abuse -- specifically the standard-less and oversight-less NSLs (as he said then: "we need to place safeguards on the broad NSL power and to put a sunset on that power so that Congress can make sure it's not abused"). But as usual, such concerns were drowned out by manipulative appeals to the need of the Commander-in-Chief to Protect Us from The Terrorists.

Back in November, 2005, when the re-authorization of the Patriot Act was being "debated," the abuse by the FBI of these NSLs was documented in an excellent expose by The Washington Post's Barton Gellman:

The FBI now issues more than 30,000 national security letters a year, according to government sources, a hundredfold increase over historic norms. The letters -- one of which can be used to sweep up the records of many people -- are extending the bureau's reach as never before into the telephone calls, correspondence and financial lives of ordinary Americans. . . . .

A national security letter cannot be used to authorize eavesdropping or to read the contents of e-mail. But it does permit investigators to trace revealing paths through the private affairs of a modern digital citizen. The records it yields describe where a person makes and spends money, with whom he lives and lived before, how much he gambles, what he buys online, what he pawns and borrows, where he travels, how he invests, what he searches for and reads on the Web, and who telephones or e-mails him at home and at work.

In the same Post article, the genuine threat posed by this invasive instrument was made clear by Bob Barr:

"The beef with the NSLs is that they don't have even a pretense of judicial or impartial scrutiny," said former representative Robert L. Barr Jr. (Ga.), who finds himself allied with the American Civil Liberties Union after a career as prosecutor, CIA analyst and conservative GOP stalwart. "There's no checks and balances whatever on them. It is simply some bureaucrat's decision that they want information, and they can basically just go and get it."

One of the very few attempts over the last six years from Congress to impose at least some safeguards on the use of radical new executive powers was to require that the FBI report to Congress on the issuance of NSLs, so that Congress could at least know about (and, theoretically, take action in response to) any abuse of these powers. But the minute George Bush got what he wanted -- re-authorization of the Patriot Act -- he proclaimed for all the world to hear that he had the power to violate those provisions and refuse to comply with such safeguards. And now it is revealed that the FBI has, in fact, violated the very provisions which the President proclaimed he could violate. Perhaps someone other than Silent Patriot might want to take note of that connection.

The Bush administration has created vast and permanent data bases to collect and store evidence revealing the private activities of millions of American citizens. When the FBI obtains information essentially in secret -- with no judicial oversight -- that information is stored in those data bases. This is all being done by the executive branch with no safeguards and no oversight, and the little oversight that Congress has required has been defiantly and publicly brushed aside by the President, who sees legal requirements as nothing more than suggestions or options which he will recognize only if he chooses to. That is the constitutional crisis that we have endured under virtually the entire Bush presidency -- the crisis which, for the most part, our mainstream political and media elite have collectively decided not to acknowledge.

The story here is not merely that the FBI is breaking the law and abusing these powers. That has long been predicted and, to some degree, even documented. The story is that the FBI is ignoring the very legal obligations which George Bush vowed were not obligations at all, but mere suggestions to be accepted only if he willed it. It is yet another vivid example proving that the President's ideology of lawlessness exists not merely in theory, but as the governing doctrine under which the executive branch has acted, time and again and as deliberately as possible, in violation of whatever laws it deems inconvenient.

UPDATE: Russ Feingold issued the following statement this morning regarding these revelations (via e-mail):

This report proves that "trust us" doesn't cut it when it comes to the government's power to obtain Americans' sensitive business records without a court order and without any suspicion that they are tied to terrorism or espionage. I fought hard to prevent abuses of this power when the Senate debated reauthorizing the Patriot Act last year. I will work with Senator Leahy and Senator Rockefeller to make sure the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees conduct full and prompt investigations, and I will press for quick Senate action on sensible reforms to help prevent future abuses of National Security Letters.

One of the principal reasons why Sen. Feingold's warnings about the obvious dangers of re-authorization were so easily ignored was the media's tolerance for Op-Eds like this one -- published by The Washington Post in November, 2005 -- from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Needless to say, the first sentence of his argument urging re-authorization of the Patriot Act was this: "On Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists inspired by hatred murdered nearly 3,000 innocent Americans."

