BF2S Forums On "A Potential for Abuse"

usmarine wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

usmarine wrote:

...after it made him rich enough to become powerful.  Hooray!

eh...  Well, how do you feel about the Patriot Act?

Doesn't bother me

Well there's a surprise.  Marine, I wouldn't be surprised that if asked, you would give up your anal virginity (assuming you still have it) to anyone even claiming to be a government official...




..No offense or anything

mexicans usually do

CommieChipmunk wrote:

And you wouldn't have a problem with it, that was my point.  A normal citizen concerned with his/her civil liberties however, should find it slightly unsettling...

I know some of these "normies" you talk about.  Never hear them ever mention it.  Never hear it at work either.  Guess video game forums are the normal people.

Spark wrote:

usmarine wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

And you wouldn't have a problem with it, that was my point.  A normal citizen concerned with his/her civil liberties however, should find it slightly unsettling...

I know some of these "normies" you talk about.  Never hear them ever mention it.  Never hear it at work either.  Guess video game forums are the normal people.

This is hardly the subject matter of everyday gossip. Ask them and you might get slightly different responses.

Ya no.  We have CNN or MSNBC on the TV.  We discuss stuff like this.  I never hear the "sky is falling" stuff I hear on here.

CommieChipmunk wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

eh...  Well, how do you feel about the Patriot Act?

Doesn't bother me

Well there's a surprise.  Marine, I wouldn't be surprised that if asked, you would give up your anal virginity (assuming you still have it) to anyone even claiming to be a government official...




..No offense or anything

lmao

Weirdest post ever dude.

Last edited by Spearhead (2008-02-17 00:29:57)

Personal security from deadly threats is more important than personal privacy.

Stingray24 wrote:

He stated that even if he overheard a bank robbery being planned through his monitoring equipment, he could not pass it on the authorities or he'd spend over 20 years in federal prison.  There are strict controls.  If I remember correctly there are keywords that are flagged and then the conversation is reviewed.  If harmless, it’s deleted.

That is spot on. But there are no checks, according to the experts on here.

Dilbert_X wrote:

There may be checks, they are not adequate in my view.
You don't have to look back very far to see intrusive surveillance used to blackmail and ruin people to suit the admin's agenda - J Edgar Hoover, McCarthy etc - Bush is going down the same road.

These are the reasons the laws against domestic monitoring were strengthened. Got anything else?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Look at what the Republicans did to John Kerry, slandering a war veteran in favour of a draf-dodging drunkard.
If they'd had real dirt they would have used it.

You don't have to look back too far to see confidential information being leaked to suit the govt's agenda - Valerie Plame for example.

I still challenge anyone to say why the govt needs blanket approval to surveil anyone they feel like.
Why can't it be done on the basis of an individual warrant?

All of those have zero to do with the use of government resources to monitor private citizens in violation of the law.

Why can't a warrant be used in all cases? Timing. Sometimes timing does not allow for a warrant to be obtained, but follow-up reporting (very similar to showing "probable cause" for a warrant) is required.

The government is not spying on the general public. The ONLY time the government will "spy" on you is if you make a call to a suspected terrorist and/or start using flagged terms in the appropriate language.

Turq: Are you making calls in Arabic and/or Urdu to the Waziristan region, using terms like "jihad" "martyrdom" and such?

No?

Then you're not being spied on by the government.

Why is this even a debate?  The Bill of Rights, the first 10 commandments that has held this country together forever, was usurped with the Patriot act and bad FISA legislation in one of the most unconstitutional power grabs in history.  You may want to bring up things done in the past in a time of war, such as Japanese internment, silencing of protesters in WW1, or Lincoln opening fire on New York during the draft riots.  None of these were the "right thing to do", and apologies were made later, and more checks against presidential power were put in place.

However, there is so much profit now to be made with violation of the Constitution that these new laws essentially are put in place for as long as possible, and attempts are being made to make them permanent.  Over 50% of our intelligence gathering is outsourced.  Telco companies have been giving up your private records for years now, claiming to be doing their patriotic duty but making bank while the gov't hands them your tax dollars.

BOTTOM LINE :

Fourth Amendment wrote:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Blanket sweeps of regular citizens are ILLEGAL.  Monitoring law-abiding citizens is ILLEGAL.  Even a beat cop asking for your ID if you are not engaged in any suspicious activity is ILLEGAL.  Programs that allow this kind of sweeps turns good investigative cops/cointel into lazy thugs.  If you see someone is up to no good, you can report them.  Investigators can then take over and do their "investigative" thing, as secretly as they want, so long as they get the proper checks and balances.

Somehow this all became debate-able, like the torture issue.  I blame Fox News.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Russell Tice wrote:

RUSSELL TICE: Well, the main reason is, you know, I’m involved with some certain aspects of the intelligence community, which are very closely held, and I believe I have seen some things that are illegal. Ultimately it’s Congress’s responsibility to conduct oversight in these things. I don’t see it happening. Another reason is there was a certain roadblock that was sort of lifted that allowed me to do this, and I can’t explain, but I will to Congress if allowed to.

"As far as I'm concerned, as long as I don't say anything that's classified, I'm not worried," he said. "We need to clean up the intelligence community. We've had abuses, and they need to be addressed."

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/1/3/ex … ower_warns

Note that this is not Tice saying that there is the potential for abuse, this is Tice saying there has been abuse.

