Feds Weigh Profiling-Based Investigations

Justice Dept. Likely To Let FBI Investigate Americans Based On Race, Other Traits Alone, No Evidence Necessary

(AP)  The Justice Department is considering letting the FBI investigate Americans without any evidence of wrongdoing, relying instead on a terrorist profile that could single out Muslims, Arabs or other racial and ethnic groups.

Law enforcement officials say the proposed policy would help them do exactly what Congress demanded after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks: root out terrorists before they strike.

Although President Bush has disavowed targeting suspects based on their race or ethnicity, the new rules would allow the FBI to consider those factors among a number of traits that could trigger a national security investigation.

Currently, FBI agents need specific reasons - like evidence or allegations that a law probably has been violated - to investigate U.S. citizens and legal residents. The new policy, law enforcement officials told The Associated Press, would let agents open preliminary terrorism investigations after mining public records and intelligence to build a profile of traits that, taken together, were deemed suspicious.

Among the factors that could make someone subject of an investigation is travel to regions of the world known for terrorist activity, access to weapons or military training, along with the person's race or ethnicity.

More than a half-dozen senior FBI, Justice Department and other U.S. intelligence officials familiar with the new policy agreed to discuss it only on condition of anonymity, either because they were not allowed to speak publicly or because the change is not yet final.

The change, which is expected later this year, is part of an update of Justice Department policies known as the attorney general guidelines. They are being overhauled amid the FBI's transition from a traditional crime-fighting agency to one whose top mission is to protect America from terrorist attacks.

"We don't know what we don't know. And the object is to cut down on that," said one FBI official who defended the plans.

Another official, while also defending the proposed guidelines, raised concerns about criticism during the presidential election year over what he called "the P word" - profiling.

If adopted, the guidelines would be put in place in the final months of a presidential administration that has been dogged by criticism that its counterterror programs trample privacy rights and civil liberties.

Critics say the presumption of innocence is lost in the proposal. The FBI will be allowed to begin investigations simply "by assuming that everyone's a suspect, and then you weed out the innocent," said Caroline Fredrickson of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey acknowledged the overhaul was under way in early June, saying the guidelines sought to ensure regulations for FBI terror investigations don't conflict with ones governing criminal probes. He would not give any details.

"It's necessary to put in place regulations that will allow the FBI to transform itself ... into an intelligence gathering organization in addition to just a crime solving organization," Mukasey told reporters.

The changes would allow FBI agents to ask open-ended questions about activities of Muslim- or Arab-Americans, or investigate them if their jobs and backgrounds match trends that analysts deem suspect.

FBI agents would not be allowed to eavesdrop on phone calls or dig deeply into personal data - such as the content of phone or e-mail records or bank statements - until a full investigation was opened.

The guidelines focus on the FBI's domestic operations and run about 40 pages long, several officials said. They do not specifically spell out what traits the FBI should use in building profiles.

One senior Justice Department official said agents have been allowed since 2003 to build "threat assessments" of Americans based on public records and information from informants. Such assessments could be used to open a preliminary investigation, the official said.

However, another official said the 2003 authorities are limited, tightly monitored by FBI headquarters in Washington and, overall, confusing to agents about how or when they can be used.

Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the guidelines governing when to open a national security investigation are part of a "harmonizing" process that will not give the FBI any more authority than it already has. He declined further comment, but he and two other senior Justice officials, would not deny the changes as they were described to AP by others familiar with the guidelines.

"Any review and change to the guidelines will reflect our traditional concerns for civil liberties and First Amendment liberties and our traditional investigative emphasis on using the least intrusive means feasible," Roehrkasse said Wednesday.

[tngreen]

"These people have vowed to destroy our system, they do not deserve, nor should they be allowed the protection afford by our system." Posted by wesleyjl at 07:12 AM : Jul 05, 2008

Mind telling us who "these people" are? Middle Easterners? Arabs? Dark-skinned people? All foreigners?

Paranoid much?

Besides, the "protection afford (sic) by our system," for what it''s worth these days, is deserved by everybody. That''s the whole point of our "system"-- everybody is equal under the law. Either everybody has certain civil rights, or we just give up the pretense and admit that we''ve become a fascist dictatorship.

I recommend that everybody go take a chill pill and watch the Twilight Zone episode entitled "The Monsters are Due on Maple Street." Rod Serling got it.

[jlwesley]

If it looks like a Duck, walks like a Duck, quacks like a Duck, the chances are pretty *** good that it is a Duck.

These people have vowed to destroy our system, they do not deserve, nor should they be allowed the protection afford by our system.

[deacon20081]

Namoey...
I couldn''t agree more and yes I did see the story late this morning. Peace

[namoey]

Deacon,

i''d rather say the release was more polling who, and how many would stand up & hiss.

btw, note todays headline: Judge Rejects Bush''s Stance On Wiretaps Says Current FISA Law Does Not Allow Executive Branch To Overstep Law

so begins another constitutional test that will inevitably end in yet another new law substantially giving the liberty and freedom to the new man [ue].

this process of an anti constitutionalism, in the popular sense, is a political bubble, and much like an economic bubble, with political capital as the currency, and centralization of power as the profit.

[whiskyrocker]

DianeKent2:

Couldn''t agree with you more.

