PDA

View Full Version : FBI given too much power?



Killer Kitten
05-21-2005, 01:05 PM
Updated: 07:44 AM EDT
Plan Would Let FBI Track Mail in Terrorism Inquiries

By ERIC LICHTBLAU, The New York Times
WASHINGTON (May 20) - The F.B.I. would gain broad authority to track the mail of people in terror investigations under a Bush administration proposal, officials said Friday, but the Postal Service is already raising privacy concerns about the plan.

The proposal, to be considered next week in a closed-door meeting of the Senate Intelligence Committee, would allow the bureau to direct postal inspectors to turn over the names, addresses and all other material appearing on the outside of letters sent to or from people connected to foreign intelligence investigations.

The plan would effectively eliminate the postal inspectors' discretion in deciding when so-called mail covers are needed and give sole authority to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, if it determines that the material is "relevant to an authorized investigation to obtain foreign intelligence," according to a draft of the bill.

The proposal would not allow the bureau to open mail or review its content. Such a move would require a search warrant, officials said.

The Intelligence Committee has not publicly released the proposal, but a draft was obtained by The New York Times.

The provision is part of a broader package that also strengthens the bureau's power to demand business records in intelligence investigations without approval by a judge or grand jury.

The proposals reflect efforts by the administration and Senate Republicans to bolster and, in some ways, broaden the power of the bureau to fight terrorism, even as critics are seeking to scale back its authority under the law known as the USA Patriot Act.

A debate over the government's terrorism powers is to begin in earnest at a session of the Intelligence Committee on Thursday, in what is shaping up as a heated battle over the balance between fighting terrorism and protecting civil rights in the post-Sept. 11 era.

The F.B.I. has conducted mail covers for decades in criminal and national security investigations. But the prospect of expanding its authority to monitor mailings alarmed some privacy and civil rights advocates and caused concerns among postal officials, as well. They said the proposal caught them off guard.

"This is a major step," the chief privacy officer for the Postal Service, Zoe Strickland, said. "From a privacy perspective, you want to make sure that the right balance is struck between protecting people's mail and aiding law enforcement, and this legislation could impact that balance negatively."

The new proposal "removes discretion from the Postal Inspection Service as to how the mail covers are implemented," Ms. Strickland said in an interview. "I worry quite a bit about the balance being struck here, and we're quite mystified as to how this got put in the legislation."

Officials on the Intelligence Committee said the legislation was intended to make the F.B.I. the sole arbiter of when a mail cover should be conducted, after complaints that undue interference from postal inspectors had slowed operations.

"The F.B.I. would be able to control its own investigations of terrorists and spies, and the postal service would have to comply with those requests," said an aide to the Intelligence Committee who is involved in the proposal but insisted on anonymity because the proposal remains confidential.

"The postmaster general shouldn't be able to substitute his judgment for that of the director of the F.B.I. on national security matters," the aide said.

The proposal would generally prevent the post office from disclosing a mail cover. It would also require the Justice Department to report to Congress twice a year on the number of times the power had been used.

Civil rights advocates said they thought that the proposal went too far.

"Prison wardens may be able to monitor their prisoners' mail," said Lisa Graves, senior counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, "but ordinary Americans shouldn't be treated as prisoners in their own country."

Marcia Hofmann, a lawyer for the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a public interest group here, said the proposal "certainly opens the door to abuse in our view."

"The Postal Service would be losing its ability to act as a check on the F.B.I.'s investigative powers," Ms. Hofmann said.

Postal officials refused to provide a tally of mail covers, saying the information was confidential. They said the Postal Service had not formally rejected any requests from the bureau in recent years.

A tally in 2000 said the Postal Service conducted 14,000 mail covers that year for a variety of law enforcement agencies, a sharp increase over the previous year.

The program has led to sporadic reports of abuse. In the mid-1970's the Church Committee, a Senate panel that documented C.I.A. abuses, faulted a program created in the 1950's in New York that used mail covers to trace and sometimes open mail going to the Soviet Union from the United States.

