BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Jun 02 - 10:13 PM

Naemanson! You're brilliant! Now we know how to fight the war on terrorism! All we have to do is get the terrorists set up with a really cumbersome bureaucratic system like ours, and they'll never get anything done ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Jun 02 - 10:50 PM

But, CarolC, how does one teach something like that!

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Jun 02 - 11:04 PM

Oohhh! Good question. Naemanson, how do we do that?

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Hrothgar
Date: 06 Jun 02 - 12:34 AM

Back to basics - the FBI are those wonderful people who gave you J. Edgar Hoover.

Or was it the other way around?

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Jun 02 - 02:04 AM

You're right, Hrothgar. I believe the FBI was Jedgar's baby.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Naemanson
Date: 06 Jun 02 - 10:38 AM

Hmm, TEACH bureaucracy.... What a horrible thought.

I think you have to plant bureaucracy. It's like kudzu. It takes root and grows on its own.

I was listening to NPR earlier and they were talking about the FBI's request for more funds and staff to be able to do their jobs better. Does this sound familiar?

Think about education. Way back when Congress was talking about funding education the Republicans argued that throwing more money at a problem was not the solution. They said schools needed to do their jobs more efficiently.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: leprechaun
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 01:23 AM

For me a target rich environment is one where I have thirty different people I could indict next week if I only spend six hours writing the affidavit, two hours putting together the operations plan, one hour briefing the team, and four hours searching the house, then six to twenty hours examining the evidence and writing the arrest report. That's a minimum of seventeen hours, not counting the hours my teammates spend helping me, for which I have to reciprocate on their cases. And they each have thirty people they'd like to arrest on their case loads. So ten investigators times thirty targets times seventeen hours or more, and we have only forty hours a week to do it. A lot of well deserving, truly evil targets get left out. And I'm supposed to take a break from that to spy on Quakers? Don't flatter yourself, I need something that will keep me awake.

But what if I get there, knock and announce, wait the required twenty to thirty seconds, kick in the door, handcuff everybody, and then I don't find anything. Maybe they sold it all yesterday. Maybe they burned it in the fireplace. Maybe they flushed it while I was waiting the federally required twenty to thirty seconds. Maybe it's all at one of their other houses. Or buried in the mountains. I can have all the probable cause in the world, but if my timing isn't right, the evil person not only walks, but they get to accuse me of violating their rights.

That's OK. I expect that from evil people. They can sue me, but I think my affidavit will stand.

But the aforementioned blindly predisposed folks are out there. They can get themselves on TV, they can get themselves on a jury, they can write letters to the editor, they can even be the editor. I will not get a fair shake from them.

And if one of those twenty-nine other people I knew about but didn't get to this week happens to sell heroin to somebody's daughter and she overdoses; if one of those twenty-nine other people gets all cranked up and beats his girlfriend's four year old to death, if one of them puts together a meth lab that blows up and burns down an apartment house; who's the first one to sceam about me not doing my job?

You know who.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: mousethief
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 01:28 AM

SOMEbody has a persecution complex.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 07:05 AM

Alex. You just heard the truth from someone who knows. The situation is, all our law enforcement and military agencies are charged with dealing with a multinational guerrilla organization, which does not follow any acceptable rules of engagement and levels of force. No one wants to infringe on civil liberty, but they will at some point need to have defined tools (which may temporarily exceed their present mandates) in order to combat an unconvetional form of warfare. If the American Gov. does not give them the ability to respond it will lead to a no win situation for them. Personally, I hope they get what they need. semper fi

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: GUEST,Neil
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 07:37 AM

More like caveat emptor.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 10:26 AM

Neil, I forget the Latin term (maybe a resident leagle beagle can post it) but in French it would be Client,qui va en profiter? Buyer,Who benefits?

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: leprechaun
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 10:58 AM

If you're not doing anything wrong, but you think the FBI is following you around, then you have a persecution complex.

Try muzzling your guard dog, locking him in the basement, and beating him when he barks. Then beat him some more when the coyotes raid your henhouse.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: mousethief
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 12:14 PM

And everybody knows that NOBODY is ever arrested, convicted, or executed in this country who isn't guilty.

No wait. I guess we don't know that.

