New Guidelines Would Give F.B.I. Broader Powers

[gLing]

WASHINGTON — A Justice Department plan would loosen restrictions on the Federal Bureau of Investigation to allow agents to open a national security or criminal investigation against someone without any clear basis for suspicion, Democratic lawmakers briefed on the details said Wednesday.

The plan, which could be made public next month, has already generated intense interest and speculation. Little is known about its precise language, but civil liberties advocates say they fear it could give the government even broader license to open terrorism investigations.

Congressional staff members got a glimpse of some of the details in closed briefings this month, and four Democratic senators told Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey in a letter on Wednesday that they were troubled by what they heard.

The senators said the new guidelines would allow the F.B.I. to open an investigation of an American, conduct surveillance, pry into private records and take other investigative steps “without any basis for suspicion.” The plan “might permit an innocent American to be subjected to such intrusive surveillance based in part on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, or on protected First Amendment activities,” the letter said. It was signed by Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.

The New York Times > Log In

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

The New York Times > Log In

:eek


Ummm




I guess our protection from unreasonable search and siezure is out the flippin' window..

 

[gLing]

Yup, say bye bye to another piece of the constitution.

 

[Minor Axis]

A Justice Department plan would loosen restrictions on the Federal Bureau of Investigation to allow agents to open a national security or criminal investigation against someone without any clear basis for suspicion, Democratic lawmakers briefed on the details said Wednesday.

Total Big Brother Bullshit. :eek

 

[Strauss]

:eek


Ummm




I guess our protection from unreasonable search and siezure is out the flippin' window..

Yup, say bye bye to another piece of the constitution.

Can anyone explain to me how anything in that article leads you to conclude that it has anything to do with search and seizure?

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Can anyone explain to me how anything in that article leads you to conclude that it has anything to do with search and seizure?

I'll answer this question with another:

Do you know what amend. of the Constitution that affects?

 

[Strauss]

I'll answer this question with another:

Do you know what amend. of the Constitution that affects?

None.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is one of the provisions included in the Bill of Rights. The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, and was designed as a response to the controversial writs of assistance (a type of general search warrant), which were a significant factor behind the American Revolution. Toward that end, the amendment specifies that judicially sanctioned search and arrest warrants must be supported by probable cause and be limited in scope according to specific information supplied by a person (usually a law enforcement officer) who has sworn by it and is therefore accountable to the issuing court.
In Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment is applicable to the state governments by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has said that some searches and seizures may violate the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement even if a warrant is supported by probable cause and is limited in scope.


Oh really:unsure:

 

[Carthage]

Okay, this is going just a little bit too far. I can see some minor surveliance against suspected terrorists, but considering we haven't even had an attack threat since nearly over a year (right? Might have gotten my facts wrong on that), I doubt we really need to go even farther.

 

[Zorak]

In England, we call this the "Go search that dark skinned bastard" initiative....

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

I don't know, it just amazes me that with all the technology we have, all the money we invest into intelligence, the advent of an entire agency supporting "homeland defense", that we just need to use arbitrary searches, wiretaps etc to find a bad guy.

To me, they are just side stepping our rights to compensate for agencies that can't do their job correctly. We'll just side step the rules to make the job easier, God forbid a federal agent breaks a sweat...

 

[gLing]

I don't know, it just amazes me that with all the technology we have, all the money we invest into intelligence, the advent of an entire agency supporting "homeland defense", that we just need to use arbitrary searches, wiretaps etc to find a bad guy.

To me, they are just side stepping our rights to compensate for agencies that can't do their job correctly. We'll just side step the rules to make the job easier, God forbid a federal agent breaks a sweat...

"For a safe and secure society." Isn't that what the emperor said in Star Wars? lol

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

"For a safe and secure society." Isn't that what the emperor said in Star Wars? lol

:24::24:

 

[Strauss]

The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is one of the provisions included in the Bill of Rights. The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, and was designed as a response to the controversial writs of assistance (a type of general search warrant), which were a significant factor behind the American Revolution. Toward that end, the amendment specifies that judicially sanctioned search and arrest warrants must be supported by probable cause and be limited in scope according to specific information supplied by a person (usually a law enforcement officer) who has sworn by it and is therefore accountable to the issuing court.
In Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment is applicable to the state governments by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has said that some searches and seizures may violate the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement even if a warrant is supported by probable cause and is limited in scope.


Oh really:unsure:

Now that you can cut and paste from someone else's web site let's see if you can apply what you stole without crediting the source. Please explain how the Fourth Amendment's restriction against unreasonable search and seizure has ANYTHING to do with what the article discussed. Please note we are talking about "probable cause" versus "reasonable suspicion". We'll wait while you back to your prior source to cut and paste again.

BTW, stay away from "sound bite law", to use it only emphasizes how little you know.

 

[Carthage]

"For a safe and secure society." Isn't that what the emperor said in Star Wars? lol

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Now that you can cut and paste from someone else's web site let's see if you can apply what you stole without crediting the source. Please explain how the Fourth Amendment's restriction against unreasonable search and seizure has ANYTHING to do with what the article discussed. Please note we are talking about "probable cause" versus "reasonable suspicion". We'll wait while you back to your prior source to cut and paste again.

BTW, stay away from "sound bite law", to use it only emphasizes how little you know.

I'm sorry......I'm really sorry I cannot rise to your obvious level of excellence, I'll stay clear of a debate that involves you or Mulder, obviously nobody here has what it takes for you two

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Oh and the source was Wikipedia.....

You must be the copyright police

 

[Strauss]

I'm sorry......I'm really sorry I cannot rise to your obvious level of excellence, I'll stay clear of a debate that involves you or Mulder, obviously nobody here has what it takes for you two

Oh and the source was Wikipedia.....

You must be the copyright police

No, not the copyright police, I just don't like it when someone attempts to pass off other people's work as their own. I'm not saying you did but if you link to the source you can never be accused can you?

When it comes to the law Mulder and I will argue circles around you but so what, don't cave in show me to be incorrect.

Here, in my opinion, is where you made your mistake. You equated a lack of suspicion with "probable cause". Two completely differing standards. Typically, the FBI or any law enforcement agency will require a suspicion or other indicator of wrongful activity to open up an investigation. But such a requirement isn't necessary under the law. Want an every day example? Roadside checkpoints. So long as the police either stop every car or have a set pattern there is no violation of the law. Roadside checkpoints have no suspicion, they are, in essence, fishing in the dark yet such activity by the police is perfectly legal. The FBI can engage is the same behavior so long as there is a set pattern, it's legal. BTW, the program won't last long, it costs to much to have agents performing what are essentially wild goose chases.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

No, not the copyright police, I just don't like it when someone attempts to pass off other people's work as their own. I'm not saying you did but if you link to the source you can never be accused can you?

When it comes to the law Mulder and I will argue circles around you but so what, don't cave in show me to be incorrect.

Here, in my opinion, is where you made your mistake. You equated a lack of suspicion with "probable cause". Two completely differing standards. Typically, the FBI or any law enforcement agency will require a suspicion or other indicator of wrongful activity to open up an investigation. But such a requirement isn't necessary under the law. Want an every day example? Roadside checkpoints. So long as the police either stop every car or have a set pattern there is no violation of the law. Roadside checkpoints have no suspicion, they are, in essence, fishing in the dark yet such activity by the police is perfectly legal. The FBI can engage is the same behavior so long as there is a set pattern, it's legal. BTW, the program won't last long, it costs to much to have agents performing what are essentially wild goose chases.

.

Show me where I passed that off as my own:unsure:

You have never cited law before? Even the fucking names of the cases were in there...

Don't worry, you win.....Don't it feel good?

 

[Strauss]

I'm not saying you did but if you link to the source you can never be accused can you?

.

Show me where I passed that off as my own:unsure:

You have never cited law before? Even the fucking names of the cases were in there...

Don't worry, you win.....Don't it feel good?

Reading comprehension, it's a wonderful thing.

Just so we are clear, you didn't just cite the case you quoted the opinion of the author who reviewed the case. It's the review that could be a copyright problem not the citation to the case.