Marijuana.com

Murdock · 11-13-2005, 01:09 AM

Quote:

FBI Papers Indicate Intelligence Violations
Secret Surveillance Lacked Oversight

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 24, 2005; Page A01

The FBI has conducted clandestine surveillance on some U.S. residents for as long as 18 months at a time without proper paperwork or oversight, according to previously classified documents to be released today.
Records turned over as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit also indicate that the FBI has investigated hundreds of potential violations related to its use of secret surveillance operations, which have been stepped up dramatically since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks but are largely hidden from public view.

In one case, FBI agents kept an unidentified target under surveillance for at least five years -- including more than 15 months without notifying Justice Department lawyers after the subject had moved from New York to Detroit. An FBI investigation concluded that the delay was a violation of Justice guidelines and prevented the department "from exercising its responsibility for oversight and approval of an ongoing foreign counterintelligence investigation of a U.S. person."

In other cases, agents obtained e-mails after a warrant expired, seized bank records without proper authority and conducted an improper "unconsented physical search," according to the documents.

Although heavily censored, the documents provide a rare glimpse into the world of domestic spying, which is governed by a secret court and overseen by a presidential board that does not publicize its deliberations. The records are also emerging as the House and Senate battle over whether to put new restrictions on the controversial USA Patriot Act, which made it easier for the government to conduct secret searches and surveillance but has come under attack from civil liberties groups.

The records were provided to The Washington Post by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, an advocacy group that has sued the Justice Department for records relating to the Patriot Act.

Link

Quote:

The FBI's Secret Scrutiny
In Hunt for Terrorists, Bureau Examines Records of Ordinary Americans

By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 6, 2005; A01

The FBI now issues more than 30,000 national security letters a year, according to government sources, a hundredfold increase over historic norms. The letters -- one of which can be used to sweep up the records of many people -- are extending the bureau's reach as never before into the telephone calls, correspondence and financial lives of ordinary Americans.

Issued by FBI field supervisors, national security letters do not need the imprimatur of a prosecutor, grand jury or judge. They receive no review after the fact by the Justice Department or Congress. The executive branch maintains only statistics, which are incomplete and confined to classified reports. The Bush administration defeated legislation and a lawsuit to require a public accounting, and has offered no example in which the use of a national security letter helped disrupt a terrorist plot.

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.

National security letters offer a case study of the impact of the Patriot Act outside the spotlight of political debate. Drafted in haste after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the law's 132 pages wrought scores of changes in the landscape of intelligence and law enforcement. Many received far more attention than the amendments to a seemingly pedestrian power to review "transactional records." But few if any other provisions touch as many ordinary Americans without their knowledge.

Senior FBI officials acknowledged in interviews that the proliferation of national security letters results primarily from the bureau's new authority to collect intimate facts about people who are not suspected of any wrongdoing. Criticized for failure to detect the Sept. 11 plot, the bureau now casts a much wider net, using national security letters to generate leads as well as to pursue them. Casual or unwitting contact with a suspect -- a single telephone call, for example -- may attract the attention of investigators and subject a person to scrutiny about which he never learns.

A national security letter cannot be used to authorize eavesdropping or to read the contents of e-mail. But it does permit investigators to trace revealing paths through the private affairs of a modern digital citizen. The records it yields describe where a person makes and spends money, with whom he lives and lived before, how much he gambles, what he buys online, what he pawns and borrows, where he travels, how he invests, what he searches for and reads on the Web, and who telephones or e-mails him at home and at work.

"The beef with the NSLs is that they don't have even a pretense of judicial or impartial scrutiny," said former representative Robert L. Barr Jr. (Ga.), who finds himself allied with the American Civil Liberties Union after a career as prosecutor, CIA analyst and conservative GOP stalwart. "There's no checks and balances whatever on them. It is simply some bureaucrat's decision that they want information, and they can basically just go and get it."

Link

Higher Logic · 11-13-2005, 03:16 AM

"Oh, they'll never abuse the PATRIOT Act, it's for your protection. Oh, and fight terrorism soundbyte"

BC.Buddy · 11-13-2005, 06:30 PM

*Long, drawn out silence*

Is this for real? Has Bush gone against everything that made America?

