Gonzales, Mueller Admit FBI Broke Law

Right, I am sure that an overwhelming amount of failure to do proper tracking was over cases when the government was trying to sniff out your credit card number to buy some "government worker" a new TV or sustain their heroin addiction. These were surely not cases of failure to track accurately how FBI goes after people who want another 9/11... (end sarcasm)

Seriously now, can we not shoot from the hip ACLU-style? Yes, there are problems with the system, but countering failure document appropriately the procedures ACLU style by suggesting that this is 1984-style control that must be burnt to the ground does more damage than good. Improve the procedures, but let's make sure those protecting US can do their job? At least before we make calls for impeachment.

Except -- people have been predicting that the Patriot Act would be abused in this manner.

And now, it turns out that those fears (so often dismissed as "conspiracy theories") were not unfounded.

Back then, we weren't supposed to talk about it because we had no proof that it happened. Now we're not supposed to be incredulous that it's happening because...why?

The way these Bonesmen run the scam is the same decade after decade. The core criminals within the CIA and FBI act at the honor of the criminal Commander in Chief. They kill, smuggle arms and drugs, spy on citizens, break the law and what happens? They get to keep making money by running the same scam with their own crimes, hidden by false claims of need to classify. It would do the country good to look at the powerful Bush Crime Family as a mob like the mafia, that's what they are but with a Teflon shield called Patriotism. Wasn't it Twain that called Patriotism the last refuge of a scoundrel?

I'm not sure that it affects the way the AP threads come in, though.

Brian, people predicted that inventing cars would result in people dying in car accidents. This is paper-pushing mistakes. We are in very difficult times and mistakes will be made regardless of who is in the administration. Discrediting the system because FBI admitted to mistakes being made is nonsensical unless more information is provided.

Now if the article read something like "FBI abused power and blackmailed the CEO of Enron into sharing profits.", then there would be something to talk about. But until then, this sounds like empy and idiotic hysterical speculation and projection of 1984-type vision onto a very different reality, which were well demonstrated by Pamela in her comment.

BTW, I am not saying we are not supposed to talk about. I am jut saying this could be done in a constructive manner rather than using this as an opportunity for political hackery.

Nikita, I wasn't aware that the Fourth Amendment provided an out for the administration in regard to getting warrants. This has been the crux of the whole matter since day one. Those who opposed the Patriot Act stated specifically that these violations would occur, and those who supported it insisted that we were wrong.

In fact, we were not wrong.

Now you would like to tell us that these violations are not important, only "paper-pushing mistakes," and that "real" violations are not likely to happen. Considering how wrong you were to begin with, I am not inclined to believe you. We are not in particularly difficult times. We've been in more difficult times than this as a nation. These are not paper-pushing mistakes, but abuses of power to get at information based on nothing other than an agent's suspicion and willingness to abuse the system you claim is not discredited.

By ignoring or redefining the Constitution, the Bush administration has done more damage to this country than the terrorists could have hoped to do alone. For you, the redefinition at the administration's whim of who is a citizen and who an "enemy combatant," the suspension of habeus corpus, the massive wiretaps and abuse of the Patriot act, and the pretense that it is all necessary to save us from the ravenous terrorist hordes may seem entirely justified. Others of us recognize that government serves at the will of the people, not the other way around. The government obtains its privileges from us, not we our rights from it.

Political hackery? That's querying whether an oath sworn on the Koran is legitimate. This is far more meaningful. Gonzales, et al, have not been responsible in the use of the authorities granted them, and so those authorities should be taken away-- indeed, they should never have been granted at all.

"Move along, nothing to see here" no longer suffices as an excuse.

iarnuocon, mistakes are made in all systems. You are kicking and screaming in this case because it is the republicans rather than the democrats.

My point: the amount of screaming going on here is not proportional to the problems at hand and is definitely not constructive. So far anyway.

nikitab, again, these are not mistakes. This is not a case of someone "forgetting" which department to notify, or accidentally failing to dot the i's and cross the t's. This is a situation in which federal authorities demanded records without authorization, took records despite there being no "emergency" ("emergencies" being a key reason Bush gave as to why the Patriot Act was necessary, to circumvent the "slow" FISA courts), and under-reported the number of times they've used these "authorities" by one out of five cases, and failing to record any data at all regarding 6% of the demands made.

