FBI: Warrants? We Don't Need No Stinking Warrants!

A few days ago it was revealed that the FBI got a little crazy with the rules governing its use of the Patriot Act to secretly obtain phone, business, and financial data about people in the U.S. Let me be the first to say that I'm not really surprised by this news. The government has demonstraited over and over again that it does not and will not respect boundaries placed upon them. It only returns to it's corral after being caught doing something its not suppose to be doing. It only stays in it's corral long enough for us to quit paying it any attention.

 

While reading other blogs on this topic, I paid close attention to what people had to say in the comments sections. Blogs, as it turns out, are a great source to get a sense of how people feel about various subjects. I won't share all their comments, but there were a few I especially liked. Here's the first:

At my increasing age, I seem to forget, why did we so hate those damn commies?
Were they bent on spreading Communism? How many countries did they invade, unprovoked and we condemned their actions? How many prisoners did they retain without due process? How many people were tortured? Didn't they believe that the ends justified the means?
Didn't they watch their citizens closely? Was that the KGB? Oh wait, didn't they have a "state" mandated identification? Papers, please!
Silly me, they were "godless" and persecuted everyone who didn't believe as they! Why does that sound familiar? And bad on you if you weren't a party member! Traitor! Treasonable! Unpatrotic! Get them up against the wall!
Don't dare to speak against the system! We, the poletariat should thank our comrades Bush, Cheney, Rove, Gonzales and the rest of the bourgeoisie- they are just trying to protect us by inducing terror. Thankfully, they don't have to live under the same laws or conscience as the rest of us.

My point is that the Patriot Act is anything but democratic. Counter-terrorism isn't the reason, controlling the populace is. Pre 9/11 we would not have allowed this. If the government is really trying to protect the citizens, then legal processes under the Patriot Act should be limited to anti-terrorism. If they find a gallon of white lightning or a ton of pot in someone's backpack, too bad- it isn't terror related and the person should walk.

Before the flames roar, I wish to point out that I paid my dues, trying to defend this country and have a deep belief in what was our Constitution. My daddy didn't keep me out of the war. So, while I protected YOUR right to flame on, I ask some respect to in disagreement.

Opps, gotta run, there is a knock on the door........

Posted by: Bill P. at March 12, 2007 07:56 PM

It would seem that we've become the new aggressor on the world stage. Its the same play, only the actors have changed.

 

Another person made an excellent point about accountability:

[The article headline reads,] "A new Justice Department report concludes that the FBI broke the law"

__________

NO -- 'specific individuals' broke the law!

The term 'FBI' is a mere abstraction that cannot be 'prosecuted & punished' for law-breaking.

Thus, the government hides its crimes even when seeming to admit them. Names will not be revealed... and no specific prosecutions will happen; crimes go unpunished.

We all buy into this scam when we allow the government & news-media to place criminal blame on 'abstract government organizations'... rather than specific individuals who are known to have broken the law.

The "FBI" will publicly promise to sin-no-more, but its anonymous workers will do as they please.

Posted by: Paterson at March 13, 2007 07:14 AM

He's right, of course. Laws were broken, but no one will be held accountable. Its the same modus operandi over and over, ad infinitum. What good is any government if it can't be held to account for its actions? What stands between legitamacy and illigitimacy? Accountability. Without accountability, our relationship with government changes from citizen to subject. Its just that simple.

 

Finally, here's the last partial-quote. This one makes you realize how far down the path we've traveled to not having judicial oversight when it comes to issueing warrants.

I've never understood the point of most warrantless searches, and think the Court has gone so far in generating exceptions for exigency such that the exception has swallowed the rule. (*)

If any emergency will do to skirt judicial oversight, then every warrant will be issued under all perceived emergencies; until, of course, the practice of judicial oversight is rendered useless.

 

P.S. Please pardon any misspellings. I've lost the use of spell-checker in my computer upgrade. I think I need to reinstall Microsoft Word to get it back.