WASHINGTON, March 20, 2007
Lawmakers Warn FBI Over Spy Powers
Justice Department Watchdog Blasts FBI Abuse Of Patriot Act
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Audit Raps FBI On Privacy
A Justice Department audit says the FBI improperly and, in some cases, illegally used the USA Patriot Act to secretly obtain personal information about people in the U.S. Thalia Assuras has more.
-
Photo
(AP / CBS)
-
Interactive
Domestic Surveillance
The debate over the Bush administration's controversial wiretapping program.
-
Special Report
War On Terror
Complete coverage of the military's battle against terrorism.
-
Interactive
110th Congress
The balance of power shifts and new leadership takes control as the latest session convenes.
Their threats came as the Justice Department's chief watchdog, Glenn A. Fine, told the House Judiciary Committee that the FBI engaged in widespread and serious misuse of its authority in illegally collecting the information from Americans and foreigners through so-called national security letters.
If the FBI doesn't move swiftly to correct the mistakes and problems revealed last week in Fine's 130-page report, "you probably won't have NSL authority," said Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif., a supporter of the power, referring to the data requests by their initials.
"From the attorney general on down, you should be ashamed of yourself," said Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif. "We stretched to try to give you the tools necessary to make America safe, and it is very, very clear that you've abused that trust."
If Congress revokes some of the expansive law enforcement powers it granted in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, Issa said, "America may be less safe, but the Constitution will be more secure, and it will be because of your failure to deal with this in a serious fashion."
The FBI's failure to establish sufficient controls or oversight for collecting the information constituted "serious and unacceptable" failures, Fine told the committee.
Democrats called Fine's findings an example of how the Justice Department has used broad counterterrorism authorities to trample on privacy rights.
"This was a serious breach of trust," said Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the Judiciary chairman. "The department had converted this tool into a handy shortcut to illegally gather vast amounts of private information while at the same time significantly underreporting its activities to Congress."
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said Congress should revise the USA Patriot Act, which substantially loosened controls over the letters.
"We do not trust government always to be run by angels, especially not this administration," Nadler said. "It is not enough to mandate that the FBI fix internal management problems and recordkeeping, because the statute itself authorizes the unchecked collection of information on innocent Americans."
Some Republicans, however, said the FBI's expanded spying powers were vital to tracking terrorists.
"The problem is enforcement of the law, not the law itself," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the panel's senior GOP member. "We need to be vigilant to make sure these problems are fixed."
Fine said he did not believe the problems were intentional, although he acknowledged he could not rule that out.
"We believe the misuses and the problems we found generally were the product of mistakes, carelessness, confusion, sloppiness lack of training, lack of adequate guidance and lack of adequate oversight," Fine said.
"It really was unacceptable and inexcusable what happened here," he added under questioning.
Valerie Caproni, the FBI's general counsel, said she took responsibility for the abuses and believed they could be fixed in a matter of months.
"We're going to have to work to get the trust of this committee back, and we know that's what we have to do, and we're going to do it," she said.
In a review of headquarters files and a sampling of just four of the FBI's 56 field offices, Fine found 48 violations of law or presidential directives during between 2003 and 2005, including failure to get proper authorization, making improper requests and unauthorized collection of telephone or Internet e-mail records. He estimated that "a significant number of ... violations throughout the FBI have not been identified or reported."
The bureau has launched an audit of all 56 field offices to determine the full extent of the problem. The Senate Judiciary Committee is to hear Wednesday from Fine on his findings, and will likely question FBI Director Robert Mueller on it at a broader hearing March 27.
In 1986, Congress first authorized FBI agents to obtain electronic records without approval from a judge using national security letters. The letters can be used to acquire e-mails, telephone, travel records and financial information, like credit and bank transactions.
In 2001, the Patriot Act eliminated any requirement that the records belong to someone under suspicion. Now an innocent person's records can be obtained if FBI field agents consider them merely relevant to an ongoing terrorism or spying investigation.
Fine's review, authorized by Congress over Bush administration objections, concluded the number of national security letters requested by the FBI skyrocketed after the Patriot Act became law in 2001.
Fine found more than 700 cases in which FBI agents obtained telephone records through "exigent letters" which asserted that grand jury subpoenas had been requested for the data, when in fact such subpoenas never been sought.
© MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
"Those who would give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" -Benjamin Franklin
Now, more than ever, we need to heed those wise words.
Posted by sshard at 03:12 PM
-------
sshard,
Good. I'm glad they did that. But I wish they would find the d a m n intestinal fortitude to repeal the worthless USA PATRIOT Act altogether!
One step at time. But, *** this a good start. The Patriot Act definitely needs to go or be radical changed. But there is a lot more that needs to be examine; The Military Commission Act, The John Warner Military Authorization Act, and of course, the changes in the Insurrection Act.
Yes, the famous words should be heeded today, but should have been heeded ever since the turn of the 20 century.
More of our rights are eroded everyday. This has been going on for over 100 years. It doesn't matter who is president, all are liars, cheats...etc. The only thing that is different is what they spend it on.
Patriot Act
The Military Commission Act
The John Warner Military Authorization Act
Bad for US, bad for our freedoms...
