posted on June 13, 2002 07:37:29 AM new
In opposition to the Bush administration, Congressional leaders, even some of the most conservative Republican ones, are considering shifting some or all of the FBI and CIA, but especially the FBI it would seem, to the supervision of Homeland Security. I wonder what brought those concerns to the surface?
posted on June 13, 2002 08:05:51 AM new
I'd say that one of them made it as plain as could be, in light of the roller's actions, when he said ""There is a real benefit to keeping the counterterrorism and domestic spying aspects housed in an agency that understands what it means to operate within the rule of law,"
posted on June 13, 2002 08:54:13 AM new
Yes, I suspect that Ashcroft's blunder was the last straw for Dick Armey and others. They're really caught in a hell of a position in needing to appear to publically support a technically Republican president and to keep from losing the support of their brighter conservative constituency at home. I'd like to think that some still retain a little moral fibre and reason also, but maybe just the former will suffice.
sp
[ edited by antiquary on Jun 13, 2002 08:55 AM ]
posted on June 13, 2002 09:39:15 AM new
Very strange times!
Too many remember or have become educated in the abuses of J. Edgar to assume mere incompetence.
posted on June 13, 2002 10:19:48 AM new
This is an interesting story comparing J.Edgar Hoover with John Ashcroft.
The [new] guidelines emphasize that the FBI must not be deprived of using all lawful authorized methods in investigations, consistent with the Constitution. —Attorney General John Ashcroft, New York Daily News, May 31
In reality, Mr. Ashcroft, in the name of fighting terrorism, [is] giving FBI agents nearly unbridled power to poke into the affairs of anyone in the United States, even where there is no evidence of illegal activity. —Editorial, New York Times, May 31
As usual, television—broadcast and cable—got it wrong. The thrust of what they call reporting on the reorganization of the FBI focused on the 900 or so new agents, the primacy of intelligence gathering over law enforcement, and the presence of CIA supervisors within the bosom of the FBI. (It used to be illegal for the CIA to spy on Americans within our borders.)
But the poisonous core of this reorganization is its return to the time of J. Edgar Hoover and COINTELPRO, the counter-intelligence operation—pervasively active from 1956 to 1971—that so disgraced the Bureau that it was forced to adopt new guidelines to prevent such wholesale subversion of the Bill of Rights ever again.
Under COINTELPRO, the FBI monitored, infiltrated, manipulated, and secretly fomented divisions within civil rights, anti-war, black, and other entirely lawful organizations who were using the First Amendment to disagree with government policies.
These uninhibited FBI abuses of the Bill of Rights were exposed by some journalists, but most effectively by the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities. Its chairman, Frank Church of Idaho, was a true believer in the constitutional guarantees of individual liberties against the government—which is why we had a Revolution.
In 1975, Church told the nation, and J. Edgar Hoover, that COINTELPRO had been "a sophisticated vigilante operation aimed squarely at preventing the exercise of First Amendment rights of speech and association." And Church pledged: "The American people need to be reassured that never again will an agency of the government be permitted to conduct a secret war against those citizens it considers a threat to the established order."
Frank Church, however, could not have foreseen George W. Bush, John Ashcroft, FBI director Robert Mueller, and the cowardly leadership, Republican and Democratic, of Congress. (Notable exceptions are John Conyers of Michigan, and Russell Feingold and James Sensenbrenner, both of Wisconsin.)
The guidelines for FBI investigations imposed after COINTELPRO ordered that agents could not troll for information in churches, libraries, or political meetings of Americans without some reasonable leads that someone, somehow, was doing or planning something illegal.
Without even a gesture of consultation with Congress, Ashcroft unilaterally has thrown away those guidelines.
From now on, covert FBI agents can mingle with unsuspecting Americans at churches, mosques, synagogues, meetings of environmentalists, the ACLU, the Gun Owners of America, and Reverend Al Sharpton's presidential campaign headquarters. (He has been resoundingly critical of the cutting back of the Bill of Rights.) These eavesdroppers do not need any evidence, not even a previous complaint, that anything illegal is going on, or is being contemplated.
Laura Murphy, the director of the ACLU's Washington office, puts the danger to us all plainly: "The FBI is now telling the American people, 'You no longer have to do anything unlawful in order to get that knock on the door.' "
During COINTELPRO, I got that knock on the door because I, among other journalists, had been publishing COINTELPRO reports that had been stolen from an FBI office. You might keep a pocket edition of the Constitution handy to present to the FBI agents—like a cross in front of Dracula.
The attorney general is repeatedly reassuring the American people that there's nothing to worry about. FBI agents, he says, can now go into any public place "under the same terms and conditions of any member of the public."
Really? While the rest of us do not expect privacy in a public place, we also do not expect to be spied upon and put into an FBI dossier because the organizers of the meeting are critical of the government, even of Ashcroft. We do not expect the casually dressed person next to us to be a secret agent of Ashcroft.