Maybe merely not doing anything wrong isn't good enough.

Naaaaaaah.

alex

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 12:37 PM

Alex... Doing nothing will be disasterous..

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: mousethief
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 01:14 PM

And that's how it is too, isn't it? All or nothing. Either we give away every last freedom we still have, or we sit and do nothing. No middle ground. No -say- attemping to bridge the communications gap between various federal agencies. Just give them all the power they ask for, and then we'll all be safe.

alex

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 02:45 PM

"If you're not doing anything wrong, but you think the FBI is following you around, then you have a persecution complex."

Really? In 1957, after (presumable) investigating me and apparently finding me to be relatively innocuous, two FBI agents came out to my house several times and tried to persuade me to tell them everything I knew about a long list of my friends and acquaintances. They also offered me "compensation" to attend certain meetings—and parties, including hootenannies—and keep tabs on certain people. Among the people they wanted me to watch and report on were three Quakers (one of whom was Walt Robertson, a Conscientious Objector who got drafted anyway), a teen-age girl whose grandfather had been a member of the IWW, and the daughter of a University of Washington philosophy professor whom Washington State's infamous Canwell Committee had tried to get fired for being, in their minds, too liberal in his views. I declined, telling them that all I wanted to do was get on with my music, and on the fourth visit they thanked me for my time and didn't come back.

Shortly thereafter, several new people showed up on Seattle's folk music scene. The scene was growing anyway, but one couldn't help but wonder which one (or more) of these new people. . . ? Is it really a "persecution complex" when you know damned well that you're being watched?

What was I doing wrong at the time that the FBI would want to investigate me in the first place? I was learning folk songs, I was taking lessons from a classic guitar teacher, I was earning a little spending money by giving guitar lessons, I was making arrangements to change my major at the U. of W. from English Lit. to Music, and I was singing everywhere I got the chance. The only organization I belonged to at the time was the YMCA, so I could go swimming. Oh, yes! I did vote for Adlai Stevenson!

I've been there and seen them in action. And I have no reason to believe that things have changed that much since then.

Now, I know that law enforcement is a hell of a nasty job. And I'm grateful that there are people out there who are willing to do it. But I've seen what "a gun and a badge" (even if only figurative) can do to the outlook of a lot of people (and not just the aforementioned FBI agents) who take up the profession, and this convinces me that the constitutional protections that private citizens have must never be eroded, no matter how expedient it may be in special circumstances like those we are under now. If we let those protections go, we'll never get them back.

And if that happens, the terrorists will have won.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 02:52 PM

Keep talking, Don Firth. Education is the only way we will learn- and keep on learning.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: DougR
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 03:25 PM

Don, I can understand your concerns because you feel your rights were trampled on, but that was then, this is now. As Guest pointed out, this is a different enemy and were are not talking about hootenannies, we are talking about folks who want to kill us.

The FBI has far more important things to do these days than harrass folksingers.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: InOBU
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 03:31 PM

And you say WE live a dream world DougR???????
Thanks Don... holding you in the light for doing the right thing,
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: mousethief
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 03:37 PM

Regardless of the enemy, the constitutional protections of our freedoms (what we have left of them, anyway) are not to be traded away to "get" the bad guys. The right to a trial by peers, for instance, or habeas corpus, weren't meant just for the innocent. They were for everybody.

Shrubmeister and his flunkie Ashhole have done everything they could in the short time they've had to undermine personal freedoms and sell our country to the oil industry (that latter mentioned to acknowledge that the undermining of freedoms hasn't been their only goal). The "war" against terrorism is a ready-made excuse to take yet more of our precious freedoms away.

Rollerball, anyone?

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Naemanson
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 03:55 PM

My goodness, this discussion has gone on while I was away. We have Leprechaun whose over whelming paperwork keeps him from protecting us though he is in a "target rich environment". We have Don Firth whose experience is that the FBI wasn't all that concened with criminals but was concerned with watching the subversive elements of nonconformity. And we have Guest who apparently believes we should unleash the FBI so they can protect us from those evil Islamic terrorists. Does that about sum it up?

