Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FBI admits no major cases cracked with Patriot Act snooping powers (so screw you, Mitch!)
washingtontimes.com ^ | 5/21/15 | Maggie Ybarra

Posted on 05/24/2015 4:22:35 PM PDT by cotton1706

FBI agents can’t point to any major terrorism cases they’ve cracked thanks to the key snooping powers in the Patriot Act, the Justice Department’s inspector general said in a report Thursday that could complicate efforts to keep key parts of the law operating.

Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz said that between 2004 and 2009, the FBI tripled its use of bulk collection under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which allows government agents to compel businesses to turn over records and documents, and increasingly scooped up records of Americans who had no ties to official terrorism investigations.

The FBI did finally come up with procedures to try to minimize the information it was gathering on nontargets, but it took far too long, Mr. Horowitz said in the 77-page report, which comes just as Congress is trying to decide whether to extend, rewrite or entirely nix Section 215.

Backers say the Patriot Act powers are critical and must be kept intact, particularly with the spread of the threat from terrorists. But opponents have doubted the efficacy of Section 215, particularly when it’s used to justify bulk data collection such as in the case of the National Security Agency’s phone metadata program, revealed in leaks from former government contractor Edward Snowden.

The new report adds ammunition to those opponents, with the inspector general concluding that no major cases have been broken by use of the Patriot Act’s records-snooping provisions.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: elections
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-42 last
To: cotton1706

They monitor THEIR enemies not OUR enemies.


41 posted on 05/25/2015 10:26:46 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER

“Not that I disagree, but is that part of the original title?”

No, it is not. The press would never be so impertinent to one of their beloved elected officials.


42 posted on 05/25/2015 11:39:44 AM PDT by cotton1706 (ThisRepublic.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-42 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson