Forgetting the lessons we’ve learned from both our own history, and the history of dictatorships, Bush and Ashcroft have used the “terrorist” buzzword to wrest privacy, free speech, the right to peaceful assembly, and other fundamental rights from the American people. It says in that link that FBI agents will be attending political rallies. I wonder how many will be “keeping tabs” on the Republican party’s shady dealings with big business. Maybe they’ll break into the Democratic national headquaters again. Or maybe they’ll just beat up modern day hippies! And how many down home Protestant churches will they be monitoring. You know; the kind of thing that a Tim McVeigh would attend.
Move over bin Laden, America has a new enemy: John Ashcroft (as if we didn’t already know that.)
Not exactly the same thing as “Forgetting the lessons we’ve learned from both our own history, and the history of dictatorships, Bush and Ashcroft have used the “terrorist” buzzword to wrest privacy, free speech, the right to peaceful assembly, and other fundamental rights from the American people.”
:rolleyes:
Now calm down. The FBI is only going to spy on the evil and bad people in the US. Which means that all of the good white, God fearing Christians who don’t watch that MTV filth and only do it under the covers with the lights off and all of the shades pulled down, have nothing to worry about.
Then there’s the rest of us.:rolleyes:
gobear: Try reading the full link. Note the allusions to Martin Luther King Jr… Cross reference with an example of another country who did similar stuff; the USSR, perhaps. Note the similarities. Then consider the fact that the executive branch, especially under Bush, is notorious for lying and overstepping its authority. (The Freedom of Information Act, anyone?)
Dude, your post is incoherent. The ACLU referencing Hoover’s spying on Dr. King has little to do with what’s been proposed. And comparisons to the USSR are just absurd.
Is there potential for abuse? Yes. Will granting the FBI expanded domestic surveillance increase domestic security? It remains to be seen what effect it will have. but the Bush administration didn’t invent terrorists. 9/11 should have been enough to wake up anyone into the realization that we have become lax in keeping an eye on enemies who want to kill us.
Why don’t you try, you know, framing an actual thesis which we may debate? Right now, you’re just sputtering.
First, the linked article is very fuzzy about the “New Broad Powers”.
Gee, the FBI can now use the internet!!! That is unconstitutional. My rights are being invaded! How dare they use computers! My plans to blow up a US building, my kiddie porn, and my stolen credit card numbers that I publish on the internet are private. How dare they look at my website!!! How dare they?
Second,
So an FBI agent cannot enter a mosque unless the agent is investigating a possible terrorist act yet us poor folk can enter a mosque if we choose too.
I am probably one of the biggest believers in privacy rights you can find. But the new guildlines issued to the FBI, as I read them in another paper that has more detail, didn’t bother me at all.
What I find to be really funny is that those who claim Bush should have known about 9-11 due to one line in a briefing are the same people who freak out if Bush tries to strengthen the FBIs abilties.
To be fair, they did refrain from making a comparison to the Nazi’s.
Anyway, quoted from the article…
This is a better alternative? An FBI so feebly pathetic that they can’t even surf the Internet? You think they shouldn’t be allowed to type “Pipe bomb making” into Google to see who could possibly be spreading such information?
Jeez. Why don’t we just tell them that they’re only allowed to make brownies and sell them for charity…
Isn’t it sort of amusing how certain people will accuse the Bush administration of both deceit and Chicken Littleism for their terrorism warnings, then, whenever John Ashcroft so much as sneezes, insinuate that we are a hair’s breadth away from an American Stalinist nightmare? Of course, by “amusing,” I mean “sad.”
This article also notes that local police already have the right to do these kinds of searches.
When something is posted on the internet it is generally posted for all to see. Why should the FBI not look at websites. Does anyone know what would happen under the old policy if and agent went home for the day and while surfing the net, happened to stumble across something troubling.
Which means, you know the FBI is reading this right now.
As for me, if having my phone tapped or my web-site clicks monitored also means I don’t get blown to smithereens by terrorists in the Lincoln Tunnel, I’m OK with that.
I don’t mind the FBI looking at web sites or visiting churches and synagogues. I’m primarily concerned about their new ability to do searches and internet data-mining even when it’s not associated with an investigation.
“Boy, this rjung character keeps slamming President Bush and Mr. Ashcroft, I think I’ll start taking a look at what he’s been up to. No, he hasn’t done anything suspicious other than mouth off, but why take chances? Lemme call up Amazon.com and have them send me a list of all the stuff he’s bought in the last three years…”
Pardon my “freak out” here, Slee, but the problem prior to 9/11 was not with the FBI’s (or the CIA’s) intelligence-gathering apparatus. They had the information; what the problem was that (at best) they failed to act upon it. They knew the guy in Minnesota (Missowi (sp)) had possible links, through information obtained legally and constitutionally. The FBI bureaucrasy, however, mishandled the investigation, did not obtain a warrant to proceed further and conceivably thwart a major terrorist attack on U.S. soil.
At best, these new guidelines are merely going to allow the BI gather more information that the Bureau is not going to do anything with. That’s the best-case scenario. My fear is that information that the Executive Branch deems dangerous, not to national security but to the almighty Status Quo, could be acted upon by harassment and arrests, all in the name of “stopping terrorism.”
This is like having a contractor come in to do some repair work on your garage. He totally messes it up, so bad that it is going to take more time and money to fix. You then hand the contractor more money and say, “Hey, how about remodeling my house?”
Man, Rjung, if you’re even worried about this, just remember… if they decided to do this, they’d have to round up about half the message board at the same time.
Methinks you overestimate your significance to the current Administration.
It’t that last sentence where I think the line would lie. “…but why take chances? I’m gonna sit here all afternoon and read the other 2700-odd posts this guy’s made on this message board and see if he inadvertently posted the exact coordinates of the Secret Rebel Al-Qaida on a public message board” is one thing–possibly not a very productive use of some G-man’s time, but not a privacy violation that I can see; “Lemme call up Amazon.com and have them send me a list of all the stuff he’s bought in the last three years…” is where things like “probable cause” and “search warrants” should come in. (And one hopes that federal judges will be able to distinguish between posting uncomplimentary things about the current president on a message board, and the sort of actions that would actually justify getting warrants to go snooping through someone’s credit card bills and phone records and tracing what web sites they’ve visited.)
Though I do tend to characterize myself as a knee-jerk, bleeding-heart liberal, I must agree with the general sentiment present here that these particular rules aren’t going to really violate anything. It simply looks as if FBI agents are given the rights to do the same thing an ordinairy person would.
The intelligence services have been ham-strung since the 70’s, while we read all about the ‘abuses’ of the past, the fact of the matter is there were communists in the state department, Dr. King did have communist advisors, the Rosenburgs were guilty, etc etc. Later, soviet era documents have corroborated what most already knew. The “abuses” were just that, if you were a comsymp or fellow traveller I suppose.
In any case, too bad they can’t unfreeze J. Edgar Hoover, say what you want about him we wouldn’t have had the last 25 years of spy after spy, and you can bet he wouldn’t have had any qualms about spying on moslem terrorists.