Where to begin? Let's combine Larry's concern about the FBI checking out Quaker meetings with Guest's determination that the law isn't concerned with a few Quakers. After 9/11 he's probably right. Quakers aren't likely to oppose anything but violence and the FBI's resources are stretched tight. BUT the FBI does want to attend meetings of Islamic groups. Isn't that like checking up on the Quakers? Only we all "know" that every Muslim in the USA is out to emulate their brothers and knock down another tower. So it must be all right to spy on them. Hey! That's a target rich environment.

But it ain't so. Some of those "evil" ones are really just American citizens being persecuted because some people who share a similar religion went way too far. Others are people visiting this country for good reasons, rational reasons, and would be horrified to be invited to participate in such actions.

And a very tiny percentage of those who follow Islam are truly evil.

So here we go, persecuting a whole segment of the population of this country to find a few bad apples. Does that sound right to you? Reawaken Joe McCarthy and his cronies to ride again.

And, before you justify it with some vague arguments please note that the SECOND worst terrorist act in the USA was commited in Oklahoma City by... a US citizen! And that one took people by surprise too.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 04:02 PM

Naemanson. You trivialise what was being said, a cheap attempt at demonising the responders. There is a big difference between unleashing the FBI and what I suggested as giving them some tools to respond to the current threat. Unconventional warfare requires greater liason and cohesion of the various civil and military agencies. Bureaucracy can be painfully debilitating and destructive to this process. some mandates (US military) will require significant changes to allow it to respond when requested. These powers are to be held in check by the elected officials of your country. If you have no faith in the ability of your military, and elected officials to govern, I think you should become a refugee and leave.

FBI agent says bureaucracy hurt war on terrorism Last Updated Fri, 07 Jun 2002 11:26:55 WASHINGTON - An FBI agent told U.S. politicians Thursday that bureaucracy is hampering the war on terrorism and some agents are so afraid of criticism from headquarters that they aren't doing their jobs properly.

INDEPTH: Target Terrorism:US Homefront

Colleen Rowley Coleen Rowley has become the best-known whistleblower in the United States since she wrote a 13-page letter to her boss last month, accusing FBI bureaucrats of fumbling opportunities that could have prevented the terror attacks last September.

"I really do care about the FBI. I've invested almost half my life in it," she told a Senate judiciary committee.

Last August, her request to investigate Zacharias Moussaoui was ignored by FBI headquarters.

Moussaoui was supposed to have been the 20th hijacker in the Sept. 11 terror attack. He's in jail awaiting trial.

Robert Mueller (file photo)

Earlier in the day, FBI Director Robert Mueller told the committee that the failure to act on Rowley's memo was one of the reasons the FBI has to be shaken up from top to bottom.

"The need for change was apparent even before Sept. 11. It has become more urgent since then,'' he said.

JOIN THE DISCUSSION: How have the events of September 11th affected your life?

And he agreed the agency's structure is a problem. "The bureaucracy is frustrating," he said.

Mueller said the FBI needs to devote more of its resources to prevention. He has announced a major restructuring of the agency.

FROM JUNE 3, 2002: CIA accused of Sept. 11 intelligence error

FROM MAY 30, 2002: FBI changes to fight terrorism

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: leprechaun
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 05:25 PM

All of Neamanson's hyperbole ony serves to demonstrate why I need to spend so much time writing that affidavit, and collecting the evidence beforehand. Mere probable cause will get me the warrant, but I'd be stupid to go for mere probable cause. I'm not going to bet my job on mere probable cause. I better amass a mountain of evidence before I act.

Mousethief is absolutely right about innocent people getting convicted in this country. That could very easily include an FBI agent who secures a search warrant for Moussaoui's apartment and computer, and then finds himself in court for violating Moussaoui's civil rights. Indeed, all they would have found was a little information about crop dusting and aviation. (plausible lie ahead) Of course the only slightly illegal immigrant was merely trying to learn things to help the oppressed people in his native land. As a defendant in a civil rights trial, how do think that FBI agent would fare with Mousethief, Naemanson, Inobu, Peace Matriot and Don Firth on the jury?

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 05:31 PM

Can an FBI agent or any other law inforcement officer be convicted of civil rights abuse if he or she has a legally obtained search warrant prior to conducting the search?

