New FBI guidelines to allow baseless investigations

[bascule]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/21/washington/21fbi.html

 

According to a letter signed by Russ Feingold, Richard J. Durbin, and Ted Kennedy, new FBI guidelines would allow them to investigate Americans, conduct surveillance, pry into private records and take other investigative steps “without any basis for suspicion.” The plan “might permit an innocent American to be subjected to such intrusive surveillance based in part on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, or on protected First Amendment activities.”

 

Why is it I feel like my civil liberties are eroding daily?

[insane_alien]

doesn't that go against EVERYTHING your nation has accomplished in the last few centuries?

 

think its time to have a new revolution over there.

[iNow]

Viva la revolution! (pssst... I hope they weren't listening when I typed that).

 

 

 

 

 

How far can you go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without?

~ Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

 

The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.

~ James Madison

[Pangloss]

The thing I don't understand is why there would be any restrictions on the act of "opening an investigation", or any kind of blanket rules on investigations as a whole. Normally we restrict specific investigatory tools (e.g. search warrants). We don't take all of them away and then hand them back piecemeal. But ever since 9/11 it seems like we look at it the other way around.

[bascule]

But ever since 9/11 it seems like we look at it the other way around.

 

I think it's more since the Bush Administration started an illegal wiretapping program, habeas corpus was suspended, etc.

[Pangloss]

I think that's a fair point.

 

Perhaps one way to look at it would be to say that sometimes when we're prodded by certain specifics it makes us think about larger issues. But I also think it's valuable to sometimes step back a bit and ponder a bigger picture we might have left behind in our zeal after being prodded.

 

I'm not sure if that applies here, really, I'm just keeping an open mind about it. One thing that occurred to me after entering my post above is that it may be different at the federal level versus local law enforcement. Specific guidelines for FBI investigations may be more necessary than they are for, say, a local murder investigation because even though the crime in question may be even more heinous, there is awesome power in federal authority to, well, basically make people's lives miserable if they happen to be innocent. (Richard Jewel comes to mind.)

[Dak]

part of me wants to say 'doesn't that basically boil down to "we've descided to ignore the constitution, so there :-p" ', whereas the other part of me thinks that mahaps this is just some common sense that allows targeting high-risk groups.

 

"""The plan “might permit an innocent American to be subjected to such intrusive surveillance based in part on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, or on protected First Amendment activities"""

 

so, iow(?), if you're the same race as most terrorists, the same ethnicity as most terrorists, the same nationality as most terrorists, a muslim, and you publically say 'America should burn for its transgretions against islam', then you might be investigated'?

[Pangloss]

Sure, that's a concern, but remember, we're not talking about instant execution here. We're talking about investigation.

 

What would YOU do if a person of the same ethnicity, nationality and religion as Osama bin Laden, whom you did not know and, so far as you could tell, was being serious, walked up to you and said "America should burn for its transgressions against Islam"? Would you (a) shoot them, (b) walk away, or © ask someone in a position of authority to look into it further?

 

Surely we agree that A is wrong, but isn't B wrong as well?

 

By the way, watch when Obama walks into the White House and we suddenly stop having this national conversation about executive abuse of civil liberties, especially if he just empties out Guantanamo and calls it a day. That's when you'll see the partisans separate from the people who actually care about this issue, and that's, conversely, when the real work will need to be done, laying out the correct, balanced guidelines and then ensuring that they're carried out. This is where I'm really hoping Obama will shine, motivating us to resolve issues that aren't as popular because of shifting focus.

Edited August 25, 2008 by Pangloss
multiple post merged

[bascule]

What would YOU do if a person of the same ethnicity, nationality and religion as Osama bin Laden

 

I think the problem here is the above now serves as enough to base an investigation on... this is just racial/ethnic profiling

[Dak]

I think the problem here is the above now serves as enough to base an investigation on... this is just racial/ethnic profiling

 

which is ok?

 

Sure, that's a concern, but remember, we're not talking about instant execution here. We're talking about investigation.

 

What would YOU do if a person of the same ethnicity, nationality and religion as Osama bin Laden, whom you did not know and, so far as you could tell, was being serious, walked up to you and said "America should burn for its transgressions against Islam"? Would you (a) shoot them, (b) walk away, or © ask someone in a position of authority to look into it further?

 

Surely we agree that A is wrong, but isn't B wrong as well?

 

sorry, I kinda meant that allowing racial (etc) profiling probably falls under 'common sense' as opposed to 'a concern'.

 

So, yeah, I agree that B is bad, and if this allows C then it might actually be a good thing.

[CDarwin]

What would YOU do if a person of the same ethnicity, nationality and religion as Osama bin Laden, whom you did not know and, so far as you could tell, was being serious, walked up to you and said "America should burn for its transgressions against Islam"? Would you (a) shoot them, (b) walk away, or © ask someone in a position of authority to look into it further?

 

Surely we agree that A is wrong, but isn't B wrong as well?

 

Does being of the same religion and ethnicity as Osama Bin Laden and saying "American should burn for its transgressions against ..." really make a person that much more likely to commit a violent act than being of any other religion or ethnicity and saying the same thing? I suppose the likelihood increases very slightly, but is that enough to justify the special effort of involving authorities if you wouldn't do this for members of other groups?

[Pangloss]

I can't say that I know for sure, but I think it may very well be the case, yes. They respond to all sorts of things. Would we let someone who said that exact same phrase pass by if they were white? Maybe, but I can think of plenty of phrases a white American could say in the general vicinity of an airport security screener that would get him investigated in a big hurry too. ("Golly gee, Joe-Bob, that Montana shack of yours sure blew up real good when we put all that fertilizer in it. By the way, did you pack the white powder or did I?")