This is ridiculous.

Has anyone seen Fahrenheit 9/11? Does it not provide proof that the Bush administration had enough intelligence about 9/11 to act on?!

**** Michael Moore, let's go with the 9/11 Commission report, found here. And here is a link to the actual report, apparently all 585 pages of it!

What I'm saying is that it was not the FBI's fault, was it? This is just some sorry excuse to strip Americans of the rights they were guaranteed.

This comes as close to a conspiracy as you can get.

Quote:

Issued by FBI field supervisors, national security letters do not need the imprimatur of a prosecutor, grand jury or judge. They receive no review after the fact by the Justice Department or Congress.

I suppose that's because if it's national security, you can't have delays while trying to deal with imminent danger. But if it's just to spy on its own citizens for no real reason.

no real reason = "...casual or unwitting contact with a suspect -- a single telephone call, for example..."

I mean, this is pathetic.

And you know what's even funnier? This allows the American government to spy on a lot of private Canadian information, that's outsourced to private American companies (since they're subject to the Patriot Act).

Isn't the Patriot Act an ironic name for this disaster? Using 'Patriot' in the name of legislation that goes against what its own country is all about?!

GO BUSH!

Niteshift · 11-13-2005, 07:56 PM

Ok, there may have been abuses. If there were, punish those people accordingly.

Most of the provisions of the PA have not been abused. Most of them were in existence long before the PA and just switched over to include terrorism in their purview.

To make this into something Bush is personally responsible for is kind of silly.

As for Fahrenhype 9/11, so much of that movie has been debunked and disproven that it's hardly worth covering again. Moore had no interest in presenting the facts in context at all and stooped to plagarism, distortion and out-right fabrication to make his little movie.

As for intelligence that was ignored.........Intelligence happens at all different levels. Some is ignored, some is accepted. The trick is knowing which is true and which isn't. People complain about Bush "lying" for putting stock in intelligence that later turned out to be incorrect, but blame him for not taking other intelligence at face value. In other words, nothing will ever be right to some of them.

If we really want to point fingers, we can start with the previous administration that failed to respond to al Qaeda attacks that lasted throughout that administration. The same administration that refused to take custody of bin Laden when he was offered up by Sudan. The same administration that refused to look into intelligence that identified 3 of the 9/11 hijackers, by name and location, over a year prior to the attacks.

Let's not pretend that it was only Bush that ignored anything, if he even knew which intelligence was correct and which wasn't.

HappyMan · 11-13-2005, 09:25 PM

Intelligence is analytical not factual.

WNB · 11-13-2005, 10:16 PM

Ok Niteshift, I was with you up until this;

Quote:

Originally Posted by Niteshift

As for intelligence that was ignored.........Intelligence happens at all different levels. Some is ignored, some is accepted. The trick is knowing which is true and which isn't. People complain about Bush "lying" for putting stock in intelligence that later turned out to be incorrect, but blame him for not taking other intelligence at face value. In other words, nothing will ever be right to some of them.

This defense will only take you so far, and it really doesn't explain why information they knew was wrong was publicly cited as a justification for the war. Anyway, the CIA should have made those calls, not the Bush admin.

Niteshift · 11-13-2005, 10:41 PM

Intelligence is an extremely tricky business. You have to make judgement calls on what to believe, to what degree to believe in it etc. A source that has been wrong 9 out of 10 times was still right 1 out of 10. Likewise, a source that has been right 98 out of 100 was still wrong twice.

Sometimes sources are wrong. Sometimes they are wrong on purpose. Sometimes the people reading the intelligence see what they want to see. As a reasonable adult, you have probably seen these things in your own life time after time. The intelligence game is no different. And it is a game to an extent.

And I won't even get into the highly inefficient, fractured and territorial mess that comprised our intelligence community prior to 9/11. Depending on which model you use, there were about 19-25 different agencies with intelligence gathering responsibilities and no central authority to put it together because the "Central" Intelligence Agency couldn't share info with the LE side of the community in many cases. Couple that with 19-25 little kingdoms, all protecting their turf, wanting to prove their value and keep their slice of the budget pie (if not increase it).

