And we take another step towards...

[Guest Crazy Dan]

FBI Gets More Leeway for Anti-Terrorism Surveillance

 

By Deborah Charles

Reuters

 

WASHINGTON (May 30) - The FBI on Thursday won additional powers to conduct domestic counterterrorism surveillance at places like mosques -- changes critics say could trample on Americans' rights and civil liberties.

 

A quarter century after the government imposed guidelines to curtail domestic spying, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced a complete overhaul of the rules. The new guidelines, responding to the Sept. 11 attacks, lift FBI restrictions on conducting surveillance at public gatherings, on religious and political organizations and on surfing the Internet.

 

''The guidelines emphasize that the FBI must not be deprived of using all lawful authorized methods in investigations, consistent with the Constitution ... to pursue and prevent terrorist actions,'' Ashcroft said.

 

FBI Director Robert Mueller, whose bureau has been under fire for its failure to act on information that might have prevented the deadly Sept. 11 attacks, said the changes are needed to properly fight terrorism.

 

''The guideline changes ... are important, they're important steps to help remove unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles to the effective investigation of terrorist cases,'' Mueller said.

 

''These changes complement the reforms we announced yesterday to strengthen our, the FBI's, capacity to prevent terrorism in the wake of September 11.''

 

Under the new guidelines, undercover FBI agents will be able to attend public gatherings or enter places -- such as mosques -- that are open to the public. They can also search the Internet for counterterrorism purposes. Under the previous guidelines, FBI agents had to offer evidence of criminal activity to get approval for such surveillance.

 

Civil liberties groups warned the changes could result in a return to the days of domestic spying.

 

But President Bush defended the change, saying it was a part of necessary reforms at the FBI.

 

''We intend to honor our Constitution and respect the freedoms that we hold so dear,'' he said. ''Our most important job is to protect America. And the initiative ... will guarantee our Constitution. And that's important for the citizens to know.''

 

RETURN TO COINTELPRO?

 

The attorney general's guidelines on surveillance were first imposed on the FBI in the 1970s following disclosures that the bureau under the late J. Edgar Hoover had run a widespread domestic surveillance program called Cointelpro.

 

Critics said the FBI under Hoover had overstepped its authority by using Cointelpro to spy on civil rights activists including Martin Luther King and the Black Panthers, opponents of the Vietnam War and others.

 

''Apparently Attorney General Ashcroft wants to get the FBI back in the business of spying on religious and political organizations,'' said Margaret Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights. ''That alone would be unconstitutional but history suggests the FBI won't stop at passive information gathering. We fear a return to the days of Cointelpro.''

 

The American Civil Liberties Union blasted the new guidelines as the ''latest power grab by an administration that seems determined to undermine the bedrock values of liberty, equality and government accountability.''

 

The ACLU and other groups have opposed previous measures implemented by Ashcroft since Sept. 11 including the creation of military tribunals, mass detentions and the monitoring of some attorney/client communication.

 

A senior Justice Department official rejected concerns the sweeping changes would lead to violations of civil liberties. ''We will never return to the bad old days,'' he said. ''As the attorney general said, we think outside the box, not outside the Constitution.''

 

But Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the top Democrat on the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, blasted the guidelines.

 

''The administration's continued defiance of constitutional safeguards seems to have no end in sight,'' Conyers said in a statement. ''This decision decimates the Fourth Amendment.''

 

The change in the guidelines are in part a response to a memo written by Coleen Rowley, an FBI agent in Minneapolis, who complained that tough rules and bureaucracy hampered the initial investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui, who was later charged with conspiring in the attacks.  

 

Reuters 17:21 05-30-02

 

I am sure some of you will have something to say about this... I don't like this personally.  It will be intersting if this is the first domino to fall, as Americans slowly lose their civil rights, all in the name of fighting terror.  But, who is to say.  Let the debate begin.

[Guest]

eventually, the more and more shit like this happens, and the more and more people stop woorking and collecting welfare, and blah blah blah, eventually a revolution will happen.  I know it's a little early, but I mean, honestly, the way shit is going it's the only way. Oh and ashcroft can lick my balls

 

--Rob

[Guest DrTom]

"It will be intersting if this is the first domino to fall, as Americans slowly lose their civil rights, all in the name of fighting terror."

 

The woefully-misnamed Patriot Act was the first domino to fall.  AG John Ashcroft's virtual revival of the Sedition Act was the second.  This is the third, and probably the biggest of the three.  I blame Ashcroft, since squashing everyone's freedoms in favor of the illusion of security seems to be his chief agenda.  It doesn't look like Bush will dismiss him (which means I won't be voting for Bush in '04, despite my great satisfaction with the President's work thus far), so the only hope we have is that he dies in office.  Maybe he'll step on a dance floor and die of shock and revulsion.