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 06:17 PM

That's not a good way to ask the question. Let me rephrase:

Can an FBI agent or any other law enforcement officer be convicted of civil rights abuse for conducting a search of a home or computer for which he or she has a legally obtained search warrent?

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: DougR
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 06:37 PM

I wouldn't think so, Carol C, but I'm sure some of our lawyer friends can best comment on that.

Leprechaun: I wouldn't give that FBI agent much of a chance with the jury you named.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 08:02 PM

You're missing the point, Doug. Whether it's then or now makes no difference.

Back then, the Powers That Be perceived the threat of the government being overthrown by force and violence as just as real as the threat of terrorist attacks today. To forestall this, they kept tabs on people they regarded as suspicious. Just like today.

Both then and now, the Powers That Be insist that they be released from constitutional restrictions so they can be free to pursue the country's enemies more effectively. Back then it was a college student with a guitar. Now it's a dark-haired, dark-eyed young man who attends a mosque regularly. Both then and now, it's a "target rich environment."

Right now, and for who knows how long into the future, we are under threat—from terrorists and God knows what other kind of crazies that are out there (somebody mentioned Timothy McVeigh). Again (still) the Powers That Be are demanding that they be released from the constitutional restrictions so they can track the terrorists down and stop them. And if we do drop the constitutional restrictions, how long they stay down? Until we know for certain that the terrorists and the crazies have been rooted out, of course!

And when will that be?

The point of terrorism is to spread terror. Looks like they're doing a pretty good job of it. Especially if they can induce us to destroy our own system.

And, leprechaun and DougR, where the hell do you get off presuming to think you know my mind and how I would vote on such a jury? I see that you've both condemned me already, which goes a long way toward proving my point!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 08:08 PM

By the way, if the FBI agent in question had obtained a search warrant prior to his search, then he would be acting legally. And on that basis, I would vote to acquit.

I say again, you prove my point.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 09:39 PM

I would be honored to be on that jury with the ones you mentioned and some other 'Catters you haven't mentioned, leprechaun, because I would know that these are thinking people who are aware of the futility of some of the 'solutions' to the problems that have historically beset us and are looking at fresh ways of thinking, and asking questions, and judging and just plain seeing.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Naemanson
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 11:25 PM

Guest

"Naemanson. You trivialise what was being said, a cheap attempt at demonising the responders."

I'm not trying to either trivialize or demonize. I am trying to contribute to a reasonable discussion on the power needed to protect us from terrorists. We quite obviously do not agree so I am trying to explain my misgivings to you to show why freeing the FBI to hunt down the evil ones is a bad idea.

"Unconventional warfare requires greater liason and cohesion of the various civil and military agencies."

I couldn't agree more. If you want to increase funding to allow all the law enforcement agencies to better communicate amongst themselves then by all means go for it. Even I would vote for that legislation. I would argue that it would be easier for each aganciy to do their job if such a system were in place. So that is not where we disagree.

"These powers are to be held in check by the elected officials of your country. If you have no faith in the ability of your military, and elected officials to govern, I think you should become a refugee and leave."

Well, I'm not going anywhere just yet. Running is unpatriotic. I will stand and raise my voice against the restrictions of freedom and the persecution of the innocent. That is patriotism of the highest degree. I trust the ABILITY of the military to do its job. I work for a military agency and the people I work with are fine human beings and wonderful Americans. But the military is run by the civilian we elected to the highest office in the land. And I don't trust our "elected officials" to do what's right unless they know the people are watching them. To that end I require full and open disclosure of the process of government. As long as their actions are in the public eye they will be reasonably honest.

leprechaun:

"All of Neamanson's hyperbole ony serves to demonstrate why I need to spend so much time writing that affidavit, and collecting the evidence beforehand. Mere probable cause will get me the warrant, but I'd be stupid to go for mere probable cause. I'm not going to bet my job on mere probable cause. I better amass a mountain of evidence before I act."

I think what I am hearing is someone who believes his job is nabbing the bad guys but not doing the paperwork. There is a tone that indicates that the paperwork is difficult and has a negative impact on the job. Yet, how do you prove that the person in your cell is the real bad guy? Just because you believe him to be bad doesn't justify taking him out of circulation, or investing in a secret investigation.

