Loosened rules allow FBI to assess threats without evidence of crime

Associated Press ^ | 11-05-03

[Brian S]

WASHINGTON (November 5, 2:51 p.m. AST) - The FBI will be able to check a person's background for potential terrorist activities more easily under national security guidelines issued Wednesday by Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Civil libertarians said the rules could invite abuses against innocent people.

[_Jim]

Be afraid - be VERY afraid!

(The world needs more 'fraids'.)

[_Jim]

The FBI still would have to get court approval in terrorism and espionage cases for a more intrusive technique such as a wiretap or search warrant.

Ahhh .... I think I can sleep tonight ...

[_Jim]

The FBI will be allowed to collect information on "individuals, groups and organizations of possible investigative interest"

On the ONE hand - you've got nuts and the potential for NUTS to attack infrastructure like the POWER system - (no?) -

- so how HAMSTRUNG are you going to make law enforcement while you Bi*** and moan about the possibilty of power being out for weeks!!??

[longtermmemmory]

"mere suspicion" this is not good.

There has to be safeguards (plural)

[Paul C. Jesup]

Does this include the list the FBI keeps of 2 million americans who belongs to 2 or more political groups?

[Brian S]

Or political "internet forums"... LOL! ;)

[Asclepius]

Civil libertarians said the rules could invite abuses against innocent people.

When the rules invite abuses against civil libertarians I will support them wholeheartedly.

[livius]

Not a bad idea. Remember, the FBI essentially refused to do anything about some of the information sent to it pre-9/11, because none of the people named had actually committed crimes at that time.

It's going to inconvenience some people (probably including me, because I travel a lot and had my passport stolen and I'm sure it's now circulating somewhere in the terrorist world). But the thing with terrorism is that you've got to stop it BEFORE it happens, and not just clean up the mess afterwards.

And as for keeping the FBI under control, I think we have to be vigilant. Right now I'm not worried. But under Clinton, we had the full force of the Federal Government turned against abortion protesters and Cuban refugee children. In the meantime, Muslim terrorists were preparing (almost blatantly) to do what they were loudly declaring they were going to do - and the FBI and every other security agency ignored them.

We've got to make sure that doesn't happen again.

[ShadowDancer]

But Justice Department officials said FBI actions under the revised guidelines remain under supervision of both the department and Congress, and that agents still would have to observe all constitutional and legal protections.

This is being monitored by both the Feds and Congress? Well, gee, then it's all above board then. I feel much better.

[resistmuch]

As a lawyer who follows this subject closely, I can assure you that these powers will be used more zealously against white nationalists, abortion protestors, and other groups associated with the domestic right than against legitimate terrorist targets.

[neverdem]

I'm not too comfy with this, especially if a rat becomes POTUS.

[Ramius]

Do any of those groups merit the attention of the FBI? Seems to me that those who bomb abortion clinics, as abhorrent as those places are, should be caught and prosecuted.

In re-reading this... I guess I don't really see what is so much different. "Suspicion" has always been the reason to start an investigation. Big deal?

[jmc813]

(The world needs more 'fraids'.)

No, that's exactly the problem. We have become a femmed out society that feels we need a nanny government to protect us from the scary boogeymen. Pretty sad, really.

[alpowolf]

We have become a femmed out society that feels we need a nanny government to protect us from the scary boogeymen.

Indeed. Anyone who objects will subjected to the same tiresome litany of all the terrible things that will happen if the govt doesn't get these "tools".

But I wonder: is there anybody on FR who doesn't agree that Bill Clinton could have stopped OBL dead in his tracks, if he had just acted? I find the evidence of his failure pretty convincing. Yet, he didn't have a "Patriot" Act.

[2nd_Amendment_Defender]

The guidelines enable the FBI to conduct a "threat assessment" of potential terrorists or terrorist activity without initial evidence of a crime or national security threat, as required to begin a more formal preliminary or full investigation.

Meanwhile, millions of undocumented illegal immigrants run about the country and thousands more pour over our unsecure borders while the Federal Police get a few more powers. The Border Patrol need more equipment and man power than anything else to make this nation more secure.

[Ramius]

While you're right about certain parts of the nanny state syndrome, of course, I would not automatically agree that adjusting the rules of engagement for the FBI is by-definition a bad thing.

If we are going to hold them responsible for intercepting terrorist ops before they happen (which many here seem to do, especially WRT 9-11) then we must be ready to give them the tools they need to get the job done.

With this story, and back including the Patriot Act, I have yet to actually find anything that trips my *very* sensitive trigger of constitutionality.

Searches and wiretaps still require a warrant issued by a judge. There is still administrative and congressional oversight. Would I trust a dem administration under these current rules? Sure... to the extent that I could trust a dem admin under *any* rules.

[mrsmith]

I must say it's always nice to see claims of authority on the internet.

As a leading member of the Illuminatti, and therefore always right, I encourage everyone to believe everything they read on the internet!

[Ramius]

I'm all for giving the Border Patrol all manner of new funding and assets to do their job. Certainly they need it.

We have to be careful to be realistic about what's *possible* though. The U.S. has 22,000 miles of borders, including shorelines. Saying we should "seal" the borders is pretty much like saying we should "seal" the equator. That would only by 2,000 more miles to secure. There's an argument to be made that the equator would be easier to defend than our many, many miles of coastline and forested mountainous borders.

[jonatron]

In addition to what you said, I wonder what a democrat administration would do with all these and other increased powers.