[Guest Human Fly]

What's the deal with George Bush? Aren't Conservatives supposed to be anti-big government? That's why I'm convinced independent parties (Green party, Libertarian) are the way to go. These moderate politicians are robbing Americans of there true freedom. It's time like this I'm glad Gore wasn't elected or we'd still be under Marshall Law after 9/11. And you can bet no military action would've been taken as Gore would've wet himself and hidden in a bunker for two months.

 

I feel that this Govt. act is trampling on our right to assemble. We don't need the Govt. watching over us and policing us. Normally I don't side with the radically left-wing political agenda of the ACLU but for once they have it right. This is a perfect example of the Social Contract Theory as our rights are being sacrificed for out "protection". If the govt. really wanted to protect us they would raise up the militia and if some moron tried anything he would get taken down. I loved it when some fool was trying to set his shoes on fire and he was promptly taken down by citizens on the plane. That's what I'm talking about we don't need the govt. to watch over us we need capable and responsible citizens who have the proper training and background checks that prove their trustworthy.

 

Once again I'm dissapointed in George Bush. I would've hoped that he would've had the sense to stay away from these kinds of decisions. Now that the precedent has been set we can only expect more freedom to be robbed. If Bush doesn't do it you can bet the next guy will give it a try.

 

I also know that the Democrats think this is a great idea. There getting the benefits of more Govt. control and their guy isn't even in office! Mark my words the next time a Democrat win the presidency he will swoop in like a vulture and pick the carcass of American freedom. At that point there will be one solution: revolution.

 

Sorry for the rant, but nothing bugs me more then this.

[Guest Frank Zappa Mask]

Ya know, Doc, the fact that we tend to disagree on methods doesn't hide the fact that we are both aware that a government that tries to control beyond its bounds, that tries to act as if it knows what is best for you, and that tries to speak in "one voice" for a people whose voice is so complex gives me a bit of hope.  One of the things I've come to admire about certain kinds of conservatives, as you represent (and I hope I'm not labeling you in an unproper sense here), is the genuine desire for a form of freedom that we in America have truly yet to achieve, because people are too brain-dead to take responbility to keep sure the priniciples at the heart of this country.  Anyone with a half a mind knows that what Ashcroft proposes with these lessening of restrictions upon domestic spying knows that as much as it, in all honest sense, is meant to fight terrorism, knows that the other half of that equation means an easy excuse to go after groups of people whose opinions do not fall in line 100% with the status quo, and the mindless masses will fall right in line when someone is labeled terrorist, when in all actuality, they have nothing to do with terrorism, and everything to do with trying to lead this country to the place it should've been all along, no matter how naive their opinions might be.  Liberal or conservative, or anything in between, doesn't matter a whit when the prophecies of Mr. Orwell or Mr. Huxley begin to manifest themselves.  We all end up in the same boat when we get complacent....

[Guest DrTom]

"Aren't Conservatives supposed to be anti-big government?"

 

Yes, which is why the Ashcroft agenda is so maddening, and Bush's support of it so stupid and frustrating.  The thing is, Bush doesn't even *need* Ashcroft anymore.  His appointment was basically to appease the religious right, but since Bush is so insanely popular, he could fire Ashcroft and piss all over his pointy head and not feel it at the polls.  Hell, his numbers mibht even shoot up a couple points.,

 

"It's time like this I'm glad Gore wasn't elected or we'd still be under Marshall Law after 9/11. And you can bet no military action would've been taken as Gore would've wet himself and hidden in a bunker for two months."

 

I'm far from an Al Gore fan, but I don't see either one happening.  Gore is not nearly the wimp everyone makes him out to be.  Look at his voting record in Congress and his speeches as VP; the man's actually quite hawkish for a Democrat.  I think he's a silly tree-hugger who has a dangerous environmental agenda, and is exactly the kind of leader we never need to have in the White House, but I just can't believe Gore would be peeing himself and hiding in bunkers.

 

"I also know that the Democrats think this is a great idea."

 

The fact that it might come back to bite Bush in the ass certainly helps.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

"The change in the guidelines are in part a response to a memo written by Coleen Rowley, an FBI agent in Minneapolis, who complained that tough rules and bureaucracy hampered the initial investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui, who was later charged with conspiring in the attacks.  "

 

Those tough rules are from biased groups like the ACLU who would of thrown a fit if Moussaoui's computer would of been allowed to be checked. The warrant wasn't given becasue Moussaoui there wasn't evidence he was a terrorist. Naturally when laws are put in place that let's the FBI look into suspicious individuas and group the ACLU and other groups start complaining.