I wrote a paper on this whole mess a couple of years ago for a class and I was not kind to the intelligence community, despite my own participation in it. Maybe one of these days I can pare it down some and post it here.

But back to the point, it is so easy to sit back and point at this or that after the fact. Having been in the gathering end of the equation and just a little on the analysis end, I know how murky the waters get. And yes, sometimes people chose what to believe and what to put stock in because it agrees with their personal feelings. Sometimes that's the wrong call, sometimes it is the right one. But it is rarely as black and white as it appears months later with the advantage of hindsight.

ChronicSmoke7 · 11-13-2005, 10:51 PM

I think in one of Bush's speeches,Bush said the info the got from british intelligence was incorrect. how about it was fabricated by the british and then america can blame them w/o being guilty of wrong doings. Their partner in crime so to speak. The whole conspiracy theory is headquatered in London. For all the americans who think we are superior militarily forgets our roots of over throwing the worlds super power. America will not be the world super power, they are just a pawn in the agenda in order to impose a world government. believe it or not, that is for your intelligence to analyze.

WNB · 11-13-2005, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Niteshift

Intelligence is an extremely tricky business. You have to make judgement calls on what to believe, to what degree to believe in it etc. A source that has been wrong 9 out of 10 times was still right 1 out of 10. Likewise, a source that has been right 98 out of 100 was still wrong twice.

Sometimes sources are wrong. Sometimes they are wrong on purpose. Sometimes the people reading the intelligence see what they want to see. As a reasonable adult, you have probably seen these things in your own life time after time. The intelligence game is no different. And it is a game to an extent.

And I won't even get into the highly inefficient, fractured and territorial mess that comprised our intelligence community prior to 9/11. Depending on which model you use, there were about 19-25 different agencies with intelligence gathering responsibilities and no central authority to put it together because the "Central" Intelligence Agency couldn't share info with the LE side of the community in many cases. Couple that with 19-25 little kingdoms, all protecting their turf, wanting to prove their value and keep their slice of the budget pie (if not increase it).

I wrote a paper on this whole mess a couple of years ago for a class and I was not kind to the intelligence community, despite my own participation in it. Maybe one of these days I can pare it down some and post it here.

But back to the point, it is so easy to sit back and point at this or that after the fact. Having been in the gathering end of the equation and just a little on the analysis end, I know how murky the waters get. And yes, sometimes people chose what to believe and what to put stock in because it agrees with their personal feelings. Sometimes that's the wrong call, sometimes it is the right one. But it is rarely as black and white as it appears months later with the advantage of hindsight.

You're right, but I think the Bush administration's use of intelligence was so obviously selective and politically motivated that this defense just doesn't hold up.

Plus there's still that whole "Using intelligence the Bushies knew was wrong as a public justification for the war" thing that you didn't address.

Niteshift · 11-14-2005, 12:08 AM

What Bush "knew", or more accurately believed, is subject to debate. From what I've seen, it's not as cut and dried as Bush haters would have us believe.

11-13-2005, 03:16 AM	#2
Higher Logic Web Developer Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 6,123 Grams: 5,550.58 Groans: 3 Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts Thanks: 2 Thanked 57 Times in 33 Posts Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: 0.000%	"Oh, they'll never abuse the PATRIOT Act, it's for your protection. Oh, and fight terrorism soundbyte" __________________ Crucial Web Hosting · Garden's Cure · Marijuana Recipes · Drug Testing Facts Dilution · Substitution · Urine Testing · Hair Testing · Drug Testing FAQ