You HAVE to gather the evidence to do that because he is innocent until you prove him guilty. Our nation is built on the belief that people are innocent until PROVEN guilty. If you want another form of law enforcement, such as the person is guilty until proven innocent, then you need to go to another country. I think France is, or was, under that system...

And, if I were on that jury the FBI agent, having used a legal search warrant, and having treated Mr. M with some modicum of human dignity, would not have anything to worry about. Actually we would not need that jury to try the agent. What you are failing to see is that we are not concerned with the FBI doing its job as long as they stay within the rules. And the rules are there because the FBI, and other agencies, once abused their power and needed to be reined in.

Spend money on the system. Improve communications. Give them computers and databases and guns and anything else they want to do their job. But DON'T, please God, take away the restrictions that protect us from our own system. The people who are doing that job are only human. They make mistakes. Under the current system the mistakes are minimized and innocent people are more or less protected. I agree the restrictions make the job more difficult but that's just life. If it was easy and fun they'd call it play.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: leprechaun
Date: 08 Jun 02 - 02:18 AM

Apparently I'm not being clear. A dark-haired person in a mosque is not a target. A dark-haired person in a mosque trying to collect anthrax is a target. An old man in an internet chat room is not a target. An old man downloading kiddie porn is a target. A latino immigrant working at Taco Bell is not a target. A latino immigrant working at Taco Bell and driving a Lincoln Navigator, wire-transferring three thousand dollars a week and wearing a six-hundred dollar cowboy hat is a target.

I love my paperwork. I take great pride in my affidavits. My affidavits kick ass. It wouldn't be as much fun to catch the bad guys without the constitutional protections, which I myself might need some day. (When the vegans outlaw meat)

But I take my time. I amass a lot of evidence before I arrest anybody. So does that FBI agent. He ain't gonna write no skinny warrant. Ebbie's jury ain't gonna get a shot at him. He wouldn't be any happier going to prison or losing his retirement because somebody was proud to be on jury with a bunch of folks who hate Republicans.

He isn't timid, but he knows which way the wind blows. He knows what the law allows, and what it limits. That's the way you want it. That's the way a lot of people want it. O.K. That's not a bad thing. We're still enjoying ourselves.

But it's really really really chickenshit for anybody to even suggest the FBI could have stopped the hijackers if only they had done their job.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: InOBU
Date: 08 Jun 02 - 02:26 AM

You know lep, seems he'd have better chance on a jury with me on it, than I would with a jury with you on it. You ignore all that I say, about ... for example, being infavor of the FBI doing its job WITH CONSTITUTIONAL CHECKS, that document YOU swore to uphold... well, in fact, old skin, I was on a jury which tried a State Liquor cop for shaking down store owners. The case hung on wether or not he opened his brief case at one point, letting a store owner see his gun, that would have proved a witness's story true.
I was the last hold out for an entire day, giving the cop the benifit of the doupt, believing that it was not a huge stretch to assume a liquor agent had a fire arm in his brief case.
When they come after peace churchs, will you show us the concern we show your rights? I hope so, kiddo,
By the way, a federal agent denying rights do to a bad search has little to fear in the way of santions of the law, other than his case going south... so it is a rather odd hypothetical... Well good luck any old way... Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: DougR
Date: 08 Jun 02 - 02:30 AM

Leprechaun: wasted breath, I fear. These folks are convinced that the FBI is out to get 'em, and no words from you, I, or anyone else is going to convince them otherwise. I'm outta here.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Naemanson
Date: 08 Jun 02 - 06:50 AM

I guess we don't disagree after all, Lep. We both want the restrictions in place. Thank you for taking the time to do the paper side of your job and for doing it right.

(Actually we do not take the time to thank our cops often enough. It would have been nice to say thanks to the cops and firefighters who died on 9/11 while they could still hear us. Give me roses while I yet live...)

Larry, please don't let your anger cloud your posts. We are trying to have a civilized discussion here and I would hate to see it dissolve into name calling and finger pointing. I agree completely with your concerns and fears. I don't believe I have ever been the target of the FBI so I can't quite feel your emotion but I can understand it, I think.