[Guest]

I think a lot of the "rules" are based on people being able to sue for shit like that.   I believe in proper channels and documentation and stuff, but if you got pretty good knowledge the guy is a terrorist, crack dealer or whatever and the guy MAY not be there by the time you get what you need you should be able to move in.  I am afraid though that if say on a website there was something that could be considered even remotely pro-islamic or something like that, the FBI would be tearing shit apart.

[Guest RetroRob215]

<<Americans slowly lose their civil rights, all in the name of fighting terror.>>

 

I don't really how Americans are losing their civil rights because undercover FBI agents will be strolling around the town.  As long as they don't disrupt me or anyone else, I have no problem with this because I have nothing to hide.

[Guest]

Exactly.

[Guest DrTom]

"I don't really know how Americans are losing their civil rights..."

 

Then check these out:

 

The Patriot Act explained

 

Ashcroft Attacks Freedom Again

 

Also remember that Benjamin Franklin was right, and that changing our society because a bunch of fuckheads flew planes into our buildings is letting the terrorists win.

[Guest Ripper]

Funny....everyone here seems to be all gungho about policing arab men, because being arab makes them probable terrorist aparently ??? , but when it comes to your rights being infringed on, its like, "hold da fuck up".  Either you are for government infringing on Americans rights or not...you can't have it both ways.

[Guest]

Policing, i.e. searching, Arabs is an inconvenience not a taking away of rights.

[Guest DrTom]

"Funny....everyone here seems to be all gungho about policing arab men, because being arab makes them probable terrorist aparently..."

 

There's no "apparently" about it.  The groups that have repeatedly launched terrorist attacks against this country have been comprised of Arab men.  Devoting extra scrutiny to them is a reasonable precaution to keep everyone safe.

 

"but when it comes to your rights being infringed on, its like, "hold da fuck up"."

 

That would be because I am not a terrorist, have no criminal record, and don't fit the profile of anyone seeking to destroy the USA.  If ever the time comes that blond-haired White men between 6'2" and 6'6" become threats to American security, then I would deal with the extra scrutiny that would sensibly be placed upon me.

 

"Either you are for government infringing on Americans rights or not..."

 

The last time I checked, being able to pass thru airport security without being searched was not a right afforded to anyone.

[Guest]

Everyone has a Constitutional right to be protected from unreasonable searches, Tom. As you know, I agree with you; I don't think racial profiling in this instance constitutes an unreasonable search. But the argument against it isn't de facto invalid.

[Guest]

That would be because I am not a terrorist, have no criminal record, and don't fit the profile of anyone seeking to destroy the USA.  If ever the time comes that blond-haired White men between 6'2" and 6'6" become threats to American security, then I would deal with the extra scrutiny that would sensibly be placed upon me.

 

Exactly.  When the IRA starts flying planes into U.S. buildings I would want every Murphy, O'Connor, etc, to be scrutinized extra carefully when they move through airports.  I would just have to deal with these extra security measures.  After all, if I have nothing to hide then what's the problem?

[Guest Ripper]

"Funny....everyone here seems to be all gungho about policing arab men, because being arab makes them probable terrorist aparently..."

 

There's no "apparently" about it.  The groups that have repeatedly launched terrorist attacks against this country have been comprised of Arab men.  Devoting extra scrutiny to them is a reasonable precaution to keep everyone safe.

 

"but when it comes to your rights being infringed on, its like, "hold da fuck up"."

 

That would be because I am not a terrorist, have no criminal record, and don't fit the profile of anyone seeking to destroy the USA.  If ever the time comes that blond-haired White men between 6'2" and 6'6" become threats to American security, then I would deal with the extra scrutiny that would sensibly be placed upon me.

 

"Either you are for government infringing on Americans rights or not..."

 

The last time I checked, being able to pass thru airport security without being searched was not a right afforded to anyone.

But how does 7 acts of terrorism against america by this group in the past 30 years mean that in all likelihood Arab American men are terrorist?  As I have said in many other threads, if you look at it numerically, mass murder or deaths in america are committed by white males between 25-37 more time than naught.  A radical group of arabs may have committed the most recent and most memeroble act of terror.  If I'm not mistaken, there are more white supremist and extremist in america than there are the radical Arabs, should all white men be considered racist and be subjected to unlawful search?? Should all Black men be considered gang bangers and be searched.  

 

If this type of thing was even suggested for another minority in this contry, the outcry would be ridiculous, but with Arab Americans, it is considered OK because 9-11 is still fresh in everyones minds.  Right now, the terrorist groups over seas are still releasing these statements just so that they can keep America a: Afraid and b: making life harder on the arab americans they view as trators and America is playing right into thier hands.

[Guest DrTom]

"But the argument against it isn't de facto invalid."

 

Of course not.  But as you said, the racial profiling that exists here isn't unreasonable.  I don't see what the fuss is all about in this case, really.  Sure, there are some bad examples of racial profiling out there, but this isn't one of them.

