Except that they could start investigations without just cause based on information gathered on the Internet, which is known for its problems with misinformation. (I mentioned this in another thread.)
Oh, and Tedster. You can say that now. But what if I were to accuse you of being a terrorist? I’m sure you’re not, but it seems that now my (or anyone’s) accusation to that effect could have too much weight, even online. Enough for some agent to start a potentially embarrassing (for both of you) investigation, perhaps.
But what I’m more concerned about is the FBI monitoring people’s political/religious affiliations (especially covertly.)
Yeah, if J. Edgar could squeeze the time in between drag-queen festivals and spying on Tom Cruise, he might actually catch a crook or two.
Gee, so there really were Commies under our beds. They had infiltrated the very heart of our society, undetectable except by Real Murrakins like Joe McCarthy, and yet these Nasty Spies had no discernable effect on American society whatsoever. Amazing.
Okay, they find all the information necessary to take the time and money to investigate me, and then find out what was actually going on. FBI agents aren’t stupid, they know about the misinformation potential on the internet, as well as the high idiocy quotient. And could you expand why you’re concerned that they may monitor political/religious affiliations?
And could you expand why you’re concerned that they may monitor political/religious affiliations?
Well, I’ll expand. Years after the Al Qaeda threat erodes away, the Federal Bureau of Prevention will need something to do.
It is easy to imagine that they would find it acceptable to take note (and pictures) of various attendees of public demonstrations. Having nothing better to do, they could follow up by questioning the employers of the so-called “ringleaders”. Hey, can’t be too careful. Black list anybody?
I can also imagine that, come the next (inevitable) terrorist event, that the FBI will receive further investigatory powers.
So, yes, I am concerned.
At the same time, however, the fact remains that technological advance will continue to lower the cost of producing mayhem and even WMD. So I actually support granting the FBI increased powers. I also hope that procedures are put in place to curb abuses.
Quote from one of the links above:
Yikes. I sure hope that the FBI is careful before it mines (for example) a credit report database for evidence of wrongdoing. A large number of false positives can almost be guaranteed. Bayes’ theorem, anyone?
Gimme a P!
Gimma a A!
Gimme a R!
Gimme 'nother A!
Gimme a N-O-I-D!
It’s nice to think about scary stories about what horrible things the FBI might do. They might start investigating religious affiliations if these new procedures are put in place. They might start blacklisting everybody. They just might.
Of course, what’s stopping them from doing that now? I mean, if you believe that they’d tromp all over procedure to violate one’s civil rights, why aren’t you deathly afraid they’ll do that even without permission to surf the 'Net in their free time?
Just to clarify… Flowbark, I’m not calling you, specifically, paranoid. You just happened to be the last person to express what I consider a one-sided paranoid argument. To wit: If you believe that a new power to an organization will lead to violation of law, procedure, and rights, why wouldn’t those same violations happen without that procedure? Why is that one change significant enough?
Interestingly enough, the Soviets have admitted being the source for claims of the Director’s cross-dressing. This is now considered gospel amongst the lefties, although it isn’t true.
“No discernable effect”? How long you got? I’d say the rosenburgs had a very discernable effect with respect to nuclear arms prolifieration right from the git go. Don’t go there, pal.
Thank you. Judge the FBI by what they do at this present time, not what one imagines they might do and not by what they did in the past. Different agents are in the field now – they aren’t responsible for any sins committed 40+ years ago.
I’ll worry about this issue only when the G-men are on my doorstep … and even then I’ll probably invite them in for coffee.
<shrug>
Sorry, I grew up without a “healthy” fear of government. Just because someone is in charge and has power over others, it does not automatically follow that they will screw people over on a whim. “Absolute power” absolutely corrupts, not limited power.
Random thought: Didn’t the Ken Starr/Bill Clinton witchhunt demonstrate the dangers of having prosecutors (read: investigators) go around investigating people without proper checks and balances?
I’m pleased to know that you were also upset at the intense scrutiny of Ken Starr’s personal life by Clinton operatives. Still, I accept that as part of the price we pay for maintaining integrity in government.
Exactly what effect do they expect this to have on terrorism? No group with half a brain is going to announce, “Ok, Joe Smith Wednesday at 9 AM EST go bomb the Statue of Liberty.” over the 'net. If they use the net at all, it’ll be too subtle to be detected, or used as evidence. Furthermore, what if the server holding the evidence, should they find any, was in another country, like Saudi Arabia? We wouldn’t be able to shut down the site anyway.
Another thing to note, since someone broached the topic of Communism: the McCarthy hearings never found one single spy (cite: A&E Biography on Joe McCarthy.) But they ruined many people’s lives.
I admit that my OP was a little… dramtic, but this seems like too high a risk for rules with no new legitimate benefits. I’m also bothered that this is up to Executive Branch’s discretion. This should be up to congress, IMHO.
Not to mention that, if someone WAS a communist, they had every right to be.
(Whether they were RIGHT to be, is another story-fact is, you can’t throw someone in jail for believing something-not unless they act on it, in a way that’s harmful to others.)
I’m sorry, sir, but you’ll have to pay for that noid.
You offend me deeply, Mr. SPOOFE: Paranoia is part of what made this country great.
Seriously though, that’s the point. I am willing to extend the FBI additional powers. In fact, I advocate that. But I also want the proper procedures put in place. And I want a level of Congressional oversight of our expanded Internal Security apparatus that historically has been lacking, as detailed in last Sunday’s NYT article on the FBI.
The new powers were spawn in the Executive branch; there were no hearings, no public comment period (AFAIK), no Congressional or Judicial guidance. Bad precedent. And a bad way to establish the proper procedures.
Picking a nit, I would note that the Feds could surf the web or attend a demonstration before 911, but they needed “information or an allegation whose responsible handling required some further scrutiny”, which is much less than probable cause.
When I read about the FBI discussing “Type I” and “Type II” error, I’ll breathe a little easier.
How about placing a bureaucratic firewall between the Federal Bureau of Prevention and the Federal Bureau of Investigation? Just a thought.
Finally, I note that critics of the our Intelligence services (i.e. www.stratfor.com ) have pointed out that the CIA/FBI has traditionally emphasized information collection over analysis. These new powers do little to address the 911 intelligence failure, which was related to information management and interpretation more than information collection.
bordelon: I’ll worry about this issue only when the G-men are on my doorstep.
Yikes. And I’ll worry less about this issue, once I learn what sort of safeguards have been put in place. IMHO, it is time to name a few Blue Ribbon Commissions, rather than depend solely upon the gut instincts of a few Executive appointees.
Tedster: Please contribute your thoughts on Hoover’s alleged cross-dressing to the existing thread in General Questions. Thanks.
**You offend me deeply, Mr. SPOOFE: Paranoia is part of what made this country great.[/b}
No, it was whining. Whining is the necessity of invention.
At this point, I’m rather unconcerned about these new powers. This war on terrorism, even under a different name, will give the FBI plenty to do that doesn’t involve arresting me because I happen to support some things. Although the prostitution case does make me wonder, at this point I don’t see enough support for the argument they’ll start attacking people for political beliefs again.