You are kicking and screaming in this case because it is the republicans rather than the democrats. Funny, that seems to be your objection any time anyone raises concerns about the Bush administration's tactics-- "you guys just don't like him because he's a Republican." I hate to burst your bubble, but in case you're having difficulty reading, my objections have nothing whatsoever to do with political parties. It so happens that this administration is Republican, but I raised the same sorts of objections to similar antics (although less widespread in regard to Constitutional ramifications) perpetrated by Louis Freeh under the Clinton administration.

I would think that you should be as concerned as I, given that an erosion of rights doesn't target just the members of a single political party. Sadly, the only partisan hack I see offering to toe party lines, here, is you. Your "point" is null, and your objections paltry. "Just a mistake" does not cover the actions, and claiming people who state as much are doing so simply for partisan reasons seems much more along the lines of "saying we are not supposed to talk about" it than offering anything constructive.

What's brought to light here are violations of a Constitutionally guaranteed right. Your fiction that because no blackmail occurred there was no harm is exactly that-- a fiction.

As I stated, "Move along; nothing to see here" no longer suffices as an excuse.

This is a situation in which federal authorities demanded records without authorization

Could you please reference some instance? Then perhaps we'll have something to talk about. Until someone gets hurt through abuse of power you vaguely reference here, I am willing to err on the side of them actually trying to protect us rather than abuse power.

Err, not just without authorization, but also without due reason with the situation not being an emergency.

nikitab, you request what the Act specifically is written to conceal-- specific cases. The only area of the report that pertains to an identifiable case is so heavily redacted as to make identification of the individual or the circumstances under which the investigators objected to the FBI's investigation indecipherable. But in general terms, the report shows an organization that simply is ignorant of the relevant law, mired in the popular excuses for the need for these authorities, and exercising negligible control over the use of these tools in its own investigations. The report finds that the FBI's agents, supervisory personnel and legal counsel are all relatively unfamiliar with the interrelationship between the use of NSLs and FISA authorities, exercising numerous purportedly "good faith" violations of applicable statutes, guidelines, and internal policy. To quote some various relevant sections of the report:

• Issuing ECPA national security letter without obtaining required FBI Headquarters authorization to extend investigation after one year
• Issuing ECPA national security letter without obtaining required SAC approval to initiate a national security investigation
• Issuing RFPA national security letter without obtaining required approval to extend investigation
• Obtaining ECPA toll billing and RFPA financial records without first issuing national security letters
• Issuing FCRA national security letter requesting consumer full credit report in a counterintelligence case
• Obtaining ECPA telephone subscriber information not relevant to an authorized national security investigation
• Obtaining ECPA e-mail transactional information not relevant to an authorized national security investigation
• Obtaining ECPA telephone toll billing records not relevant to an authorized national security investigation

...of a sample of 77 investigative files... [w]e found that 17 files (22 percent) had one or more possible IOB violations. In total, the 17 files had 22 possible violations. To our knowledge, none of these 22 possible IOB violations was reported to FBI-OGC, and none was reported by FBI-OGC to the IOB...

... in 15 of the matters, the subject of the investigation was a "U.S. person"... (Section I(C)(I) of the NSI Guidelines defines a "United States person" as:

a. an individual who is a United States citizen or alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence;
b. an unincorporated association substantially composed of individuals who are United States persons; or
c. a corporation incorporated in the United States...

...we believe that three of the possible IOB violations arising from FBI errors were of a more serious nature because they demonstrated FBI agents' unfamiliarity with the constraints on national security letter authorities and inadequate supervision in the field... it is clear that the agents and, in one instance, the squad supervisor, did not understand the legal constraints on the two types of national security letters or the interrelationship between FISA authorities and national security letter authorities...

It is significant to note that in the limited file review we conducted of 77 investigative files in 4 FBI field offices we identified nearly as many NSL-related possible IOB violations as the number of NSL-related possible IOB violations that the FBI identified in reports from all FBI Headquarters and field divisions for the same 3-year period...

We have no reason to believe that the number of possible IOB violations we identified in the four field offices we visited was skewed or disproportionate to the number of possible IOB violations that exist in other offices. This suggests that a significant number of NSL-related possible IOB violations throughout the FBI have not been identified or reported by FBI personnel.