Gonzales went on to brand as "unfounded" concerns over abuse of the powers granted by the Patriot Act, and said that this was the choice the country faced: "Congress must act now or risk bringing terrorism prevention to a halt. . . . Congress must act immediately and reauthorize the Patriot Act before the men and women in law enforcement lose the tools they need to keep us safe."

As always, the Bush administration presented a choice: (a) succumb to the Leader's will by vesting in him the unchecked powers that he demands, or (b) help The Terrorists attack and kill innocent Americans. That binary, exploitive formula was promoted by the media and it single-handedly prevented rational examination of any of these vital issues over the last six years. The FBI's illegal and abusive conduct is the direct by-product of that manipulation, and it is but a tiny fraction of the systematic law-breaking we have endured since 2001 at the highest levels of our government.

UPDATE II: The full report by the DOJ's Inspector General can be found, in .pdf form, here (h/t sysprog). This report was required by Congress when it re-authorized the Patriot Act, and it covers the FBI's use of NSLs for the period of 2003-2005; the second report, covering 2006, is due at the end of the year.

The report characterized the FBI's conduct as constituting "serious misuse" of the NSL powers, and it is suffuse with findings of the FBI's irregularities and improprieties. Several noteworthy aspects of the report, beginning with an illustrative passage of the report's findings:

And what is done with the information obtained by the FBI? It is stored on government data bases which thousands of government employees can access:

More disturbingly, NSLs are being issued with much greater frequency to obtain the records of "U.S. persons" (citizens and legal residents) rather than aliens:

And while the report concluded that it could not find that these violations were deliberate (hardly a dispositive finding coming, as it does, from the Bush Justice Department), the report emphasized that its investigation into the existence of criminality was itself often hampered by the FBI's failure to maintain proper records concerning its use of NSLs:

The report indicates that there is no consistency, virtually no controls, and continuous violations of legal and regulatory guidelines for how the FBI is using these extremely invasive NSL weapons. The information that the FBI is gathering on Americans simply gets deposited into widely accessed and permanent data bases.

And this report, as indicated, is from the Bush Justice Department. But this is the country we have created for ourselves by allowing the President to insist upon not only more and more invasive powers, but the ability to exercise those powers in virtual secrecy and with no limits. And the few limits which Congress has imposed are simply ignored because the administration knows that -- at least thus far -- there have been no consequences, and little public outcry, prompted by its law-breaking.

The information being gathered and stored on the private lives of American citizens by the federal government is vast and growing -- and that is the conclusion compelled by what we know about what this government has been doing. This is an administration that has operated behind an unprecedented veil of secrecy, and it is undoubtedly the case that there are whole surveillance programs about which we have not learned. Do Americans really want the federal government compiling electronic dossiers on them with virtually no safeguards and no oversight?

UPDATE III: This Daily Kos diarist makes the fair point that it is not technically accurate to say that Congress required the FBI itself to report to Congress on its NSL activities. Instead, Congress required that the Justice Department file the report which was disclosed today, the purpose of which is to report to Congress on the FBI's NSL activities. That point is true as far as it goes, but the fact remains that there is a clear connection between, on the one hand, the FBI's failure to comply with the legal restrictions governing NSLs and its accompanying documentation requirements, and on the other, President Bush's proclamation that those requirements can be ignored.

In other words, the Inspector General technically complied with the Congressional requirement by filing this report, but the report itself was woefully incomplete as a result of the FBI's failure to document its activities as it was required to do. And where the report was able to reach definitive conclusions despite the FBI's record-keeping failures, it concluded that the FBI has been repeatedly violating legal requirements governing NSLs in numerous ways.

UPDATE IV: Further developments on this matter are discussed here.

[Mister Bushice]

OK. So each FBI agent should have his own personal, 24/7 monitor to insure that he doesn't break the law?

I don't know. Maybe we should just hire FBI agents who don't break the law and prosecute those who do.

Or perhaps have directors and department heads that oversee what it is their agents are doing and/or not allow the law to be broken.

Thus here we are, back to oversight again.

I know exactly what every one of my employees strengths and weaknesses are. You can't tell me that the directors or whatever they call the department heads are that incompetent. They are looking the other way and letting it occur.