He does not claim it's widespread or institutional...only that it has occurred. Which, in individual cases, may be true. And there are legal ramifications for those individuals who have violated the law.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

There is evidence of domestic spying by the NSA on non-terrorist targets.  There have been countless questions on the legality of certain wiretaps, the constitutionality of warrantless wiretaps through Executive Orders, etc.  The fact that there are numerous lawsuits and constant Congressional debates over the legality and lack of checks and balances should be enough to justify concern.

There has been no debate that I'm aware of over a "lack of checks and balances". There have been questions from Congress over what the checks and balances are...but not a preconception that there is a lack. Like many here seem to have. Could be because key members of Congress know what those checks and balances are.

GorillaTicTacs wrote:

Blanket sweeps of regular citizens are ILLEGAL.  Monitoring law-abiding citizens is ILLEGAL.

You're right. Which is why those two things don't occur, even under the PATRIOT Act or FISA.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I'm aware of that, what they do have to do with is the govt using private information about individuals for partisan and nefarious purposes.
In the case of Valerie Plame her husband put the Bush regime's nose out of joint so she got the heat, publicly exposed as a CIA agent. You'd think they'd stop at ruining someone who has given her whole life for her country.
Checks and balances didn't work there did they? Its just one example of Stasi style intimidation in the present time, even with all the supposed checks and balances.

The OP is about abuse of wiretapping authorizations under the PATRIOT Act.
The issue with Plame has been laid out pretty clearly by the woman who wrote the statute Plame and other cited: no law was violated, no statute broken. Plame was not undercover, so it was impossible to "publicly expose" her.
So checks and balances weren't even applicable in that situation.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Real intelligence work isn't like '24'.

That's the first thing you've said about how intelligence works that has been correct.
Too bad "24" isn't about intel, but operations.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The problem with surveillance is no-one knows who knows what about you, what that information is used for, how its affected your life.

The basic misconception you have is that every person in the US is being monitored at all times (surveillance). That is simply not the case...as has been stated multiple times by multiple posters previously. Unless you are doing something to trigger the computer to kick your conversation over to an analyst, you are not being monitored. Even then, if you're not doing something to cause the analyst to report the content, then you are not being monitored, as the analyst doesn't know who you are. The term "monitor" implies prolonged and often real-time collection and analysis. That is simply not the case here. It is all after the fact. However, if you are doing things that would trigger all those actions (like calling Waziristan, speaking in Arabic or Urdu, talking about jihad, martyrdom, etc), then you ARE likely to be monitored...with good reason.

Dibert_X wrote:

Did you miss a promotion because you voted democrat? Mortgage foreclosed because you have a brother who visited Egypt?
Don't say it couldn't happen because it already has in the US, never mind East Germany.

None of those things involve voting a certain way or making trips anywhere. I can vote how I want and travel anywhere I want, so long as I inform my security office beforehand and report any foreign intelligence contacts while overseas. And that has ZERO to do with the PATRIOT Act, as it has been required for decades of anyone holding security clearances.

I've never seen those things happen in the US...have you? Do you have a source for them?

FEOS wrote:

You're right. Which is why those two things don't occur, even under the PATRIOT Act or FISA.

http://www.slate.com/id/2088239/

PATRIOT Act - Section 505, aka "National Insecurity-Complex Letters"

What it does: Section 505 authorizes the use of what's essentially an administrative subpoena of personal records. The subpoenas require no probable cause or judicial oversight.

The law before and how it changed:
Before Patriot, these letters could only be issued against individuals who were reasonably suspected of espionage. But Patriot loosened the standard by allowing the letters to be used against anyone, including U.S. citizens, even if they themselves are not suspected of espionage or criminal activity. These letters may now be issued independently by FBI field offices, rather than by senior officials. And unlike Section 215 warrants, they are not subject to even perfunctory judicial review or oversight.

...Unlike section 215, no court order—not even a rubber-stamped order—is required. Those forced to turn over records are gagged from disclosing the demand.

Nope, those things never occur...I mean, its not like these things are used and abused or anything.  Oh, shit...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01366.html

The burgeoning use of national security letters coincides with an unannounced decision to deposit all the information they yield into government data banks -- and to share those private records widely, in the federal government and beyond. In late 2003, the Bush administration reversed a long-standing policy requiring agents to destroy their files on innocent American citizens, companies and residents when investigations closed. Late last month, President Bush signed Executive Order 13388, expanding access to those files for "state, local and tribal" governments and for "appropriate private sector entities," which are not defined...

Since the Patriot Act, the FBI has dispersed the authority to sign national security letters to more than five dozen supervisors -- the special agents in charge of field offices, the deputies in New York, Los Angeles and Washington, and a few senior headquarters officials. FBI rules established after the Patriot Act allow the letters to be issued long before a case is judged substantial...

Two years ago, Ashcroft rescinded a 1995 guideline directing that information obtained through a national security letter about a U.S. citizen or resident "shall be destroyed by the FBI and not further disseminated" if it proves "not relevant to the purposes for which it was collected." Ashcroft's new order was that "the FBI shall retain" all records it collects and "may disseminate" them freely among federal agencies...

Yep, Citizen 44545565223, move along, nothing to see here...

As for the original FISA, no problems with that.  The process is quick, easy, and has judicial oversight and congressional review built in.  The new FISA modifications, which strips these protections away...big issue with this I have.

Last edited by GorillaTicTacs (2008-02-19 02:30:52)