FBI Domestic spy power widened

[LanSite]

FBI gets more domestic spy power

Removing 'unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles'
May 30, 2002 Posted: 4:44 PM EDT (2044 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a move raising concern among some civil libertarians and lawmakers, the Justice Department said Thursday it is easing restrictions on domestic surveillance for FBI counterterrorism operations.

"The war against terrorism is the central mission and the highest priority of the Federal Bureau of Investigation," said U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Because of that priority, he said the department is granting FBI field offices more authority to launch terrorism and undercover investigations, shifting such responsibility away from the agency's headquarters in Washington.

Speaking at a news conference Thursday, FBI Director Robert Mueller said the changes remove "unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles."


The changes follow widespread criticism that the nation's premier law enforcement agency failed to follow up on clues that could have, collectively, pointed to a pending terrorist attack before September 11, and that FBI headquarters had stymied the efforts of field offices to pursue such clues.

And they were announced one day after Mueller and Ashcroft outlined an overhaul of the FBI with the prevention of terrorist attacks now the agency's top priority.

Will 'Big Brother' be everywhere?
The changes announced Thursday to what are known as the Attorney General Guidelines also allow field agents to seek warrants without having to go through headquarters.

The changes allow the FBI to gather information on individuals even if they are not under criminal investigation. The techniques would include monitoring Internet sites, as well as libraries and religious institutions.

Some of the changes were greeted warily by civil libertarian groups.

"People who go to places of worship, people who go to libraries, people who are in chat rooms, are going to have 'Big Brother' listening in even though there's no evidence that they are involved in anything illegal whatsoever," said Laura Murphy, a spokeswoman for the American Civil Liberties Union.

But Justice Department officials said the changes only give the FBI the same powers that private citizens have.

"Under the old rules, the FBI could not go into public places to seek information unless it was tied to a crime that had already been committed," said one official. "We are turning the focus of the FBI 180 degrees from prosecution to prevention of future terrorist acts. All these guidelines do is free those agents to use every means possible under the Constitution and the law to keep us safe."

Critics can't have it both ways
"What it means is that the FBI will be able to do what any private citizen or any cop on the beat can do, which is go anywhere the public can go for information," the official added.

Oliver "Buck" Revell, ex-associate director of the FBI, said critics can't have it both ways -- faulting the agency for not doing enough to thwart terrorist attacks, but complaining when the agency turns to more aggressive information-gathering techniques.

"Some of these activities will be chilling, there's no question of it," Revell said. "But if the public expects and if the Congress expects there to be prevention of terror activities, there's going to have to be the collection of information, and that collection at times will certainly be problematic to people's concerns."

That issue of coordination with the field offices has become critical in light of a memo from an FBI whistle-blower in Minneapolis who said headquarters stymied efforts last summer to learn about one terrorist suspect, Zacarias Moussaoui, who was later charged as a conspirator in the September 11 hijackings.

Had the new guidelines been in place last summer, the FBI field agents in Minneapolis would not have had to get headquarters approval for seeking a search warrant in the Moussaoui case. Approval could now come from the "special agent in charge" at a field office.


http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/05/30/as...fbi/index.html

[ThePatriot-F.Y.U.K.B]

anything to help take down asses who try to do us harm i am all for it. I say close the borders as well.

[LanSite]

Originally posted by ThePatriot-F.Y.U.K.B
anything to help take down asses who try to do us harm i am all for it. I say close the borders as well.

You're kidding, right? I'm all for protecting our own, but how many liberties are you willing to give up in the process?

[ThePatriot-F.Y.U.K.B]

if youre not doing anything wrong why would you worry?

[LanSite]

It's already been proven in time of war, citizens are willing to give up some freedoms in order to feel safer ... but how much are we going to end up giving?

[pimpjacksmack]

Our forefathers gave EVERYTHING... and all they're asking us to give up is a little privacy? Come on... they didn't even ask us to enlist to protect these freedoms, the least we can do is give a little. People who complain about having to wait through extra security checks at the airport... COME ON!! Would you rather the alternative occur?

[david petley]

Originally posted by pimpjacksmack
Our forefathers gave EVERYTHING... and all they're asking us to give up is a little privacy? Come on... they didn't even ask us to enlist to protect these freedoms, the least we can do is give a little. People who complain about having to wait through extra security checks at the airport... COME ON!! Would you rather the alternative occur?

"Some of these activities will be chilling, there's no question of it"????....
your forefathers fought like crazy to gain and keep these same freedoms that people now seem to be hurrying to give up or have curtailed.
Are people over there so frightened of violence that they are actually preparing to sacrifice some of that freedom that the USA is so known for proclaiming and standing for?

What sort of things are they talking about that will be so "chilling", do they actually spell it out clearly, or is it just like "oh well, expect your freedoms to be slowly eroded, so that we can keep you safe from harm"?

david p.

[TallGuyLittleCar]

Originally posted by pimpjacksmack
Our forefathers gave EVERYTHING... and all they're asking us to give up is a little privacy? Come on... they didn't even ask us to enlist to protect these freedoms, the least we can do is give a little. People who complain about having to wait through extra security checks at the airport... COME ON!! Would you rather the alternative occur?

"those that are willing to give up freedom for safety will have neither" - one of our for fathers.

and enlistment swelled after nine eleven. the security checks are just about pathatic. A security screener took a way a federal agents nail clippers. but let him keep his gun....
I don't think people have a problem with extra aiport security, they have a problem with people that could not get a job flipping burgers doing airport security.