Doug, your post indicates that you aren't listening and hearing what we (the liberals) are saying. We are worried and concerned. Some of what has been said by the conservative viewpoint (in this thread and in 3d land) has only served to exacerbate those worries. We are looking at history and asking someone to reassure us that it won't be repeated. So far nobody has been able to give us that assurance. The best anyone can do is tell us to trust our elected officials.

The problem with that is our elected officials have let us down too often in the past. Those of us who remember the Viet Nam era, Watergate, Joe MacCarthy, etc., know that those people in charge will do whatever they can to shape the world to their own personal vision.

Our President is one of those people (aren't they all?). He thinks the American public wants what he does. He forgets that he lost the popular election. He has no mandate from the people to put his vision in place. Fewer than half the voters supported him before 9/11.

My concern is that with the war on terrorism his popularity has increased. And, with every new terrorist threat he announces more and more people see him as standing between the terrorists and the falling towers.

But how many of those threats are real? It is suspicious to me that the timing seems to coincide with every fresh criticism of the administration. Without being able to see evidence of the threats he could be manipulating the people and keeping them on edge to ensure he gets re-elected and gets the mandate he couldn't get honestly.

That scares the hell out of me because his vision does not include people who dare to question him. And he will use the FBI and whatever other agency he has or can create to get rid of those subversives.

Can you see now the source of our worries?

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: InOBU
Date: 08 Jun 02 - 08:22 AM

Anger? Name calling??????? Old skin? Lep? What name calling? I must be a wee bit missunderstood here! In Ireland old skin is a term of endearment! Trouble with e-conversations is folks often missread the feeling behind the writing, the above is not said in anger, rather, I was responding to Leprachan saying that as a juror I would be prejudiced against cops... not the case. Cheers Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Naemanson
Date: 08 Jun 02 - 08:30 AM

Oh, sorry about that, Larry.

I was just concerned because you have some important contributions to make to this thread and I'd hate to see them get swept aside in a spate of name calling and finger pointing. The surveillance of the Quakers, to me, is synonymous to the surveillance of the Islamic groups. However, the Quakers are known for their devotion to peace. I don't think I've ever heard of a militant Quaker...

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Naemanson
Date: 08 Jun 02 - 08:31 AM

However that would be a great name for a band, The Militant Quakers.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: InOBU
Date: 08 Jun 02 - 10:14 AM

Unfortunaltly there where a few, Nixon, well a Quaker who made war and lied etc... then I believe a majority of our Friends joined the army in WWII, not as non-combatants... as far as Quakers militancy, that, thank god has not happened, no Spanish inquisision! We may be an anti FBI hate group (only KIDDING!!! guys....) but we are nice about it... Cheers Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: DougR
Date: 08 Jun 02 - 12:45 PM

Naemanson: I do understand your point of view. Total mistrust of govenment leaders, total distrust of government. Rather than seeing the glass half full, the glass is half empty.

It is true that in the election Bush did not win the popular vote. However, he won the election because we do not choose our presidents by popular vote as you well know. I am of the opinion that the majority of the American people DO support Bush and his policies in realtion to handling the terrorist threat. Why? Because his popularity rating has constantly remained 70+% since 9/11. If the majority of the American people were opposed to his policies, his popularity would plummet. You seem to put great store in the value of the popular vote, therefore, I would think you would recognize the value of popularity polls.

I believe that law abiding citizens have nothing to fear from the FBI. True, there were abuses of power in the past, but as has been pointed out in this thread, the purpose for those abuses was to ensure J. Edgar he would continue to have a job. Those days are long gone, I believe.

Another point we will disagree on probably is the need for profiling. The terrorist acts in the past have not been committed by 80 year old grandmothers, they have been committed by middle easterners between the ages of 17 and 40. Airport screeners should cease making detailed searches of grandmothers, former governors of states, who are also Medal of Honor winners, and concentrate on middle eastern males between the ages of 17 and 40.

You, and probably the majority of those contributiing to this thread probably believe otherwise. That's fine with me. You have as much right to an opinion as I do. So the one thing we might agree on is that right. The right to disagree.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Jun 02 - 02:10 PM

First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

—Reinhold Niemoller

Just a thought. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: InOBU
Date: 08 Jun 02 - 03:51 PM

Holding you Don, and Reinhold in the light... well remembered... Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Naemanson
Date: 08 Jun 02 - 08:10 PM

Let me explain what I meant about the election. I do not want to reopen that debate. He won and that's all there is to it.