11-13-2005, 07:56 PM	#4
Niteshift L.E.O. in Good Standing Join Date: Dec 2000 Posts: 6,432 Grams: 2,421.62 Groans: 0 Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: 0.000%	Ok, there may have been abuses. If there were, punish those people accordingly. Most of the provisions of the PA have not been abused. Most of them were in existence long before the PA and just switched over to include terrorism in their purview. To make this into something Bush is personally responsible for is kind of silly. As for Fahrenhype 9/11, so much of that movie has been debunked and disproven that it's hardly worth covering again. Moore had no interest in presenting the facts in context at all and stooped to plagarism, distortion and out-right fabrication to make his little movie. As for intelligence that was ignored.........Intelligence happens at all different levels. Some is ignored, some is accepted. The trick is knowing which is true and which isn't. People complain about Bush "lying" for putting stock in intelligence that later turned out to be incorrect, but blame him for not taking other intelligence at face value. In other words, nothing will ever be right to some of them. If we really want to point fingers, we can start with the previous administration that failed to respond to al Qaeda attacks that lasted throughout that administration. The same administration that refused to take custody of bin Laden when he was offered up by Sudan. The same administration that refused to look into intelligence that identified 3 of the 9/11 hijackers, by name and location, over a year prior to the attacks. Let's not pretend that it was only Bush that ignored anything, if he even knew which intelligence was correct and which wasn't. __________________ A burning desire for social justice is never a substitute for knowing what you're talking about. -Thomas Sowell Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is muzzle flash.

11-13-2005, 09:25 PM	#5
HappyMan Jr. Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 4,224 Grams: 1,574.57 Groans: 0 Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: 0.000%	Intelligence is analytical not factual. __________________ Bla. and Marijuana.Com Community Posting Guidelines

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

New To Site?	Need Help?
Register to Participate View Forum Leaders Contact Us	Frequently Asked Questions Did you forget your password? Mark Forums Read

Remove Advertisements Marijuana.com Sponsor
Marijuana.com Advertisement	<a rel='nofollow' href='http://adserver.marijuana.com/www/delivery/ck.php?n=a78e9dba&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE' target='_blank'><img src='http://adserver.marijuana.com/www/delivery/avw.php?zoneid=6&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE&n=a78e9dba' border='0' alt='' /></a>

11-13-2005, 10:41 PM	#7
Niteshift L.E.O. in Good Standing Join Date: Dec 2000 Posts: 6,432 Grams: 2,421.62 Groans: 0 Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: 0.000%	Intelligence is an extremely tricky business. You have to make judgement calls on what to believe, to what degree to believe in it etc. A source that has been wrong 9 out of 10 times was still right 1 out of 10. Likewise, a source that has been right 98 out of 100 was still wrong twice. Sometimes sources are wrong. Sometimes they are wrong on purpose. Sometimes the people reading the intelligence see what they want to see. As a reasonable adult, you have probably seen these things in your own life time after time. The intelligence game is no different. And it is a game to an extent. And I won't even get into the highly inefficient, fractured and territorial mess that comprised our intelligence community prior to 9/11. Depending on which model you use, there were about 19-25 different agencies with intelligence gathering responsibilities and no central authority to put it together because the "Central" Intelligence Agency couldn't share info with the LE side of the community in many cases. Couple that with 19-25 little kingdoms, all protecting their turf, wanting to prove their value and keep their slice of the budget pie (if not increase it). I wrote a paper on this whole mess a couple of years ago for a class and I was not kind to the intelligence community, despite my own participation in it. Maybe one of these days I can pare it down some and post it here. But back to the point, it is so easy to sit back and point at this or that after the fact. Having been in the gathering end of the equation and just a little on the analysis end, I know how murky the waters get. And yes, sometimes people chose what to believe and what to put stock in because it agrees with their personal feelings. Sometimes that's the wrong call, sometimes it is the right one. But it is rarely as black and white as it appears months later with the advantage of hindsight.

11-13-2005, 10:51 PM	#8
ChronicSmoke7 Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 564 Grams: 2,435.05 Groans: 0 Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: 0.000%	I think in one of Bush's speeches,Bush said the info the got from british intelligence was incorrect. how about it was fabricated by the british and then america can blame them w/o being guilty of wrong doings. Their partner in crime so to speak. The whole conspiracy theory is headquatered in London. For all the americans who think we are superior militarily forgets our roots of over throwing the worlds super power. America will not be the world super power, they are just a pawn in the agenda in order to impose a world government. believe it or not, that is for your intelligence to analyze.

11-14-2005, 12:08 AM	#10
Niteshift L.E.O. in Good Standing Join Date: Dec 2000 Posts: 6,432 Grams: 2,421.62 Groans: 0 Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: 0.000%	What Bush "knew", or more accurately believed, is subject to debate. From what I've seen, it's not as cut and dried as Bush haters would have us believe.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Marijuana.com

Hot Products: