The Lawlessness of The Age of Bush
The debate last year over renewal of the USA Patriot Act was a rare instance in which Congress – or at least some members – pushed back against the imperial Bush presidency and successfully fought to include some safeguards on the powers of the FBI, among other federal agencies.
I don’t shock easily these days. Six-plus years of George Bush will do that. But I was shocked, just shocked to see that the FBI has broken the law by abusing its powers to secretly obtain private information from you, I and our fellow Americans.
Then I realized that Bush had said all along that he was under no obligation to honor USA Patriot Act provisions, or any other law, for that matter.
So what’s the big deal? Although FBI Director Robert Mueller has now apologized, the FBI was merely following the lead of our lawless president.
More here.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
9 Responses to “The Lawlessness of The Age of Bush”
Such abuses always follow, without exception, when the restraints and oversight preventing them are removed. If those restraints on federal power are not put back in place its only going to get worse with future administrations.
Sam:
You hit a very big nail on the head. Once civil liberties are taken away, it is extremely difficult to restore them.
You know, a cost-benefit analysis would be useful here.
“The FBI has made as many as 56,000 requests a year for information using the letters since the Patriot Act was passed in October, 2001, the audit found.”
That is what, 280,000+ requests for information, which have yielded one catch so far according to the FBI. Granted, there may be others they can’t talk about. But this is a striking contrast in numbers:
280,000 letters vs. 1 alleged terrorist!
I know people might be troubled by applying a cost-benefit analysis to potential terrorism, but the cost to civil liberties vs. the yield here is very very unsettling.
The US does not want to go the route of the UK with CC TV cameras on every corner, and sweeping often unchecked police powers of investigation.
Sam, exactly.
And Shaun, to avoid shock next this happens, just keep this in mind, if a power can be abused, it will be.
This is exactly what I feared when the Patriot Act’s renewal was being debated. I wondered about the strength of the safegurards then, and now I see I was right to worry.
The flower children of the 60s had a point when they ranted about the abuses of power by the government. Terrible things happened then, too.
Old habits don’t die, they just change names.
From the excellent CounterterrorismBlog (3/9/07):
“The problems identified by the IG are problems of process in terms of recordkeeping and reporting, which are administrative. The process in terms of operation and use of the information has not been problematic. The IG found no deliberate or intentional misuse of authority, meaning there were no infringements on privacy rights or civil liberties. Even though recordkeeping and reporting was inadequate, actual use of information was appropriate.
{snip}
Before rushing to judgment and calling for the restriction or elimination of the NSL program, critics should remember that the problem is administrative, not operational. As such, civil liberties are not at risk. The only true risk is to national security if this issue escalates as a platform to diminish or eliminate an important investigative tool.
Dennis M. Lormel, Corporate Risk International, Senior Vice President,
Anti-Money Laundering
————————————————————————————
Thomas P.M. Barnett’s blog is very good also. CNN, not so much.
stevesh: critics should remember that the problem is administrative, not operational. As such, civil liberties are not at risk.
But, to quote from my more extensive post on the subject:
Civil liberties ARE indeed ask risk if powers are granted to one branch of government which are totally beyond the purview of any other.
We’ve been fortunate in this case, because another exectutive branch, the IG’s office, has blown the whistle on Justice.
Will we always be so lucky?
stevesh: critics should remember that the problem is administrative, not operational. As such, civil liberties are not at risk.
But, to quote from my more extensive post on the subject:
Civil liberties ARE indeed ask risk if powers are granted to one branch of government which are totally beyond the purview of any other.
We’ve been fortunate in this case, because another exectutive branch, the IG’s office, has blown the whistle on Justice.
Will we always be so lucky?
apologies for the double post