...we learned that on over 700 occasions the FBI obtained telephone toll billing records or subscriber information from 3 telephone companies without first issuing NSLs or grand jury subpoenas. Instead, the FBI issued so-called "exigent letters" signed by FBI Headquarters Counterterrorism Division personnel who were not authorized to sign NSLs. In many instances there was no pending investigation associated with the request at the time the exigent letters were sent. In addition, while some witnesses told us that many exigent letters were issued in connection with fast-paced investigations, many were not issued in exigent circumstances, and the FBI was unable to determine which letters were sent in emergency circumstances due to inadequate recordkeeping. Further, in many instances after obtaining such records from the telephone companies, the FBI issued national security letters after the fact to "cover" the information obtained, but these after-the-fact NSLs sometimes were issued many months later.

of the 88 exigent letters we randomly selected from the 739 exigent letters, the FBI produced unsigned national security letters for only 14 of the first 25... The documents provided for the first 25 exigent letters showed that the FBI would be unable to provide reliable documentation to substantiate the national security letters or other legal process was issued to cover the records obtained in response to many of the exigent letters. Therefore, because of this clear finding in the first 25 letters and the labor intensive nature of the exercise, we did not ask the FBI to complete the sample of 88 letters.

The report made clear that in the investigation of only four sites, many instances were found in which information was requested for which the FBI had no authorization to ask, exigent letters were used to obtain information under emergency circumstances in which no actual emergency existed or can be substantiated, and the FBI has been incapable of exercising sufficient oversight to ensure that these things do not happen; indeed, in 1 out of 5 cases failing even to keep any records whatsoever for the purpose of oversight.

You think this is a small problem. I think you have little idea of the problem, and are not interested in learning about it

We've gone around on this before, and this is a point which consistently, some may suspect congenitally, are incapable of acknowledging: the violation of a right constitutes a harm, in and of itself. The Fourth Amendment makes the seizure of records without a judicially issued, signed warrant illegal. The whole question is really moot, as far as I'm concerned. You're trying to put a dress on this sow, but a sow is a sow. People such as yourself bought the administration argument that it is ok to violate the Fourth Amendment with the Patriot Act because we "really really really" need to, and because only the "bad" people will have their rights violated, and besides, we're really getting warrants, we just can't tell you about it, and this program is really very structured in ensuring that nobody will be mistakenly investigated. This report proves virtually all of those arguments without foundation.

I am willing to err on the side of them actually trying to protect us rather than abuse power Yes, but then from what I've seen of your postings on the vine, you're comfortable with pretty much any abuse of power, as long as it's proposed by a Republican. I'm not willing to let your errors become my problem.

iarnuocon, I am far more concerned with a terrorist attack than minimal infringement on my rights, but you are already aware of this. Although, as before, you assign far greater value to this trespassing.

Until I see some evidence of damage or terrorism seizes to be a threat, I think I'll just not pay attention to this and let the appropriate agencies help adjust the system so as to minimize mistakes/abuse.

Again, for an American, death by terrorism is such a small risk that it is essentially no threat. Viewed rationally, you are likelier to die from mysteriously choking to death in your sleep than by terrorist machinations. Which means that, while terrorism has not "seized" to be a threat, rational people should be far more concerned with "minimal" infringements on their rights.

Your attitude is precisely the attitude that allows allows "maximal" infringements on rights to take place. While the temperature of the water rises, you, my happy little frog, will gladly swim in circles, croaking to the rest of us that the cook only has our best interests at heart.

I, for one, don't buy it.

Perhaps terrorism is such a small risk because of infringements on personal rights. Because we have no real data to sift through regarding that it's a hard thing to nail down.

And regardless of risk to actual personal loss, the economic effects of terrorism on our own soil will undoubtedly reach every single American.

Just a couple of things to consider.

Sometimes it almost sounds like there are folks here who would rather end the war on terror altogether - stop the war and all the secret programs and just hope for the best. If that means regular terrorist acts on our soil then so be it. We'll be fine. That's a premise I don't really understand.

Perhaps terrorism is such a small risk because of infringements on personal rights. Because we have no real data to sift through regarding that it's a hard thing to nail down.

