Archive

FBI broke law for years in phone record searches

  • ptown_trojans_1
    Looks like between 2002-2006, the FBI illegally tapped more than 2000 phones. A pretty good article explaining the stress, situation and misuse of power by the FBI. So, is this a huge, huge deal invoking an infringement of civilian liberties, or an honest mistake by the FBI trying to protect the country?

    I actually have no big issue with it, so long as the FBI did not misuse the information on trumped up charges to people, which the article did not mention. It is a problem, but one, given the time period, that I'd say was an honest mistake. A mistake, but one that one can understand as they were under huge stress to stop another attack.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/18/AR2010011803982.html?wpisrc=newsletter&sid=ST2010011804299
  • CenterBHSFan
    I think I agree with your assessment, ptown.
  • fish82
    ptown_trojans_1 wrote: Looks like between 2002-2006, the FBI illegally tapped more than 2000 phones. A pretty article explaining the stress, situation and misuse of power by the FBI. So, is this a huge, huge deal invoking an infringement of civilian liberties, or an honest mistake by the FBI trying to protect the country?

    I actually have no big issue with it, so long as the FBI did not misuse the information on trumped up charges to people, which the article did not mention. It is a problem, but one, given the time period, that I'd say was an honest mistake. A mistake, but one that one can understand as they were under huge stress to stop another attack.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/18/AR2010011803982.html?wpisrc=newsletter&sid=ST2010011804299
    Agreed. If it comes out that they misused the info as you said, then I have no problem bringing the hammer down on them. Otherwise...it's a pass.
  • BCSbunk
    No pass they need hammered now. No wonder our government is in the mess it is in when people give free passes to those that break the law especially the government.

    I hope they are hammered to every extent of the law for their crimes.
  • Writerbuckeye
    fish82 wrote:
    ptown_trojans_1 wrote: Looks like between 2002-2006, the FBI illegally tapped more than 2000 phones. A pretty article explaining the stress, situation and misuse of power by the FBI. So, is this a huge, huge deal invoking an infringement of civilian liberties, or an honest mistake by the FBI trying to protect the country?

    I actually have no big issue with it, so long as the FBI did not misuse the information on trumped up charges to people, which the article did not mention. It is a problem, but one, given the time period, that I'd say was an honest mistake. A mistake, but one that one can understand as they were under huge stress to stop another attack.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/18/AR2010011803982.html?wpisrc=newsletter&sid=ST2010011804299
    Agreed. If it comes out that they misused the info as you said, then I have no problem bringing the hammer down on them. Otherwise...it's a pass.
    Yep.
  • CenterBHSFan
    I just noticed that Ptown is now a mod! :)
  • Mr. 300
    Nothing to see here.....move along now.
  • FatHobbit
    BCSbunk wrote: No pass they need hammered now. No wonder our government is in the mess it is in when people give free passes to those that break the law especially the government.

    I hope they are hammered to every extent of the law for their crimes.
    I'm with you. I don't think the FBI get's to break the law just because they have an excuse. I doubt they would do it for me.
  • eersandbeers
    FatHobbit wrote:
    BCSbunk wrote: No pass they need hammered now. No wonder our government is in the mess it is in when people give free passes to those that break the law especially the government.

    I hope they are hammered to every extent of the law for their crimes.
    I'm with you. I don't think the FBI get's to break the law just because they have an excuse. I doubt they would do it for me.

    Agreed.

    It boggles my mind how people can complain about their civil liberties and then grant the government a free pass on issues like this.

    You either value your liberties or you don't. There is no gray area with government.
  • fish82
    FatHobbit wrote:
    BCSbunk wrote: No pass they need hammered now. No wonder our government is in the mess it is in when people give free passes to those that break the law especially the government.

