BF2S Forums On "A Potential for Abuse"

Dilbert_X wrote:

And it happens all the time. It's just that most violations are not serious enough to warrant prosecution...most punishments are administrative in nature, rather than criminal

Exactly the point I've been droning on about for a while now.
So your point about lack of prosecutions meaning everything is dandy is moot.
Secret activity is invariably carried out in secret, overseen in secret, investigated in secret and punished in secret - if ever.

Boy did you walk into that one - You're losing your touch

No, it's not at all what you've been droning on about and I didn't "walk into" anything.

If people are getting hit with administrative punishments, then they are not abusing the wiretapping statute--which is a CRIMINAL offense.

The "it happens all the time" is in reference to IA investigations of police departments, not the intel community.

So your attempt at a "gotcha"...not so good.

Dilbert_X wrote:

So point to some examples of IA investigations of the intel community then.

For administrative issues? Those are typically held internally, just like police, military, and industry internal investigations...unless tied to and relevant to a criminal investigation.

dude unless u where a turban and is stupid enough to talk about the plan to blow up the united states bathroom then ur fine dont worry about it damn

FEOS wrote:

There have been many of late lambasting the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping by the Bush administration. The arguments seem to focus around the potential for abuse that exists. Yet I don't see anyone concerned about other areas that have potential for abuse, but with much more severe consequences.

1. Police officers. They have loaded guns wherever they go. There is the potential that they can unload those guns into innocent people walking down the street! Where's the outcry?

2. The military. They have multi-million dollar weapon systems that can put several hundred pounds of heat, blast, and fragmentation on a gnat's ass. There is the potential that they could loose this power on the general public. Where's the outcry?

3. Truck drivers. They drive tens of tons of metal down the road at 60+ mph. There is the potential that they could just tear through neighborhoods, killing unsuspecting people in their homes! Where's the outcry?

Continue the list ad nauseum.

The answer to these questions is simple: There are checks and balances to ensure the potential abuse doesn't occur--just as with the Patriot Act and any other government programs. A potential for abuse does not equate to abuse actually occurring. If everyone is going to lose their damn minds about one policy or law that has a potential for abuse, without taking into account the checks that keep that abuse from occurring, then they must either suspend their logic in all cases that have the potential for abuse or admit they are...just maybe...taking things to a bit of an extreme.

FFS the Patriot Act is like the Reichstag Fire Decree.  Bush used a national tradgedy to expand the power of the government.  Now that the Patriot Act is in there with a bunch of Pro-bush yuppies, it will be impossible to get it out.

Turquoise wrote:

Whenever another bill comes up that is designed to extend the powers of the Patriot Act, they should name it the Barbrady Act.  The majority of defenses I've seen in this thread for the Patriot Act seem to be along the lines of "Move along now, there's nothing to see here."

I'm not necessarily defending anything, only pointing out that people are screaming about abuses like they are occurring, rather than admitting they are screaming about potentials for abuse for one thing and not others.

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS, I have to admit...  You have a phenomenal ability to justify just about anything the government does.  You even work for the Pentagon, don't you?

Thank you. And yes, I do work in the Pentagon...along with about 20,000 other people. Including everyone from McDonald's employees to the Secretary of Defense. Working in the Pentagon doesn't make one more or less likely to call someone on their flawed arguments or unfounded hyperbolic responses to things.

Turquoise wrote:

Anyone who distrusts the government's ability to handle social programs seems in contradiction with their distrust of big government if they also believe that the government is capable of handling spying duties without abusing that power.  Internal oversight is like another way of saying, "We'll let you know when there's abuse when we feel like telling you about it."  In other words, it's a fucking joke.

Completely different situations. There are no checks and balances for many of those social programs. And if there are, they aren't nearly as serious or enforced as those concerning wiretapping. Internal oversight of someone dealing with his countrymen's civil liberties (wiretapping) is much more serious and highly scrutinized than that of someone dealing with distribution of gubmint cheese (social programs).

Turquoise wrote:

But don't mind me...  I'm just a paranoid liberal for being concerned about the government encroaching upon the right to privacy.  I should direct my attention away from the abuses of defense contractors and the ramifications of the suspension of habeas corpus and instead worry about whether or not too many poor people are getting enough tax money to buy rims.

Yes, you are a paranoid liberal, but that's what endears you to all of us, Turq.

Being concerned about those things is entirely plausible. Believe it or not, I'm concerned about those things myself. But I'm not too concerned about abuses of the wiretapping laws, particularly by those who actually do the collection. Any and all collection done by those people is done by the book or they lose everything they have worked for all their careers. And the book has those checks and balances to prevent/mitigate the effects of any potential abuse in this arena. That's all I'm saying. Others seem to feel that having the power to do certain things means people will do certain things...my examples pointed to instances where that line of reasoning clearly is not the case. This is simply another instance of that.

Any and all collection done by those people is done by the book or they lose everything they have worked for all their careers.

And what of the people above them, those who interpret and use the information? The higher you go the more political it gets.

Those are examples of administrative punishments that relate to just about anything, not wiretapping in particular.

Do you know of anyone actually being punished for abuse of wiretapping?

And, BTW, this thread is about potential versus actual abuses of wiretapping, not the Patriot Act as a whole.

However you argue it there is immense potential, not least because its happened before, in the US.
You can argue about checks and balances, we have seen how quickly those have been suspended by executive dictat or 'signing statements' because the US is supposedly at war.

Its a long and slippery slope and this is the first step.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Any and all collection done by those people is done by the book or they lose everything they have worked for all their careers.

And what of the people above them, those who interpret and use the information? The higher you go the more political it gets.

It's not hierarchical in the manner that you assume. At least not in the US. The collectors and analyzers are peers and kept separate to prevent "contamination" of the data being analyzed. It gets political about 3-4 levels above where the work actually gets done.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Those are examples of administrative punishments that relate to just about anything, not wiretapping in particular.

Do you know of anyone actually being punished for abuse of wiretapping?

Nope. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened, only that I'm not aware of any. And abuse of wiretapping would not be punished administratively...it is a criminal offense.

Dilbert_X wrote:

And, BTW, this thread is about potential versus actual abuses of wiretapping, not the Patriot Act as a whole.

However you argue it there is immense potential, not least because its happened before, in the US.
You can argue about checks and balances, we have seen how quickly those have been suspended by executive dictat or 'signing statements' because the US is supposedly at war.

Its a long and slippery slope and this is the first step.

Title 50 of US Code hasn't been changed. You can "what if" all you want, but in spite of your concerns about this, none of them have actually happened.