Bush Team Seeks Broader Surveillance Powers

Washinton Post ^ | Sunday, December 2, 2001 | Jim McGee

[OKCSubmariner]

The Bush administration is asking Congress for a second major expansion of federal surveillance powers that legal experts say would radically change laws that have long protected the rights of Americans.

A Justice Department proposal would eliminate the chief legal safeguard in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). A CIA proposal seeks legal authority to gather telephone and Internet records from domestic communication companies.

[Squantos]

It's almost a moot point for me as a career serviceman and now working in a contractor position for the goobermint where I have to have backgrounds. But just as you agree for the need, I have agreed to the need based on "my choice" of work and the level of intrusion into my privacy.

To have the authority to store and collect data on the average law abidding citizen smuck is to me....unconstitutional. Now do I believe non US citizens should be protected under the constitution other than that provided in the uniform code of military justice (UCMJ).....No !

Collect this data on visitors and illegals but citizens of this nation should remain subject to all constitutional rights and courts.

These are just my opinions on the matter , right or wrong ...........mine.

You Stay Safe Alamo-Girl and thanks again for all your good work.

[OKCSubmariner]

Please see reply #18.

There will be those that believe extra powers which take citizens privacy rights away without safegurads and protections during time of war is justifiable.

What I want to make damn sure about is that after the war is over(undeclared but announced to take years, to be indefinite!) that the privacy rights of US citizens are restored.

How is anyone going to know to make them restore our rights when this is over unless I and others inform the people what is being taken away from them at this time?

People at least have a right to know the dangers and what they need to restore to themselves later even if I cannot prevail in having protections and safegurds put in at this time.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

Amen. Praise the Lord.

[OKCSubmariner]

Please see replies #20 and #22.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

I didn't want to tell you this, and I could get in a lot of trouble, so don't tell anyone I gave you a heads up, but there was some sort of monumental screw up at headquarters and you're name ended up on a list of possible domestic right wing terrorists and they've been tapping your phone and filming you at home for months. I know, I tried to stop them. And some of these guys can be really immature about it, making private copies of the video and joking about "web cams" and such. But hey, in any organization you're going to run into some bad apples. Doesn't mean we're all bad. Anyways, I think you look hot in the black underwear. Pink does nothing for you. But really, if I were you, I'd watch what you say to Annie on the phone. Some of the real fanatics upstairs don't know when you're joking around. Again, please don't mention this to anyone.

[Alamo-Girl]

Hmmm ... I agree that the oversight issue should be addressed thoroughly; right now there are too many (overlapping and toothless) avenues of oversight in the Legislative and Judicial branches.

[Roscoe]

Loathsome post. Very Libertarian.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for sharing your views!

Sadly, I must observe that a number of U.S. citizens have become members of al Queda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, etc. ... and a number of foreign terrorists are now citizens. Sigh...

[Alamo-Girl]

LOL!!!

Seriously though, I would not at all be offended if the government needed to tap my phones, read my mail, follow me around, etc. I have done nothing criminally wrong!

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"I would not at all be offended if the government needed to tap my phones, read my mail, follow me around, etc. I have done nothing criminally wrong!" Wasn't there a flap over the Clinton Whitehouse getting FBI files on Republican members of Congress? Were they felons? Every last one of them? If not, was it a mistake for them to object strongly to that practice?

[ConsistentLibertarian]

If there's a trade off to be made, and we need to keep an honest set of books to do it right, it helps to think in vivid, concrete terms. YMMV, and it probably does.

[IRtorqued]

FISA wiretaps are considered especially sensitive because agents who obtain them need not have any proof that crimes are being committed, only probable cause that the target is working on behalf of the foreign power or terrorists. By contrast, agents who wiretap suspected mob figures or drug lords must show a judge persuasive evidence that specific crimes are being committed.

By removing the requirement of a foreign connection, the administration proposal would make it far easier to mount surveillance on people who have no known connection to actors overseas.

in other words the gubment is mad because the Constitution protects freedom, these people know that if the truth of what they have done, are doing and want to do the people would hold their feet to fire and get rid of them. this is a preemptive strike by the gubment against the citizens of the U.S. to subjugate us all.

[Alamo-Girl]

Anyone has the right to file a complaint, and they surely will with the terrorist-surveillance laws as well.

The FBI Files plaintiffs had a wonderful case because the whole affair was political, i.e. there was no probable cause.

[Joe Hadenuf]

would build upon and expand new intelligence-gathering powers that were granted to the FBI and the CIA under the U.S.A. Patriot Act. Signed into law Oct. 26, that anti-terrorism bill laid the foundation for a larger and more powerful domestic intelligence-gathering system.

Yet our borders and immigration policies remain a national disgrace and now a total national security nightmare. If we are truly concerned about national security we will end this insane, immigration "free for all".

[Dan from Michigan]

Janet Ashcroft wants more.

Bastard.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

You think there's an effective complaint mechanism built in to this still secret proposal? Uhuh. And how do you suppose one is to know whether one is under surveillance? Ie, how would one get disclosure of the requisate facts to substantiate a complaint?

[Alamo-Girl]

The complaint mechanism is a federal lawsuit with a due process cause of action. Discovery would be allowed within the limits of national security. As always, it will be the courts that determine constitutionality.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

You're remarkably sanguine about the costs involved. If at the end of the day, you understand the costs but still want to make the tradeoff then we just have different values. Apparently I value individual liberty more highly than you do. You're more inclined to place your trust in government. OK, People disagree about those sorts of issues all the time. But maybe we can bracket that disagreement and at least agree about what hangs in the balance: (1) The CIA won't need to show probable cause for thinking a _crime_ has been committed or even that one will be committed; (2) You won't be a party to that hearing. You won't have a chance to argue the point; (3) There's no effective review if they abuse the power. Note the contrast -- When you're arrested, there's a public record, they have to make a specific charge and document what they took to be probably cause that you committed it. Those facts can't be hidden or concealed, and if it was a wrongful arrest, you can document the facts necessary to make the case. Here you can't. Why do you think they have such a high standard for wiretapping mafia figures? Why do you think they don't rest content with probable cause for thinking a crime has been committed? You think it's because they're soft on the mafia?

[rottweiller_inc]

well any serious thing done about immigration would have to include the mexicans that Bush is trying to pander to.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"Discovery would be allowed within the limits of national security." Meaning ... what? Suppose Joe Radical wants to know if the CIA is watching him. Joe files a suit and asks for full disclosure. What do you imagine (and you're imagining all of this, we have no details) the CIA will be forced to tell Joe? Suppose they say "we can't tell Joe if he's being watched or why -- National Security". Explain how that would avoid abuse. Suppose they say "Joe is being watched because he's a US employee of a foreign state owned company. We're not alleging he's committed any crime, but we're watching him anyways." Does Joe have to _prove_ he's committed no crime to win his case? Let's get real. Or specific. Preferably both.