No real data? There's been terrorism for decades. There has been hatred of Americans and the will to strike Americans for decades. We've played games in the Middle East for decades, and encouraged Islamist hatred of Americans for decades. Including the worst terrorist attack on American soil, ever, into the total body of Americans killed by terrorism the world over, not just in America, the rational conclusion is that while terrorism needs to be addressed it is hardly such a threat that we need to rewrite the Constitution to address it. Anyone who claims otherwise either has an ulterior motive or is ignorant of the facts or just can't reason very well.

The economic effects? Excepting the single data point of 9/11, has the cost of terrorism to "every single American" ever risen above the price of a pack of gum on an annual basis? Including 9/11, the direct costs of terrorism in terms of damage, cleanup costs, loss of jobs, destruction of physical assets, etc. figured from 9/11 to the last previous large-scale incident of terrorism (Oklahoma City bombing) approximately comprises the costs our government would spend to build a dozen B2 bombers. In terms of the US GDP (roughly $12.5 trillion in 2006), all terrorism barely rates mentioning. Compared to the annual budgets as figured between the OKC and today (roughly $26 trillion), terrorism barely rates mentioning. Figuring generously that the direct costs of terrorism against Americans since OKC have totaled $30 billion dollars, the annual costs to Americans over that time span equals about $10/year. Even if we were to calculate that the cost were greater by an order of magnitude, even two orders of magnitude, one can hardly reckon that the "economic effects" of terrorism will somehow destroy the American economy.

Both the personal risks and the economic risks to you and me are negligible.

Sometimes it almost sounds like there are folks here who would rather end the war on terror altogether - stop the war and all the secret programs and just hope for the best. If that means regular terrorist acts on our soil then so be it. We'll be fine. That's a premise I don't really understand. The War on Terror, like the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, and the numerous other "Wars" we've fought on concepts, is not a winnable war. The real question is over how it should be fought. Starting a war in Iraq was a distraction from fighting that war; it picked the wrong target, diluted our resources, created a training ground for additional terrorist groups, increased sympathy in the Muslim world for terrorist goals, and increased the pool of available would-be terrorists. It should be stopped. It should never have been started. The money that we've spent on it, hundreds of billions of dollars, would have been better spent strengthening our infrastructure and improving domestic security. The "secret programs" are anybody's guess. The ones we've learned about, we've been assured are "effective" (as if that's the sole measure by which we should judge whether they should ever have been undertaken in the first place), but reports such as this one show that it is impossible for the FBI, CIA or any other organization to currently make that statement with any confidence. Garbage in, garbage out.

There are effective steps that could be taken that don't involve rewriting the Constitution, and no one is saying that we shouldn't take those steps. Indeed, no one is saying that we shouldn't address terrorism as a serious issue deserving of our focus and dollars. What IS being said is that the constant use of "the evil terrorists" as a blanket excuse for every abuse, every dismissal of Constitutional protections, and every blank check written needs to stop. The murder rate in the United States is six times greater than the rate of death by terrorist incident in the largest year we've ever experienced such. Murders do not cause us to rewrite our Constitution. the choices that you present-- keep on this path or experience "regular terrorist acts on American soil"-- constitute a false dilemma.

nikitab is comfortable that we shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about it. His lord and masters understand it far better than him, and whatever steps they take are A-ok because they would never do anything that wasn't in our best interests. That panglossian worldview is stupid. The history of the world is a lesson in the fact that governments need oversight, and where the people fail to remain intensely interested in what their governments are doing and how they are doing it, the people soon cease to be free.

That was a very well written reponse, iarnuocon. Thank you for taking the time to write it. It is very full of thought and you bring up some good points.

I think I do need to clarify a few things from the short comments left in my previous post. What I meant by no real data to go by - is that we have no way of determining the effectiveness of the programs that have been put in place since 9/11. There have been no other terror attacks and since these programs are secret (and I'm assuming that despite the rampant leaking in our government that there are still programs we don't know about) I don't really know how we can quantify effectiveness or ineffectiveness in these measures. Unless there is some research in this area that I am not aware of. So how do we look at this and say - well I gave up X in terms of privacy or freedom but it yielded Y in terms of reducing the risk of terror. People seem to be polarized in either pointing to the result, Y or the to the infringement, X. Yet there is very little actual data to show support for either of those statements. While we have had no terror attacks since 9/11 - how can we say that these programs are the reasons behind that? Equally, how can we quantify the impact on privacy or freedom on an individual American?

