Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 03/23/2007 12:46:07 PM PDT by socal_moderate
The Justice Department's inspector general revealed on March 9 that the FBI has been systematically abusing one of the most controversial provisions of the USA Patriot Act: the expanded power to issue "national security letters." It no doubt surprised most Americans to learn that between 2003 and 2005 the FBI issued more than 140,000 specific demands under this provision -- demands issued without a showing of probable cause or prior judicial approval -- to obtain potentially sensitive information about U.S. citizens and residents. It did not, however, come as any surprise to me.
Three years ago, I received a national security letter (NSL) in my capacity as the president of a small Internet access and consulting business. The letter ordered me to provide sensitive information about one of my clients. There was no indication that a judge had reviewed or approved the letter, and it turned out that none had. The letter came with a gag provision that prohibited me from telling anyone, including my client, that the FBI was seeking this information. Based on the context of the demand -- a context that the FBI still won't let me discuss publicly -- I suspected that the FBI was abusing its power and that the letter sought information to which the FBI was not entitled.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
But why does every single article on the topic have to reek of a shrill, paranoid, leftist crusade to abolish the Patriot Act and WOT?
Is it not possible, even likely, that NSLs have prevented an attack?
In this case, no, because he didn't hand over the information.
Well, couldn't they have a special group of judges deputized to approve such letters? seems to be an easy way out.
Possible? Yes. Likely? I don't know about that.
I wonder why they aren't authorized by judges. Is it a time-senstive thing?
My concern is that the same power we give Bush will be used by the next Dim president. We need to be very careful when we remove checks and balances on governmental power - it is notoriously difficult to put back into its cage once freed.
"But why does every single article on the topic have to reek of a shrill, paranoid, leftist crusade to abolish the Patriot Act and WOT?"
1. Lack of confidence in FEDGOV.
2. Previous abuses by FEDGOV.
...just a guess.
What is the name of your business? We might want to call on all your customers and tell them you are endangering their lives.
Loved this part:
"It is the policy of The Washington Post not to publish anonymous pieces. In this case, an exception has been made because the author -- who would have preferred to be named -- is legally prohibited from disclosing his or her identity in connection with receipt of a national security letter. The Post confirmed the legitimacy of this submission by verifying it with the author's attorney and by reviewing publicly available court documents."
LOL.....PUBLICALLY AVAILABLE COURT DOCUMENTS?? This whole piece is a joke.
I'd like to practice a healthy skepticism for the government and potential abuse of power, but with all the paranoid blather coming from the kook left that's been saturating the news media for the past five years, it's impossible to tell anymore what concerns are legitimate and what is purely politically motivated fear mongering.
They have something similar for approving warrantless wiretaps- the FISA court, I believe- from which, if memory serves, a judge, appointed by Bush Sr., resigned because he felt that he was being pressured to approve all FISA requests.
One can envision situations in which there is insufficient probable cause to obtain a warrant. e.g. anonymous tip says there are terrorists staying in X hotel this weekend. Is it OK for the government to request the guest list, looking for troublemakers? Most would argue that with proper oversight and accountability, it is not unreasonable to obtain information without a warrant if there is a justifiable belief that it will prevent mass casualties.
Something the far-left (including the ACLU) refuses to do, is acknowledge the necessity of these measures, and work to ensure that they have minimal impact on innocent Americans. They will not stop short of abolishing our defenses against the Islamist threat.
It seems to me that there are two perspectives on terrorist acts:
The far-left/Clintonian perspective is that they are simple felonies, and should be treated as such by the courts. This means that suspects are entitled to due process, freedom from unreasonable searches, etc.
The moderate/conservative perspective is that they are acts of war, in which thousands of innocent lives may be lost, and that it is OK to bend the rules a little bit if it helps prevent the acts from taking place.
This person admits breaking a national security law. The only focus should be on finding out who he is and prosecuting him to the fullest extent of the law. It shouldn't be too hard, he's given plenty of clues in this 'article'.
I will bet you dimes to donuts that if the FBI issued that NSL in their pursuit of some mob boss, that the anonymous cretin whining in this article about how he's been mistreated would have coughed it right up.
But something tells me that because the NSL was seeking information on terrorist-related activities, that THAT was the reason he felt it SO necessary to refuse to turn over the information and call in the ACLU.
After all "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", or some claptrap like that?
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
This exactly should be at the fore of one's mind before expanding any government power. Though I may trust an ideological ally with such power, do I also want to extend this power to an ideological foe? It is INEVITABLE that a Democrat or leftist Republican will eventually take power. This should be a fundamental test applied for any new government power, especially ones without a sunset clause. Call it the "Hillary Clinton" test.
>>LOL.....PUBLICALLY AVAILABLE COURT DOCUMENTS?? This whole piece is a joke. <<
I would be more inclined to agree if ti wasn't for the Justice Department's inspector general' report on the subject.
There is no way to read that report except to say we put too much trust in the Justice department and got burned.
We need to be very careful when we remove checks and balances on governmental power - it is notoriously difficult to put back into its cage once freed.
Can't be repeated often enough!!
Saw an article in CanadaFreePress about NSL’s sent to state governors regarding state militias. Anyone else know about this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.