Bush did not win the popular election. To me that means he did not have the confidence of a majority of the people. He needed something to win that confidence. Along comes al Qaida and the towers fell. Suddenly he has a mission. He has something to hang his hat on. As long as he can show he is fighting his war on terorism the people will support him.

If that was as far as it goes I wouldn't have a problem with it. Unfortunately he is using the situation to push his conservative agenda down our throats. (Remember less than half of us wanted that agenda to start with.) Now he can justify those agenda items that people worried about in November 2000 by shouting "Terrorist!" whenever he needs to push something through. And whenever someone in authority questions the administration and its methods there is another announcement of a new "credible threat" but no details are ever provided.

In this day and age of TV and electronic media the population is easy to manipulate. But you have to remember the proverb, "You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time." As long as he can keep the population believing that there are terrorists around every corner then he will be able to keep his place. And he has a very good public relations bureau to help him keep tabs on what the people are thinking and doing. (No politician worth his salt would dare not have good public relations bureau, liberals and conservatives alike.)

So as long as he can fool the people and keep them guessing he will be all right. I am looking forward to the day that they announce another credible threat and the people say, "Not this time, buddy."

By the way, I know I might be wrong. This just may be paranoia. But I was raised to question authority. We live in a society built on the free and open exchange of ideas and information. At some point in the next 50 years the files will be opened and we will find out who is right. I hope I am here to see the results.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Jun 02 - 08:51 PM

True, there were abuses of power in the past, but as has been pointed out in this thread, the purpose for those abuses was to ensure J. Edgar he would continue to have a job.

DougR, I'm curious to know why you would believe that J. Edgar is all that unusual in his misuse of power in order to protect his job. Isn't that a really big part of the reason the founding fathers of this country created so many constitutional protections and separations of power? Because they knew that it isn't unusual at all for people to behave that way, and that the only way for us to be protected from that sort of thing is through constitutional protections and separations of power?

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: DougR
Date: 08 Jun 02 - 09:05 PM

J. Edgar used his power to blackmail presidents and other politicians. He would have been long gone years ago if presidents hadn't feared him for what he might reveal about them.

I do not believe directors who have followed JEH have abused their power. If you feel otherwise, Carol C., I'd like some instances.

Naemanson: I think, as long as the Democrats have even a slim majority in the senate, you don't have to worry too much about Bush's agenda. The Congress (read Daschle and crew) are not so impressed with the president's popularity ratings that they are going to allow legislation to pass that they don't like. Now, if the Republicans regain a majority in November, you have ample cause to get concerned (and I of course will rejoice).

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Jun 02 - 09:20 PM

I wasn't speaking about any specific people, DougR. I was saying that the understanding I have is that the founding fathers, in their wisdom, created constitutional protections and separations of power because they knew that people often misuse power in order to preserve power. It seems to me that to compromise or weaken those protections invites the possibility that someone now, or in the future, will misuse power for the purpose of preserving power.

In other words, DougR, why don't you trust the wisdom of the founding fathers when they set us up with those protections?

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Jun 02 - 09:36 PM

And DougR, we - the people- didn't know about Hoover until after his death... What will we learn in future about others?

:)

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: DougR
Date: 08 Jun 02 - 10:01 PM

I think it was pretty common knowledge among the politicians, Ebbie, for years. Whether or not the general population knew about it is probably beside the point. He wasn't going to blackmail any of us. Even had we known, there would have been little the general population could do about it.

But I don't won't to rain on your parade, if you are convinced that you can't trust your government, be my guest! :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Jun 02 - 10:19 PM

Well, at least those of us with some healthy skepticism about the human beings who aspire to govern will be in some excellent company! George Washington... Thomas Jefferson... Benjamin Franklin... etc... etc...

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Naemanson
Date: 08 Jun 02 - 11:01 PM

Carol and Ebbie, those are some good points.

Doug, why do you trust our fearless leaders? What have they done that endears them to your heart?

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Jun 02 - 01:04 AM

"Whether or not the general population knew about it is probably beside the point."

Doug, that is very much the point.

Don Firth