As for the economic issue, this is a bit hazy too. But 9/11 did have an impact on people choosing air travel for some time after 9/11. If there are a series of bombings at shopping malls over the period of a couple of months - do you not think that would not also have an impact on our shopping habits? This is a hard thing to quantify as well as there are a number of scenarios that can be played out along with the resulting impacts on certain industries and the fallout in terms of public reaction. A well coordinated series of attacks that causes people to be fearful of performing everyday tasks could have a significant impact on our economy over time. While it's justifiably prudent to assume this to be a low possibility, it is a possibility to be considered nonetheless. A more likely scenario would still have economic fallout however. How much that impacts us each individually is hard to say. I guess it depends on where you live and what you do for a living.

I agree with you to some extent in that these steps that have been taken so far are not the only possible ways of handling the issues raised by terrorism. I have yet to see anyone postulate some effective replacements for these programs that don't equally infringe on freedoms or privacy. We have a very open society and 300 million people to protect and sift through to find potential terrorists. It's a daunting task to try and mitigate potential threats without equally sacrificing individual rights along the way.

iarnuocon,

Your argument that being affected by terrorism is such a small chance so as to be negligible is very strange. There are acceptable risks and unacceptable risks. Given the increasing damage that terrorism can bring, this seems to me more like playing the Russian roulette. yes, chances of being in a car accident are higher than being hit by a terrorist bomb... perhaps... for now... but unless the problem of terrorism is resolved, these odds are going to go up until, sooner or later, there will be an attack that will involve WMDs. The only way to address it is to change the global political structure - I wrote about it a little in this outdated article.

Your response would be: well, what does that have to do with domestic infringements? Isn't the war abroad? Well, in order to avoid a situation from getting to an unmanageable state, the, relatively-low-risk-terrorism (if it is indeed low risk, as Novanglus rightly points out lack of data) has to be contained and can not be allowed to expand. This entails giving up certain freedoms as our government is extremely inefficient. So I am all for fixing up the bureaucrasy, but not at the expense of safety in this case as the inefficiencies have yet to show how they are damaging to our society except in principle.

I am not extreme in my support for the administration as you suggest - I think we can and should scrutinize them in an intelligent manner. Your position, however, is far more radical than mine as you are unwilling to accept a flawed system despite failure to show the damage except in theory as well as failing to credibly assess the problem that the system is trying to address.

This is where, if I had more time, I would have to provide more data demonstrating why terrorism is a serious issue, because this is at the root of our disagreement.

Here are your problems, in order:

1. but unless the problem of terrorism is resolved The problem of terrorism will never be resolved. Terrorism is the result of the imbalance in ability to project force in order to accomplish political goals. It's been with us since the time of the Romans, and will continue to be with us pretty much as long as we as human beings gather in organized communities. Any imbalance in power is likely to be addressed, eventually, by the weaker party turning its weaknesses into strengths. Nearly every other country in the world has its terrorists, its separatists, etc. engaging in low intensity conflict with the government. America was just the most recent on the list.
2. sooner or later, there will be an attack that will involve WMDs WMD terrorism represents a very negligible threat. [warning: pdf] That's not to say that we shouldn't address the possibility, nor seek to ameliorate the effects. But in determining how best to do that, it is essential that we form a realistic picture of the magnitude of the problem. It's an interesting conundrum that you're willing to engage in quite a bit of speculation about the future capabilities of terrorists, and absolutely no speculation about the possible abuse of the authority that you're willing to give the government to address those postulated capabilities. If for no other reason than this, you're misguided, at best.
3. relatively-low-risk-terrorism (if it is indeed low risk, as Novanglus rightly points out lack of data) has to be contained and can not be allowed to expand. Since you're apparently incapable of backing your arguments with data, allow me to point you toward some. [warning: pdf] The picture that emerges is that our "strategy" of screwing up Iraq to attract as many terrorists as possible to that location has somewhat backfired. Additionally, had we concentrated our efforts on disrupting major terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda, to the exclusion of worries about Saddam Hussein, we'd have achieved the current state of affairs regarding the decentralization of terrorism and its reduction to a local scope much sooner. Finally, by focusing on going after the big fish, and limiting terrorist's ability to cooperate with each other, that reduction of terrorism to a local scope allows terrorism to be addressed from an international law-enforcement approach-- something vehemently resisted as unworkable by proponents of the current administration's "strategies." Far from there being a "lack of data", the data suggests what some of us have been saying all along-- we have always been a target for terrorism, and our key areas of opportunity for addressing it lie in current law enforcement techniques and the strengthening of our infrastructure and emergency response.
4. This entails giving up certain freedoms as our government is extremely inefficient. Honestly, your willingness to "give up" your rights frightens me. God forbid the American people as a whole adopt your penchant for servitude. You have shown absolutely no evidence that we are required to "give up our freedoms" in order to be "safe," and even if you had, suggesting that we do so because the government is inefficient is a non sequitur. If the government is "inefficient", the last organization I want looking out for my safety or my freedom is the government. Please present a more compelling argument than this.
5. Your position, however, is far more radical than mine as you are unwilling to accept a flawed system despite failure to show the damage except in theory as well as failing to credibly assess the problem that the system is trying to address. I understand that you are congenitally unable to understand this, but I'll repeat it one more time-- the violation of a right is a harm in and of itself, regardless of any physical or economic harm caused tangentially to it. This is not "damage in theory", it's damage, period. Honestly, your confusion on this point continues to amaze me.