A suit brought in 1973 by a high school student in New Jersey, whose letter to the Socialist Workers Party was traced by the F.B.I. as part of an investigation into the group, led to a rebuke from a federal judge, who found that the national security grounds for such mail covers were unconstitutionally vague.

Parkbandit
05-21-2005, 01:09 PM
"The postmaster general shouldn't be able to substitute his judgment for that of the director of the F.B.I. on national security matters," the aide said.

Enough said.

Killer Kitten
05-21-2005, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by Parkbandit

"The postmaster general shouldn't be able to substitute his judgment for that of the director of the F.B.I. on national security matters," the aide said.

Enough said.

I don't know. Checks and balances are important. The director of the F.B.I. is as apt as anybody else to be corrupted. I know I'd rather the F.B.I. be as bound by the law as the rest of us.

Parkbandit
05-21-2005, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by Killer Kitten

Originally posted by Parkbandit

"The postmaster general shouldn't be able to substitute his judgment for that of the director of the F.B.I. on national security matters," the aide said.

Enough said.

I don't know. Checks and balances are important. The director of the F.B.I. is as apt as anybody else to be corrupted. I know I'd rather the F.B.I. be as bound by the law as the rest of us.

What law is he not bound to? The proposal simply puts the decision where it should have been all along.. with the FBI.

I personally believe that the Director of the FBI is just a little more qualified to determine what is important to National Security than the Postmaster General. The ability has always been there.. they are simply designating the decision maker to be the Director of the FBI and not the Postmaster General.

And I don't believe that the Director of the FBI is as apt as 'anybody' to be corrupted.

[Edited on 5-21-05 by Parkbandit]

Apotheosis
05-21-2005, 02:00 PM
Hey, it's another conspircay! Woot

My predictions: backlash and PB make up and decide to have a family together.

:popcorn:

Parkbandit
05-21-2005, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by Yswithe
Hey, it's another conspircay! Woot

My predictions: backlash and PB make up and decide to have a family together.

:popcorn:

Dear Yswithe:

Backlash is a guy. I realize that doesn't come across many of his whining posts.. but he's a guy.

You are welcome.

-PB

05-21-2005, 02:29 PM
We have the same authority already in Counterintelligence investigations, in the military, all that is required is that it touch a Armed Forces post office. It does not matter if its to a civilian or a member of the armed forces. Oddly enough we have never heard about it being abused. (and yes any information gathered is admissible in civilian courts.)

[Edited on 5-21-2005 by Dave]

Warriorbird
05-21-2005, 02:29 PM
PB: There are exciting opportunities in adoption these days I hear!

Parkbandit
05-21-2005, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by Warriorbird
PB: There are exciting opportunities in adoption these days I hear!

LOL.

No thanks, 1 wife and 2 kids is MORE than enough for me.

Artha
05-21-2005, 02:41 PM
My predictions: backlash and PB make out and decide to have a family together.

Fixed it for you :D

Parkbandit
05-21-2005, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by Artha

My predictions: backlash and PB make out and decide to have a family together.

Fixed it for you :D

:sniffle:

:no:

Back
05-21-2005, 03:02 PM
You fuckers!

Anyway, the only reason I would be against this is if the FBI had faulty intelligence. ::cough:: I’m all for more Homeland Security. That should have been our main focus after 9/11. Knocking off the Taliban was fine too.

05-21-2005, 03:04 PM
FBI had faulty intelligence? FBI is for internal, CIA is foreign intelligence.

Killer Kitten
05-21-2005, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by Parkbandit
What law is he not bound to? The proposal simply puts the decision where it should have been all along.. with the FBI.

I personally believe that the Director of the FBI is just a little more qualified to determine what is important to National Security than the Postmaster General. The ability has always been there.. they are simply designating the decision maker to be the Director of the FBI and not the Postmaster General.

And I don't believe that the Director of the FBI is as apt as 'anybody' to be corrupted.

[Edited on 5-21-05 by Parkbandit]

So what you are saying is that the person who played the system (and the politics inherent in the system) with the most success is less apt to be corrupt?

There are good people in law enforcement, but there are significant numbers of those who aren't above breaking the very laws they are sworn to uphold, at the same time as they cheerfully arrest civilians for the same infractions they themselves commit. In most businesses and bureaucracies the people who end up on top are those who play politics and cut throats with the most ruthless efficiency.