[deacon20081]

Does anyone get the impression this story is meant to stifle free speech and strike fear into anyone that criticizes the Bush administration?
What did Dubya proclaim previously....You are either with us or you are with the terrorists..
I seems as if the USA is adopting the Mexican legal code. You are Guilty until proven innocent.
Constitutional Protections are voided now I guess.

[namoey]

impeach,

surprise is what small children get inside every box of crackerjacks, but deliciously ironic makes carnegie a grand foundation upon the backs of the severely down trodden. So no, surprise is not what i would label any of these developments.

[runningralph]

Profiling is a reasonable approach to investigating crime. The problem is that so many people are doing illegal things that large numbers of people are afraid of answering questions.

[namoey]

"The most terrifying words in the English language are:
I''m from the government and I''m here to help."_RR

What is so deliciously ironic is the unitary executive''s solemn reassurance in sept 2001 that P.A.T.R.I.O.T. was not, and NEVER would apply to the American People themselves.

I remember that statement as clearly as it was yesterday afternoon.

then old johnny ashcroft, that business lawyer become constitutional expert and head of our entire justice dept, got onto The Charlie Rose show%u2019 in early feb, 2002... and only four months after the reassurance by our unitary exec mind you... and so old johnny said to charlie: P.a.t.r.i.o.t. is a law passed by congress, and like any other law of the land, P.A.T.R.I.O.T. applies to every person of the United States of America.

just like that he said it, and in complete denial of what the unitary executive pronounced at the time of passage.

Now this news today: Likely To Let FBI Investigate Americans, no evidence necessary

[namoey]

"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I''m from the government and I''m here to help."_RR

[whiskyrocker]

The British are coming,the British are coming. One if by land ,two if by sea. Our fore fathers are rolling in there graves.

[namoey]

P.A.T.R.I.O.T. no longer in dispute, liberty becomes a quiet, simple matter of bureaucratic rule administered by the police of the state.

The first target groups are always those with the most vulnerability, those most easily alienated at no politcal cost to the state.

However, a deterioration of our benign state towards totalitarianism is simply not possible. We have constitutional guarantees, the finest legislature in the entire world, and the most earnest and wholesome of public servants, all working towards our common good.


After, we are America.

[namoey]

P.A.T.R.I.O.T. no longer in dispute, liberty becomes a quiet, simple matter of bureaucratic rule administered by the police of the state.

[jboxton]

bobnjersey:
Come on. I know you weak willed liberals are into conspiracy theories and such, but the reality is the government just doesn''t pick regular people to harrass and frame. Don''t believe the movies you watch. If you live your life and don''t break any laws, let them investigate you all they want. Only those that are up to no good disagree.

[bobnjersey]

[WHO CARES IF THE GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATES YOU IF YOU DIDN''''T DO ANYTHING WRONG!!]
[Posted by jboxton at 12:42 PM : Jul 03, 2008]

who defines what wrong is? is this a publicly defined set of criteria ... or is this kept secret? who''s deciding on whether it''s public or secret ... or is there identity secret too?

[iuphockey14]

Ok so you claim that I read false blogs and internet readings but you go to the "almighty truth" website of CNN. Please! Look at this article.

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/01/obamas_nation_o.html

He rejects his Pastor on his comments and does not agree with Farrakhan. Ok thats fine, but has he left that church because you cannot listen to a preacher you do not see eye to eye on. (Im not sure if he left the church or not Im simply asking).

For not being Muslim he sure has a lot of Muslim friends hes hired and cant wait to hire.

We also have to keep in mind politicians lie. Every one of them does. So can we believe his stance in his autobiography. Maybe, Maybe not. Ill take your word and check it out to decide for myself.

[jboxton]

"Critics say the presumption of innocence is lost in the proposal. The FBI will be allowed to begin investigations simply "by assuming that everyone''s a suspect, and then you weed out the innocent," said Caroline Fredrickson of the American Civil Liberties Union. "

The ACLU should be hung. WHO CARES IF THE GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATES YOU IF YOU DIDN''T DO ANYTHING WRONG!!

[jboxton]

UUUGHH! You pansy liberals that are against this should just stop already. Face it. Muslims/Arabs ARE terrorists. No, not all of them, but over and over when you see attacks in other countries who is doing it? Muslims! Don''t make it impossible to investigate these savages until it''s too late.

[flreason]

IUPhockey14 et al:

Re your contention about Obama not discussing his background...try reading his autobiography: Dreams from My Father. There has never been a political candidate who has opened up more of his life for scrutiny than Barak Obama. If you''re too lazy to read and research, then perhaps you shouldn''t make accusations based on rumors and outright lies from biased sources.

[flreason]

IUPhockey14:

Do you ever read anything factual, or does all of your information come secondhand from talk radio and blogs? Obama NEVER went to a Muslim school in the Middle East. He went for two years of GRADE SCHOOL at Busuki school in INDONESIA. This is a public school, not a madrassa. Parents there had the OPTION of enrolling their children in religious education. His mother chose not to send him to any of those classes--Muslim or Christian.
www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/

As for Obama''s father, although born into a Muslim family, he was an atheist. Since Obama never lived with his father, he certainly never picked up any religious teachings or radicalism from him.

Instead of repeating false information, have the integrity to research the candidates and not stoop to character assassination.

Regarding Cindy McCain: she has admitted to having a prescription drug addiction/dependency in the past.