As far as my "failing to credibly assess the problem", I have to say that so far, of the two of us, I'm the only one who is actually making any kind of assessment. All you've done is make baseless assertions. That you don't like my argument doesn't mean it is not credible. In this case, it's more likely that it means that you are insensible to facts.

Here's the skeleton in your closet, NikitaB, 9/11, the London subway bombing, and the Spanish train derailment were not carried out with WMD. The additional authorities granted under the Patriot ACt would not have prevented 9/11 had they been available, as the problem was an inability to put the picture together by those at the top, not by an inability to gather data. Countries that are much less respectful of privacy continue to be unable to stop terrorism. Those are facts. You present a mindset common in American business, where management continues to think in terms of needing a better "tool", when what is actually required is better vision, better imagination, and better ability to reason. Our tools are fine, it's our leadership that is lacking.

This is where, if I had more time, I would have to provide more data demonstrating why terrorism is a serious issue, because this is at the root of our disagreement. And this is where, if you did that, I wouldn't consider your "arguments" total bull@!$%#.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Who watches the watchmen?

Iarnuocon,

How does the PDF you provided for #2 demonstrate low probability of WMD attacks? We are developing technologically so rapidly that the only thing that is keeping attacks with WMDs at bay is accountability and access, which are rapidly dissipating.

How do you know that Patriot Act would not have prevented 9/11? It was already shown that 9/11 took place because of a long list of mistakes and inefficiencies. 9/11 should have never been carried out.

What you do not acknowledge is the role terrorism plays as a tool for countries like Iran.

The only right I am really giving up is the right to privacy. Everything else remains intact so long as I am not a terrorist. I am all for scrutinizing the government in case there is abuse of power.

Let me ask you this: would you be for a completely transparent system? The government can look through everything that you have and do while you can look through everything that the government does with your information and, if you feel they abuse it, you can sue them?

How does the PDF you provided for #2 demonstrate low probability of WMD attacks? We are developing technologically so rapidly that the only thing that is keeping attacks with WMDs at bay is accountability and access, which are rapidly dissipating. On the contrary, the dissipation and reduction of state sponsorship directly undercuts the ability of terrorist groups to lay hands on or develop WMDs. Chemical and biological WMD are notoriously exaggerated in threat capability, with the few known instances of any terrorist group using them achieving remarkably few casualties compared to conventional weapons, and without state sponsorship virtually no terrorist groups are capable of achieving nuclear weapons. Indeed, few states have pursued them because of their expense and difficulty to build.

When the report says

active, direct, state sponsorship of terror is declining, with the notable exceptions of Iran and perhaps to some degree Syria... The State Department report suggests an immediate future with a larger number of "smaller attacks, less meticulously planned, and local rather than transnational in scope."

the clear conclusion to be drawn is that people who trumpet that the Patriot Act is the only thing holding back the tsunami of transnational terrorism from American shores are on drugs.