I don't believe the F.B.I., or any other agency, should exist without checks and balances. Having to go through the postmaster general to get at our mail is one of those checks and balances.

I'm wary of giving too much unsupervised power to any agency, be it F.B.I., C.I.A., or my local phone company. These agencies have their own priorities and who is to say that all of their priorities will be in the best interest of the people they're supposed to serve?

05-21-2005, 04:02 PM
um, they have checks and balances, its called the judicial branch, if the information is gathered illegally then it is inadmissible in court.

05-21-2005, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by Dave
um, they have checks and balances, its called the judicial branch, if the information is gathered illegally then it is inadmissible in court.

Edit: this one too
"The proposal would not allow the bureau to open mail or review its content. Such a move would require a search warrant, officials said."

If Mohammad is getting a lot of letters from Sheik Ali in Iran, I think the FBI should know.

Warriorbird
05-21-2005, 04:27 PM
Except, you know, checks and balances aren't what they used to be. The Schiavo case is an excellent example. With that said, I don't view this particular instance as a serious problem.

[Edited on 5-21-2005 by Warriorbird]

Gan
05-21-2005, 09:09 PM
< The proposal would not allow the bureau to open mail or review its content. Such a move would require a search warrant, officials said. >


I dont think we have much to worry about. In fact, they can have my mail since 7/8ths of it is junk mail and the other 8th is bills.

[Edited on 5-22-2005 by Ganalon]

Back
05-21-2005, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by Ganalon
< The proposal would not allow the bureau to open mail or review its content. Such a move would require a search warrant, officials said. >


I dont think we have much to worry about. In fact, they can have my mail since 7/8ths of it is junk mail and the other 8th is bills.

[Edited on 5-22-2005 by Ganalon]

Heh, yeah. I check my mail once a month maybe. But really, if we want to keep this country and it's people safe, the people who make this country run, we'd call bullshit on this administration, impeach, and have them tried on war crimes.

05-21-2005, 09:48 PM
Lets see, president rightfully elected, broke no laws, and committed no war crimes.. your right backlash that's exactly what we need to do...

Artha
05-21-2005, 10:09 PM
we'd call bullshit on this administration, impeach, and have them tried on war crimes.
Is this before or after we crush the bourgeoisie in glorious revolution?

Back
05-21-2005, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by Dave
Lets see, president rightfully elected, broke no laws, and committed no war crimes.. your right backlash that's exactly what we need to do...

Two words. Geneva Convention. Two more, United Nations. All for profits, not people.

Back
05-21-2005, 11:10 PM
Originally posted by Artha

we'd call bullshit on this administration, impeach, and have them tried on war crimes.
Is this before or after we crush the bourgeoisie in glorious revolution?

The people of the western world are the bourgeoisie. If I can by an ice cold can of Coke and a Snickers on the corner, then I am definitely bourgeoisie.

Its more about bringing people up, than pushing them down.

Gan
05-22-2005, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Ganalon
< The proposal would not allow the bureau to open mail or review its content. Such a move would require a search warrant, officials said. >


I dont think we have much to worry about. In fact, they can have my mail since 7/8ths of it is junk mail and the other 8th is bills.

[Edited on 5-22-2005 by Ganalon]

Heh, yeah. I check my mail once a month maybe. But really, if we want to keep this country and it's people safe, the people who make this country run, we'd call bullshit on this administration, impeach, and have them tried on war crimes.

I really dont see how going to that extreme would keep anyone safe or unsafe. The administration is no more at fault than the people who elected it and not to mention the representatives in both houses. I really dont see how they can also be tried for war crimes - if they could have then it would have already been done.

But thanks for that wave of hot unrealistic air of radicalism from the far left. Now back to reality.

Edited to add:
I'm really not a hard core republican either. I do align alot of my view to the right but I'm not a rabid right winger. In fact I'm more a moderate republican because I'm not cozy with how saturated the ultra conservatives get with religion. Moderation is a good thing if you ask me.

[Edited on 5-22-2005 by Ganalon]