[Mikey]

If we can't, we need to get rid of them and get some who are trustworthy.

...and fastidious enough so that they won't stand for grass clippings in the goddam street.

[LTS TRN 2]

OK. So each FBI agent should have his own personal, 24/7 monitor to insure that he doesn't break the law?

We aren't talking about children or convicts here and the bottom line here is that we have to be able to trust these agents to obey the law and/or follow the designated administrative procedures.

If we can't, we need to get rid of them and get some who are trustworthy.

Blah fucking blah..you tired parrot

BOTTOM LINE The Bush/Cheney gang LIED and FEAR-MONGERED their way into a major league fuck-up....a grossly illegal and immoral Quagmire of really unprecedented proportions. The ENTIRE (unelected) cabal/administration has displayed respective individual incompetence on a similarly unprecendented scale--complete with the slimey toad AT about to walk the plank.

Look, you pathetic ditto-head, the game is up! Stop faking. Stop pretending that you're talking from some position of rationale and reason. You and your spoor are DONE.

[RadioFan]

Saw this on CSPAN over the weekend and it got me seriously fucking pissed.

Peter Chase, Library Connection, Board of Directors President & George Christian, Library Connection, Executive Director talked about their experience in challenging a Federal Bureau of Investigation demand for library patron records. This program, titled “Gagged by the Government—Two Librarians Tell How They Resisted the USA PATRIOT Act,” was the Vermont Library Association’s biannual John Swan Intellectual Freedom Lecture.

Media player needed, and if you have about an hour and a half to kill and care at all about civil liberties -- highly recommended. (m) [url=rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/ter/ter040607_libraries.rm]Link[/url] (m)

Here is a Washington Post story, about their case, when they were in the middle of it: WP link

And a PBS story on when their gag order was finally lifted and they were allowed to speak, for the first time: PBS link

These few, as far as anybody knows are the ONLY ONES who have had gag orders lifted, meaning there are THOUSANDS of AMERICANS who have received these "National Security" letters, and can't speak publically about them without risking going to jail.

According to what they said in their talk, Chase and Christian are having a story done on their case in Vanity Fair and PBS, this month.

Both of these guys deserve huge RACKS, on a national scale.

MtLR, watch the CSPAN vid, when you have time.

[RadioFan]

Shoddy record-keeping and human error were to blame for the bulk of the problems, said Justice auditors, who were careful to note they found no indication of criminal misconduct.

No real surprise to see the usual bedwetters hysterically overreacting to nothing.

I gave it the benefit of the doubt, until I saw these librarians on CSPAN. They don't have any ax to grind ... except for the principles upon with this country was founded.

Btw, how would you like Rack Fu checking out your medical records or what kind of car you drive or how much you have in your bank account, or what you've purchased online based on "national security" without a warrant nor any court oversight whatsoever? And how about if you or your boss refuse to give them access to that information and if you go public with the letter "requesting" such, you could go to jail? THAT's what's going on here.

[RadioFan]

Also, since he does not, did not and never will have any such legal authority to do so

That's the whole point. There is no judicial oversight.

[RadioFan]

Then how did you find out about this?

If you'd bother to watch the link I posted, you'd know. They outline what happened to them and what is happening.

From the UVM press release

In the summer of 2005, Library Connection, a consortium of 27 Connecticut libraries, was served by the FBI with a National Security Letter demanding patron information under the USA PATRIOT Act. The organization’s board decided to resist the order, and the case went to court, with the identity of the “John Doe” librarians kept secret. Because the FBI’s demand came with a gag order, the “John Doe” librarians could not tell anyone about it for eight months—including library staff, family members, or the media. Meanwhile, Congress debated and reauthorized the USA PATRIOT Act. Shortly after the law was reauthorized, the librarians were released from the gag order and can now tell their story about how the PATRIOT Act is being used.

How fucking convenient. There are hundreds of other people still bound by this utterly completely bullshit "gag order," with no judicial oversight.

All I'm saying is that you give this a fair viewing, and actually listen/watch what these guys have to say, with a critical, open mind. They clearly have no political agenda, other than the principals upon which this country was founded.

MtLR, your thoughts?