How do you know that Patriot Act would not have prevented 9/11? It was already shown that 9/11 took place because of a long list of mistakes and inefficiencies. Those mistakes didn't have a thing to do with an inability to get information. The information was there. The problem was that the folks at the top lacked the imagination and foresight to connect the dots.

The only right I am really giving up is the right to privacy. Everything else remains intact so long as I am not a terrorist. You don't have to keep repeating it. We're all quite aware of your anti-American tendencies. Pardon me if I don't aquiesce to your urge to "give up" my right to privacy. And from the second sentence, I'm assuming that you're ok with abrogating the rights of terrorists: please explain how to tell the difference prior to violating any rights. Then we can have a discussion as to whether a system that fails to protect the rights of the guilty can guarantee the rights of the innocent.

Let me ask you this: would you be for a completely transparent system? Certainly not as you describe it. If you want to divulge everything that you have or do to the government, have at it, but don't volunteer me for it. Unless the government can show just cause to violate my rights to privacy, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, etc., they don't have any reason to look at anything that I have or do that I haven't made completely public.

It's no mystery, NikitaB, start at the preamble to the Constitution, and work your way through to the last page. That's a pretty good document, and one that I think we should adhere to. So far you haven't offered me a convincing argument that would change my mind about it.

You do not take into account technological progress.

So tell me, do people have a "right" to plot and execute strategies whose purpose is to kill innocent people?

BTW, you do realize that you are dealing with people described here?

do people have a "right" to plot and execute strategies whose purpose is to kill innocent people?

I reiterate: you're ok with abrogating the rights of terrorists: please explain how to tell the difference between "a terrorist" and "just a citizen" prior to violating any rights. Then we can have a discussion as to whether a system that fails to protect the rights of the guilty can guarantee the rights of the innocent.

Your question above treads a fine line between "thinking" and "plotting"-- does the government have the authority to control what people think? Do people derive their rights from the largesse of government? The most fundamental right of American citizens (indeed, the right upon which all else was built) is the right to be let alone by the government. the Court has consistently protected the constitutional right of privacy, put most famously by Justice Brandeis' words as "the right to be let alone-- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men." You're claiming that this right is inconsequential, since it's the "only" right that would be violated in pursuit of terrorists.

This is what makes you fundamentally anti-American.

As far as "technological progress", how many individuals have been killed by terrorists using conventional weapons in 2006? Now, how many have been killed by terrorists wielding WMD? Hmmm... doesn't seem as though they're making any progress, does it?

Wake me when you find online instructions for making an atomic bomb from household ingredients commonly found in the cabinet below the average person's sink.

you do realize that you are dealing with people described here? You do realize that not only do I realize it, but I really don't give a @!$%#? Should I be all a-quiver at the thought of the world's untold millions who hate Americans? Maybe fewer of them would hate us if we stopped indiscriminately bombing them every time one of their extremist neighbors called for a "jihad" on Pamela Anderson videos.

The world is full of whack-jobs. But there is a difference between being vigilant and being paranoid.

You dodged the question. I ask again: do people have a "right" to plot and execute strategies whose purpose is to kill innocent people? If your answer is no, then the question of how to deal with such people is a different problem.

Terrorist - for the sake of this discussion I propose that a terrorist is defined as someone who attempts to murder innocent people to achieve any goal.

There is also a difference between being vigilant and ignorant. Suggesting that something should not be feared simply because it has not happened in the past is idiotic. There was a time when large planes were not flown into buildings, there was a time when suicide bombers didn't blow themselves up in public places, there was a time before Saddam gassed the Kurds, there was a time before Jews were amassed and exterminanted.

I'm not dodging the question, friend, you're simply failing to get the point of my answer. People have a right to do anything that doesn't violate the rights of other people.

Now that your question is answered, I'll repeat myself yet a third time: please explain how to tell the difference between "a terrorist" and "just a citizen" prior to violating any rights. Then we can have a discussion as to whether a system that fails to protect the rights of the guilty can guarantee the rights of the innocent.

And to set you on a productive path, try separating the terms you've used ("plotting" and "executing"), and explain how the differences in the two terms suffice or fail to suffice in determining whether someone's rights have been or will be violated.