[Guest]

Right.

[Guest DrTom]

"But how does 7 acts of terrorism against america by this group in the past 30 years mean that in all likelihood Arab American men are terrorist?"

 

It's really four major ones in the last nine years, and of course, the deaths of 3000+ innocents last year.  As I said in a different thread: not all Arab men are terrorists who have attacked us recently, but all terrorists who have attacked us recently ARE Arab men.  I never want to see another 9/11, and if paying extra attention to certain people at the airport helps prevent it, then I'm all for it.

 

"if you look at it numerically, mass murder or deaths in america are committed by white males between 25-37 more time than naught."

 

Local murders and the occasional serial killer case are not even in the same league as what happened last September.  But if Whites in certain locales are as likely to commit murder and other violent crimes as you claim, then police there should pay them extra attention.  As long as it's not an unreasonable search, there's nothing legally wrong with it.

 

"If I'm not mistaken, there are more white supremist and extremist in america than there are the radical Arabs, should all white men be considered racist and be subjected to unlawful search??"

 

When the KKK flies an airplane into a skyscraper, be a peach and drop me a line about it.  People like that are certainly bastards, but they're not threats to our national security.  The events of 9/11 happened because Arab men were able to enter the country and take blatantly modified flight classes, and no one said or did anything about it.  We want to make sure history doesn't repeat itself, and that's fine with me.  Again, as long as the searches aren't unreasonable, I don't have a problem.

 

"Should all Black men be considered gang bangers and be searched."

 

Of course not.  But in certain cities, Black men of a certain age group are likely to be involved in gangs, and if the police can reasonably and legally deter gang activity, so much the better.

 

"If this type of thing was even suggested for another minority in this contry, the outcry would be ridiculous..."

 

There's an outcry anytime anything happens to a minority.  Political correctness and a de facto societal mandate that no one can ever feel bad about themselves has made us farcically oversensitive as a country.

 

"Right now, the terrorist groups over seas are still releasing these statements just so that they can keep America a: Afraid and b: making life harder on the arab americans they view as trators and America is playing right into thier hands."

 

And here I thought they did these things because they hated our culture for myriad reasons.  Taking reasonable precautions doesn't make us afraid.  Perhaps you'd like to conduct a poll in Afghanistan about how afraid America looks.  If you can find the former Taliban, they'd be happy to tell you.  As for part (B), I don't see how thoughts like that fit into the wacko agendas most terrorist organizations have.  I think Usama bin Laden has more to worry about than making life a little harder for Arabs in America.

[Guest]

Maybe I won't need to perpetuate myself the fascist overtaking of this country after all... I've got Washington doing it for me.

[Guest Ripper]

The problem with the racial profiling now is that it opens the doors to so much more that will eventually lead to taking of everyones freedoms.  And when it happens, only the people who are against racial profiling now can truley have a say against it.  

 

And as for the white suprimest groups, there are websites on the Internet RIGHT NOW that have detailed descriptions of terrorist activities that their "army" plans to use against all us "race mixers".  I find it disturbing that a member of one of these groups that have been openly in support for mass murder of minorities have a easier time getting around than a Arad American that has done nothing.  

 

If you are for the random searches at airports, I am all for searching those old ladys and teenagers.  At least acknowloge that there are plenty of crazy people in the world and not perpectuate some stereotype that Arabs are the only ones we should be afraid of.  I think that is a far more dangerous practice...it gives a false sense of security about the rest of the people in this country.  

 

I'm all for if you see some red flags, check him out.  But if "He looks Middle Eastern" is the only flag, then it is just plain ridiculous. Hell, if you just want to pay more attention from a far, fine...but when it becomes a annoyance or harrasment towards the person, it is crossing the line.

[Guest DrTom]

"The problem with the racial profiling now is that it opens the doors to so much more that will eventually lead to taking of everyones freedoms."

 

It can, but it doesn't necessarily lead to that.  I don't think the neo-police state you're describing would come to pass under current leadership, Ashcroft's thoughts about freedoms notwithstanding.

 

"And as for the white suprimest groups, there are websites on the Internet RIGHT NOW that have detailed descriptions of terrorist activities that their "army" plans to use against all us "race mixers"."

 

There are websites on the internet right now that promise immortality in a bottle.  Or miracle cures for diseases.  Or bigger bust/penis size.  A few wackos on the internet isn't a cause for alarm, repugnant though their cause may be.  People like that tend to spread their message online because they're too chickenshit to do it any other way.

 

"... and not perpectuate some stereotype that Arabs are the only ones we should be afraid of."

 

Ok, name one non-Arab who had a hand in carrying out the Al'Qaeda terrorist attacks of September 11th.  When Chinese grandmothers and skate punks are a threat to national security, then I'll advocate increased scrutiny for them, too.