    I hope they are hammered to every extent of the law for their crimes.
    I'm with you. I don't think the FBI get's to break the law just because they have an excuse. I doubt they would do it for me.
    If you were working to keep any more bad guys from flying planes into buildings, my guess is that they would.
  • eersandbeers
    fish82 wrote:
    FatHobbit wrote:
    BCSbunk wrote: No pass they need hammered now. No wonder our government is in the mess it is in when people give free passes to those that break the law especially the government.

    I hope they are hammered to every extent of the law for their crimes.
    I'm with you. I don't think the FBI get's to break the law just because they have an excuse. I doubt they would do it for me.
    If you were working to keep any more bad guys from flying planes into buildings, my guess is that they would.

    And any evidence you gain against me is immediately inadmissible in court. Why do you think the Bush admin was trying to create loopholes where they could detain American citizens suspecting of terrorism without concern for their Constitutional rights?
  • fish82
    eersandbeers wrote:
    fish82 wrote:
    FatHobbit wrote:
    BCSbunk wrote: No pass they need hammered now. No wonder our government is in the mess it is in when people give free passes to those that break the law especially the government.

    I hope they are hammered to every extent of the law for their crimes.
    I'm with you. I don't think the FBI get's to break the law just because they have an excuse. I doubt they would do it for me.
    If you were working to keep any more bad guys from flying planes into buildings, my guess is that they would.

    And any evidence you gain against me is immediately inadmissible in court. Why do you think the Bush admin was trying to create loopholes where they could detain American citizens suspecting of terrorism without concern for their Constitutional rights?
    Because Bush is the farking devil. He kills small children in their sleep and eats their flesh with BBQ sauce. After listening to their phone calls, of course. :rolleyes:
  • gut
    TWO THOUSANDS phones?!? Ohhhh, the humanity!

    Aside from the slippery slope argument, I find it really hard to bitch about that.
  • Glory Days
    gut wrote: TWO THOUSANDS phones?!? Ohhhh, the humanity!

    Aside from the slippery slope argument, I find it really hard to bitch about that.
    haha i was going to say the same thing because everyone knows the FBI is listening to every citizen....oh wait, they arent, only 2,000. maybe it just makes people feel important if they think the government is listening to their phone conversations.
  • eersandbeers
    fish82 wrote:
    Because Bush is the farking devil. He kills small children in their sleep and eats their flesh with BBQ sauce. After listening to their phone calls, of course. :rolleyes:

    Well at least you get it now.

    gut wrote: TWO THOUSANDS phones?!? Ohhhh, the humanity!

    Aside from the slippery slope argument, I find it really hard to bitch about that.
    Or besides its unconstitutional.
  • 74Leps
    Read the book The Puzzle Palace sometime. The NSA was tapping lines a long time ago. They were supposed to be eavesdropping on international communications only, heh.

    OR watch the President's Analyst, starring James Coburn, think it came out about 1966. The movie is dated, but funny, showing the star slowly becoming more and more paranoid to near insanity. You find out who the big evil is near the end of the movie, it's . . .
  • gut
    eersandbeers wrote: Or besides its unconstitutional.
    Like I said, I get the slippery slope argument, but neither my rights nor the rights of 99.9999% of Americans was violated here. I don't really have issue with the govt operating on the fringe to target and catch criminals operating on the fringe. "Absolute Liberty" is a great concept but also incredibly naive. Protecting US citizens and their rights involves trade-offs whether we want to admit it or not.
  • BCSbunk
    ccrunner609 wrote:
    BCSbunk wrote: No pass they need hammered now. No wonder our government is in the mess it is in when people give free passes to those that break the law especially the government.

    I hope they are hammered to every extent of the law for their crimes.

    I guess right after the FBI gets raked throught he coals we can take Obama in there and string him up for breaking the law numerous times.

    He broke the law when it comes to the census, removal of an official without notifying congress, Obama and is cronies are also breaking the law when it comes to TARP also by not mandating oversight.