 

A response (or an investigation) is not an execution. It's not even an accusation. Surely society retains the right of investigating potential crimes. I do agree with limits on things like statistical racial profiling, where there's just random stop-and-search based solely on superficial appearances. But if there's an actual link between a specific type of crime and a specific race-religion-nationality combination and a specific statement on record that could be related, surely you have to investigate that.

Edited August 25, 2008 by Pangloss

[Dak]

bear in mind that, if the police are a-cruisin for violent thugs, druggies, etc, then they're most likely to focus on young male adults, and disreguard most OAPs. because, y'know, a higher percentage of young male adults are likely to be carrying a knife and/or crack than little old ladies.

 

if it's true that muslims are x times more likely than non-muslims to be terrorists, and/or it's true that the majority of key terrorists in the organisation are muslim, then you'd be silly to focus your investigations on non-muslims

[iNow]

That's what I love about the values on which our nations legal system was founded. Guilty until thoroughly investigated and proven innocent.

 

 

Erm... wait. That's not it at all.

[Mr Skeptic]

I see no problems with investigating anybody at all for no reason whatsoever, so long as it is not infringing on their rights.

[Pangloss]

That's what I love about the values on which our nations legal system was founded. Guilty until thoroughly investigated and proven innocent. Erm... wait. That's not it at all.

 

I could say, "That's what I love about the values on which our nation's legal system was founded. You can't even investigate when the criminal is standing over the victim with the knife in his hand because it would infringe his rights. Erm... wait. That's not it at all."

 

Popular memes aren't going to get us past the need for specific definitions here. How 'bout tackling the problem at hand? Tell us how investigation, without even accusation, equates to judgment and condemnation.

[iNow]

What happens to the information they obtain? How is it ultimately used, and how is it protected from others?

[bascule]

Popular memes aren't going to get us past the need for specific definitions here. How 'bout tackling the problem at hand? Tell us how investigation, without even accusation, equates to judgment and condemnation.

 

Not knowing the specific language, I'll still say that prying into personal records without a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment.

[Pangloss]

Well that point (from the signing Senators) was countered by the FBI:

 

Mr. Mukasey emphasized that the F.B.I. would still need a “valid purpose” for an investigation, and that it could not be “simply based on somebody’s race, religion, or exercise of First Amendment rights.”

 

Probable cause is an important legal concept with a clear definition. So we need an objective assessment about whether this would be a valid example of probable cause or not. Congress needs to hash this out, and it needs to do so in an unbiased atmosphere, with clear information and no emotional, exaggerated appeal.

[bascule]

Well that point (from the signing Senators) was countered by the FBI

 

Not seeing anything about warrants in there

 

Congress needs to hash this out, and it needs to do so in an unbiased atmosphere, with clear information and no emotional, exaggerated appeal.

 

The problem is most of these civil rights violations aren't going through Congress at all, they're going through executive orders and internal policy of executive departments. Why do you think Senators are complaining about them, instead of using the power of their votes? They don't get a vote on this sort of thing.

 

Quit trying to pin this on the people who are concerned for their civil liberties. Of course they're making noise. That noise stems from departments internally implementing unconstitutional procedures.

[Pangloss]

I'm not trying to "pin" anything on anybody. I think these concerns -- your concerns -- are valid. I just don't think it's as easy a question to answer as you imply.

 

And the partisan aspect of this, the fact that the primary source of motivational activity on this the far left and based solely on its opposition to the far right, shouldn't just be bugging me, it should be of DEEP concern to you. You should be wondering about House and Senate Democrats who continue to vote for bills you oppose, and why these measures will continue to struggle to pass a year from now. The lack of a veto-overriding majority means nothing if the President has already signed the bill.

 

Wanna make a little wager on what we'll be discussing on this issue a year from now? Could be fun.

[bascule]

While Congress has certainly aided and abetted the Executive, the latter is really where the power grab is going on. I'd expect that will soon cease, at least under Obama

[Pangloss]

While Congress has certainly aided and abetted the Executive, the latter is really where the power grab is going on. I'd expect that will soon cease, at least under Obama

 

And you're actually okay with that? The fact that the issue would be completely unresolved, and any further abuse would be based solely on the quality of the person we elected? Do you actually believe that that will continue to be okay so long as we vote for Democrats instead of Republicans? Have you forgotten which party put us in Vietnam?

 

And the thing is, you can't tell me you knew Bush would do that before he was elected. You might have disliked the guy because he was a Republican, but you could not have foreseen these specific, 9/11-derived abuses of power. You are not prescient. And frankly I think even you will agree with me when I say that there are good Republicans and bad Democrats.

[bascule]

Okay, lumping Obama in with Lyndon Johnson aside... I fully expect Obama to take a different direction on things like constantly pressuring Congress for more executive power and the right to spy on innocent Americans. Do you not think the Bush Administration has done this to an unprecented degree?

[Pangloss]

I fully expect Obama to take a different direction on things like constantly pressuring Congress for more executive power and the right to spy on innocent Americans.

 

And you're actually okay with that? The fact that the issue would be completely unresolved, and any further abuse would be based solely on the quality of the person we elected? Do you actually believe that that will continue to be okay so long as we vote for Democrats instead of Republicans? Have you forgotten which party put us in Vietnam?

 

And the thing is, you can't tell me you knew Bush would do that before he was elected. You might have disliked the guy because he was a Republican, but you could not have foreseen these specific, 9/11-derived abuses of power. You are not prescient. And frankly I think even you will agree with me when I say that there are good Republicans and bad Democrats.