Former U.S. Attorney Zachary Carter, best known for his prosecution of the Abner Louima case, said in the May 31 New York Times that Ashcroft's discarding of the post-COINTELPRO guidelines means that now "law enforcement authorities could conduct investigations that [have] a chilling effect on entirely appropriate lawful expressions of political beliefs, the free exercise of religion, and the freedom of assembly."
So where are the cries of outrage from Democratic leaders Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt? How do you tell them apart from the Republicans on civil liberties?
Back in 1975, Frank Church issued a warning that is far more pertinent now than it was then. He was speaking of how the government's intelligence capabilities—aimed at "potential" enemies, as well as disloyal Americans—could "at any time" be "turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left—such is the capacity to monitor everything, telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to hide . . .
"There would be no way to fight back," Church continued, "because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know."
Frank Church could not foresee the extraordinary expansion of electronic surveillance technology, the government's further invasion of the Internet under the new Ashcroft-Mueller guidelines, nor the Magic Lantern that can record every keystroke you make on your computer. But Church's pessimism notwithstanding, there is—and surely will be—resistance. And I'd appreciate hearing from resisters who are working to restore the Bill of Rights.
posted on June 13, 2002 10:39:50 AM newThe author of the above article is Nat Hentoff. The edit feature was off so I was not able to add it to the story.
posted on June 13, 2002 10:51:22 AM new
There are many of us here who opined that the Bush administration would self-destruct as his lack of leadership caused infighting among those who would be king by proxy. The Republican right apparently has no conservative consensus. The problem with the "Holy Rollers" is not rolling on the floor or speaking in tongues. It is the tunnel vision proselytising that declares all non-believers as infidels. Where have we heard that before?
posted on June 13, 2002 11:22:11 AM new"These uninhibited FBI abuses of the Bill of Rights were exposed by some journalists, but most effectively by the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities. Its chairman, Frank Church of Idaho, was a true believer in the constitutional guarantees of individual liberties against the government — which is why we had a Revolution."
There's that "R" Word again!
"The guidelines for FBI investigations imposed after COINTELPRO ordered that agents could not troll for information in churches, libraries, or political meetings of Americans without some reasonable leads that someone, somehow, was doing or planning something illegal.
Without even a gesture of consultation with Congress, Ashcroft unilaterally has thrown away those guidelines.
These are the sorts of people that Republicans are Blindly giving their loyalty to! In fact, they even accuse people who question Ashcroft and Bush with being anti-American! Can you beleive it?
"From now on, covert FBI agents can mingle with unsuspecting Americans at churches, mosques, synagogues, meetings of environmentalists, the ACLU, the Gun Owners of America, and Reverend Al Sharpton's presidential campaign headquarters. (He has been resoundingly critical of the cutting back of the Bill of Rights.) These eavesdroppers do not need any evidence, not even a previous complaint, that anything illegal is going on, or is being contemplated."
Laura Murphy, the director of the ACLU's Washington office, puts the danger to us all plainly: "The FBI is now telling the American people, 'You no longer have to do anything unlawful in order to get that knock on the door.' "
Yes, Conservatives everywhere must be Dancing their favorite Happy Dance (those that believe that Dancing is OK, that is) with bells on their tippy-toes in JOY and BLISS that America is legally now a Police State! If they didn't, then they'd be out there complaining about it! Instead, they join in with Ashcroft to attack those who don't want to go along with the program of subversion!
"While the rest of us do not expect privacy in a public place, we also do not expect to be spied upon and put into an FBI dossier because the organizers of the meeting are critical of the government, even of Ashcroft. We do not expect the casually dressed person next to us to be a secret agent of Ashcroft.
Remember giving your Credit Card number here to AW? If you didn't have an FBI file on you before, you sure as hell do now!
"So where are the cries of outrage from Democratic leaders Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt? How do you tell them apart from the Republicans on civil liberties?"
You DON'T! Their silence is NOT Golden! If they do not stand up to these MONSTERS and TRAITORS, then to whose shoulders will it fall to? You know the answer!
posted on June 13, 2002 12:42:12 PM new
And while we have to accept more infringements on our rights at home, our maneuvers in the Balkans can be entertainment for the Europeans thanks to satellite communication. So much for security.
Oopsies. Let me get that link again. The original link was to an article in New Scientist, but it just showed up as a pop-up ad.
[ edited by saabsister on Jun 13, 2002 12:44 PM ]
[ edited by saabsister on Jun 13, 2002 12:50 PM ]
posted on June 13, 2002 02:18:10 PM new
Somebody help me out here, Helen. I want to post Bob Herbert's NY Times Op Ed for today but am having problems!
posted on June 13, 2002 02:30:59 PM new
If you want to start the thread, I'll post the article for you.
The url is
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/13/opinion/13HERB.html
posted on June 13, 2002 08:47:04 PM new
I think the term is putting all ones eggs in one basket then aldrich ames could have screwed everyone. the tequila worm is infecting these guys minds
I want to post Bob Herbert's NY Times Op Ed for today but am having problems!