    As for cronies I guess Little Tax cheat Timmy Geitner can also attend this government lynching on his tax evasion.
    Yes absolutely. IF they broke the law they must be punished for it. I do not stand up for partisan nonsense. If you break the law you get the hammer NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE.
  • BCSbunk
    gut wrote:
    eersandbeers wrote: Or besides its unconstitutional.
    Like I said, I get the slippery slope argument, but neither my rights nor the rights of 99.9999% of Americans was violated here. I don't really have issue with the govt operating on the fringe to target and catch criminals operating on the fringe. "Absolute Liberty" is a great concept but also incredibly naive. Protecting US citizens and their rights involves trade-offs whether we want to admit it or not.
    This is exactly the attitude that has created the mess our government is in.

    Let the government do as they wish it is for our betterment.
  • eersandbeers
    gut wrote:
    eersandbeers wrote: Or besides its unconstitutional.
    Like I said, I get the slippery slope argument, but neither my rights nor the rights of 99.9999% of Americans was violated here. I don't really have issue with the govt operating on the fringe to target and catch criminals operating on the fringe. "Absolute Liberty" is a great concept but also incredibly naive. Protecting US citizens and their rights involves trade-offs whether we want to admit it or not.

    Anything can be justified in the name of "safety."

    The rights of 2,000 Americans were violated. It doesn't matter if it was only one.

    Also, read this part of the story....

    "E-mails obtained by The Washington Post detail how counterterrorism officials inside FBI headquarters did not follow their own procedures that were put in place to protect civil liberties. The stream of urgent requests for phone records also overwhelmed the FBI communications analysis unit with work that ultimately was not connected to imminent threats."

    So not only was it illegal, but it also hurt our chances to identify real threats.

    A great Huxley quote....


    But liberty, as we all know, cannot flourish in a country that is permanently on a war footing, or even a near-war footing. Permanent crisis justifies permanent control of everybody and everything by the agencies of central government.
  • gut
    BCSbunk wrote: This is exactly the attitude that has created the mess our government is in.

    Let the government do as they wish it is for our betterment.
    Bull...Nowhere did I say such a thing. There are trade-offs that have to be made, and failing to recognize that or deny it is both irresponsible and naive.

    Just like you can't playfully yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater is ultimately a restriction of your right to free speech, the harm to you (and everyone else) in denying that is virtually nil, while the danger in allowing such speech presents a real threat to people there whom, given the choice, would nearly unanimously oppose it.
  • fish82
    I think it's safe to say that if the FBI was in any danger here whatsoever, Eric Holder would already be pontificating eloquently on the subject. The fact that he's not jumped in front of a microphone someplace today speaks volumes.
  • gut
    eersandbeers wrote: Anything can be justified in the name of "safety."
    No it cannot. You are painting this in black & white. Healthy, logical and rational debate prevents anything arbitrary from being justified in the name of "safety".

    Carte blanche dismissal of the issue is no better than carte blanche acceptance. Reality dictates there is a middle ground where balance is found.
  • eersandbeers
    gut wrote:
    eersandbeers wrote: Anything can be justified in the name of "safety."
    No it cannot. You are painting this in black & white. Healthy, logical and rational debate prevents anything arbitrary from being justified in the name of "safety".

    Carte blanche dismissal of the issue is no better than carte blanche acceptance. Reality dictates there is a middle ground where balance is found.

    Actually yes it can. There are many people who wouldn't mind a great deal of infringement as long as they believe it is protecting them. You simply need to look at history.

    It is black and white. You either value your freedom or you don't. When government is granted leeway on a certain issue it will take far more.

    There is no middle ground when it comes to defending liberty. Extremism is the only answer.
  • eersandbeers
    fish82 wrote: I think it's safe to say that if the FBI was in any danger here whatsoever, Eric Holder would already be pontificating eloquently on the subject. The fact that he's not jumped in front of a microphone someplace today speaks volumes.
    When is the last time the two parties held each other responsible? They don't because Obama is doing the same things right now. He has continued nearly every Bush policy.

    They only care about blow jobs. Domestic spying is not such a big deal.