Danger....
Where is the acountablity for those responsible for engaging is this type of violation of Constitutional rights?
Americans have very little privacy left in their lives. This further whittling away at our privacy rights need to be delt with harshly. Otherwise, what's to prevent these same type of people from engaging in this type of behavior again in the future?
Precisely why it was prohibited for them to do so until Bush's "Patrior Act".....
This continual application of intent defense of almost all actions of the government is out of control and needs to be addressed.
It appears a Democratic led Congress is little different than the GOP led Congress.
The Patriot Act has been repeatedly used by this administration to justify illegal acts and it should be repealed.
Without "warning" anyone.
NO TRUST, NO TOOLS. THE WHOLE FRICKING WAR ON TERROR IS HOG-WASH! THEY ARE STRIPING US OF OUR RIGHTS -
like the israelis are strip searching children!
With all due respect Mr. Smith, you are dead wrong.
The problem is the law itself. It is over reaching, drastic, intrusive, dictatorial, and fundamentally unconstitutional.
It was rammed through a rubberstamp Congress, in a panic, without having been read through by most of the members. It provides the fertile soil for the rampant abuse that has come to light.
The wrongly named Patriot Act is a festering malignant sore on our body politic. It must be removed to preserve the health of the nation.
REPEAL THE unPATRIOT Act.
When the appointment of Stultus Dumus the Younger appeared inevitable, it is said the House of Saaud complained to the House of Dumus that, in their view, the security agencies of the Hegemon were harassing Saaud subjects. The Saaudi asserted that in view of the intimate friendship between the two Houses and the anticipated electoral victory for which the Saaudi had furnished a weighty contribution, the House of Dumus should undertake, once the office of Chief Magistrate was secured, to discourage the attentions of the Hegemon intelligence services toward Saaudi subjects belonging to Al Ghazna. In return, the Saaudi pledged to moderate the fanaticism of their subjects, particularly the acolytes of ibn Shaitan. Journandes reports the agreement was memorialized by several forms of documentation to ensure the continuing fidelity of both parties. When Dumus assumed office, the agreement on the side of the Hegemon was facilitated by the practice of compartmentalism. Each group within an intelligence agency assigned a specific task was alone permitted information relevant to its mission and was forbidden to share knowledge, including the bare facts of its own actions, with any other group. The House of Dumus had but to direct a handful of overseers to practice deliberate inattention where Saaud subjects were involved. These servitors performed admirably in deflecting enquiries into the activities of Saaudi Al Ghazni in the Northern Continents.
Yet all might have been well had the Saaudi fulfilled their side of the agreement. In the event, they were neither able nor willing to restrain their subjects within Al Ghazna. Only when Dumus the Younger first learned of the attacks on his capitols (A. J. 6715, 23 Lo:os,), did he realize that his longstanding allies had betrayed him. Retaliation was prevented by an agreement documented in various incontrovertible forms (J-B. E. Roppe, op. cit., p. 361). Were the pact published, it would be clear to all that the order for deliberate inattention enabled the success of attacks that would otherwise have been thwarted through the customary operations of the Hegemon agents. The world would know that the greatest atrocity yet perpetrated on the Continent Hesperides was made possible by the gullibility, by the incompetence, and by the alien loyalties of the Dumus administration.
It is said that a second pact quickly followed. The lieutenants of ibn Shaitan, his family and friends (all proximate to the Saaud throne) were in possession of the documentation above mentioned. They vowed to publish if ibn Shaitan were ever killed or captured or if any of their number were detained for questioning. The House of Dumus capitulated, undertaking to immediately evacuate ibn Shaitan associates still on the Continent, prevent the death or capture of ibn Shaitan himself and deflect public attention from him.
Yet all might have been well had the Saaudi fulfilled their side of the agreement. In the event, they were neither able nor willing to restrain their subjects within Al Ghazna. Only when Dumus the Younger first learned of the attacks on his capitols (A. J. 6715, 23 Lo:os,), did he realize that his longstanding allies had betrayed him. Retaliation was prevented by an agreement documented in various incontrovertible forms (J-B. E. Roppe, op. cit., p. 361). Were the pact published, it would be clear to all that the order for deliberate inattention enabled the success of attacks that would otherwise have been thwarted through the customary operations of the Hegemon agents. The world would know that the greatest atrocity yet perpetrated on the Continent Hesperides was made possible by the gullibility, by the incompetence, and by the alien loyalties of the Dumus administration.
It is said that a second pact quickly followed. The lieutenants of ibn Shaitan, his family and friends (all proximate to the Saaud throne) were in possession of the documentation above mentioned. They vowed to publish if ibn Shaitan were ever killed or captured or if any of their number were detained for questioning. The House of Dumus capitulated, undertaking to immediately evacuate ibn Shaitan associates still on the Continent, prevent the death or capture of ibn Shaitan himself and deflect public attention from him.
-
by bobebenson
March 21, 2007 11:24 AM PDT
- I once heard a quote from the president of a computer company (HP maybe?). He said: "You have no privacy; deal with it.
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 23 CommentsI'm afraid he's right.