[cyk]

Originally posted by LanSite
"What it means is that the FBI will be able to do what any private citizen or any cop on the beat can do, which is go anywhere the public can go for information," the official added.


[/B]

That seems reasonable but you have to wonder if thats really all it will be- Is email considered part of the public domain? What kinds of backlash would there be from FBI agents prowling around Synagogues and Mosques? I don't think I would like some guys watching over us at a Cathedral. Still have to wonder why there are between 500-1000 middle eastern men still being detained? At least some justification or address of the reason should be issued so that we can have understanding of the detainment and not feel like our state is turning into a Regime

[dean_phoenix]

Originally posted by TallGuyLittleCar

"those that are willing to give up freedom for safety will have neither" - one of our for fathers.

and enlistment swelled after nine eleven. the security checks are just about pathatic. A security screener took a way a federal agents nail clippers. but let him keep his gun....
I don't think people have a problem with extra aiport security, they have a problem with people that could not get a job flipping burgers doing airport security.

Before you go half-quoting one of America's forefounders, go find the real quote, idiot.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin

And for everyone else, I hate Tom Cruise and Steven Spielberg, but that upcoming movie "Minority Report" is really echoing alot of the sentiment with this issue. The FBI is basically turning itself into the Department of Precrime with all these changes in regulation.

I admit, if the FBI has creditible threats about Arabs attending flight schools and nothing is done, that's a lapse in responsibility. Somebody dropped the ball and heads should roll, starting from the top down.

Anyone here how 75 Arabs were stopped by NYPD this week, all with fake passports, and the INS said they couldn't be bothered to investigate since it was Memorial Day weekend. We now have 75 more Mohammed Atta's running loose in our country because of nonsense like this. God Bless America.

[Chelle2008]

Originally posted by TallGuyLittleCar


"those that are willing to give up freedom for safety will have neither" - one of our for fathers.

well that sufficiently sums up my feelings on this topic!

nuff said there

[nordberg]

i think i'm on the fence with this issue. i think it's naive for us to think that the FBI has not be able to monitor whatever they want - sounds like this new set of 'rules' just means that they can use it as evidence. our freedom has always been monitored - you can't stop that. they can listen to me all they want - it will bore them to death and not change my life one bit. now if i was heading up a child porn operation or plotting to destroy nasa, i might be a little more worried.

taking away freedoms for safetly does not sound good, i'll give you that. but we should save the fight for when they want to close the borders, restrict interstate movement, or embed tracking chips in our necks, etc. geeeesh, you all can read my email for all i care...

[gerbick]

HEY!

I've used that quote before here in the past. I still believe in it. The intelligence agencies are feeding on the fear at the moment.

I ain't giving up a damn thing. But it's the senseless scared masses and politicians that are giving my, and mostly the public's privacy, that it's proceeding quickly to a true Big Brother type of environment.

That scares me.

[gecko2]

Originally posted by ThePatriot-F.Y.U.K.B
if youre not doing anything wrong why would you worry?

wwwooowwwwww, how did you get that post count? And how did you register in 1997? Somebody said that the board didn't start while 1999? I didn't know anyone had more posts than Enigma

[cyk]

Im wondering if the recent string of terrorist alerts is fear mongering, ass covering, or legitimate threats?
If they are legit why isn't more info dispersed , and why do they keep saying to be aware and look around?
what exactly are we looking for?

[killabry]

Originally posted by gecko2

Originally posted by ThePatriot-F.Y.U.K.B
if youre not doing anything wrong why would you worry?

wwwooowwwwww, how did you get that post count? And how did you register in 1997? Somebody said that the board didn't start while 1999? I didn't know anyone had more posts than Enigma

FK was not around in 1997, the guys either a hacker or a good friend of JStarkey.

[Mac8myPC]

unfortunately this debate is moot.. our glorius leader GWB has already abolished our 4th ammendment rights with HR 3162 the 'Patriot Act' - thanks to public ignorance and his 90% approval rating at the time.

download the pdf and read it for yourself, the civil rights violations that were supposed to be 'sunseted' in 2005 were not. We have no more right to privacy.

welcome to the U.S.S.A.

[TallGuyLittleCar]

Originally posted by Mac8myPC
unfortunately this debate is moot.. our glorius leader GWB has already abolished our 4th ammendment rights with HR 3162 the 'Patriot Act' - thanks to public ignorance and his 90% approval rating at the time.

download the pdf and read it for yourself, the civil rights violations that were supposed to be 'sunseted' in 2005 were not. We have no more right to privacy.

welcome to the U.S.S.A.

just putting on paper what has been practiced for a while.

[cyk]

Originally posted by Mac8myPC
unfortunately this debate is moot.. our glorius leader GWB has already abolished our 4th ammendment rights with HR 3162 the 'Patriot Act' - thanks to public ignorance and his 90% approval rating at the time.

download the pdf and read it for yourself, the civil rights violations that were supposed to be 'sunseted' in 2005 were not. We have no more right to privacy.

welcome to the U.S.S.A.

And don't argue with it else you'll be branded a terrorist

[gerbick]

Originally posted by TallGuyLittleCar
just putting on paper what has been practiced for a while.

Amen brotha.

what really gets me though, is that we elect these officials that pass invasive as hell laws like SSSCA and side with RIAA due to some overpaid lobbying, well, who's at fault? Us for voting in people that are that easily lead, people that are that easily corrupted, or us for not really turning out in numbers for voting, and then checking up on what these people are really doing?

hmmmm?