Suggesting that something should not be feared simply because it has not happened in the past is idiotic. The past is an imperfect indication of the future, but it's still an indication. Throwing history aside and saying that rampant speculation suffices for the abrogation of basic individual rights is neither wise nor warranted. You keep beating around the bush, but eventually you're going to have to answer the questions. The fact remains that large planes being flown into buildings was always a risk, and that risk was pointed at by more than one thing in history-- the collision of a plane with the Empire State Building in the early 20th century, Tom Clancy's fictional depiction of such in Debt of Honor, FBI reports, government risk assessments. Again, the problem was lack of power to violate privacy, it was lack of imagination and a failure to take known threats seriously that was the issue.

You're claiming that terrorists are on the verge of using WMD to wipe out masses of humanity, and all the available evidence suggests that you're wrong at a number of different levels. That doesn't mean that the threat should be neglected, nor have I counseled such, but it also doesn't mean that the threat demands the re-writing of all of America's foundational concepts about the rights of man and the role of government. You're perfectly happy to see it done, as long as none of the "good" people are "harmed", but you still haven't grasped that the violation of rights is a harm in and of itself.

1. What indication besides historical precedent do you have of WMD not being a threat? Have we already not had minor problems within US (anthrax) and have there not been instances of WMD being used on people (Iraq and the Kurds)?

2. Right to privacy vs. security - I agree that it's the chicken or the egg came first problem. Tell me something, if I show you that 1 is a real danger rather than my imagination, would you then be willing to acknowledge that it's ok to give up privacy for security provided that mechanisms are in place to prevent abuse of this system that would result in negative consequences for its members (besides invasion of privacy).

To give you an example, I would be more than happy with complete video/audio monitoring of dangerous areas to reduce crime provided that the information collected is only accessible to humans if a crime takes place.

What indication besides historical precedent do you have of WMD not being a threat? The most successful "WMD" attack ever perpetrated by a terrorist group was the sarin gas attack in the Tokyo subway in 1995. It killed 12 and severely injured 50. The year before that, they pulled the same stunt in Matsumoto, Japan, killing 7 and injuring 200. Aum Shin Rikyo attempted ten attacks prior to that, and injured no one but themselves. Insurgents in Iraq have attempted to use chlorine in attacks, but to date, with several such bombings having taken place, all deaths have been caused by the explosives used to instigate the attack, and none by chlorine. Ancillary injuries, while perhaps frightening to the sufferers, were non life-threatening. Other than Aum Shin Rikyo, there has been no successful use of chemical weapons to inflict death or serious injury on a civilian population by any terrorist group.

The vaunted anthrax attacks in the US killed 5 and injured 17. Other than this, no terrorists have ever succesfully used biological weapons to inflict any deaths or injury on a civilian population. Aum Shin Rikyo toyed with developing biological agents, and couldn't pull it off.

No terrorist organization, or indeed non-governmental group has succeeded in building a nuclear weapon.

By comparison, yesterday a suicide bomber exploded a truck in Bagdhad and killed 20 people, injuring dozens more. In February, a suicide bomber killed 23 people outside the US base in Bagram. March 5th, killed 16 and injured 30; March 6, killed 30 and injured 60; March 14th, killed 8 and injured 25; March 19, killed 6 and wounded 32; all these with conventional weapons and easily available explosives.

Should we be vigilant in assessing terrorists' WMD capabilities? Yes. Does it constitute a threat requiring rewriting the Constitution? No.

if I show you that 1 is a real danger rather than my imagination, would you then be willing to acknowledge that it's ok to give up privacy for security provided that mechanisms are in place to prevent abuse of this system You don't have to show that it's a Real danger, I already agree to its possibility. What you have to show is that it is a serious and likely danger. Do that and I'd happily discuss what sorts of legitimate tradeoffs might be necessary.

link

Doesn't that just make you want to spit nails? It's even worse when you've had a string of seeds that haven't done anything then someone else puts your same story and it's on fire. Total bummer. ='(

I agree. I like the concept of the doppelganger, but it has to work.

Whoops -- meant to post this down here:

I'm not sure that it affects the way the AP threads come in, though.

I believe all of the AP wire stuff comes in -- it's not like someone seeded this.

why didn't they resign yet? hmm...

serving at the 'pleasure of the president' speaks volumes...

check this out.

Ya know, even though I'm a "neocon" or whatever moniker people wanna use, I've not ever really liked Gonazales. I would certainly support him stepping down if nothing else but to get someone better for the job.