FBI Caught Again Monitoring Citizens Without Legal Right

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Laser200, Oct 26, 2005.

Loading...
  1. Laser200

    Laser200 Guest

  2. Jack Tracey

    Jack Tracey New Member

    I will offer no apologies for law enforcement officials who have circumvented the law. However, there is nothing in the article that suggests that the subjects of the surveilance were "citizens" and there is nothing that indicates that any monitoring is ongoing (please note your use of the present tense - "is abusing").
    I know that I am picking nits but, in the end, that's how these cases are decided in court.
    Jack
     
  3. Laser200

    Laser200 Guest

    Quote from Yahoo Article

    You might want to read it again.

    "FBI agents have violated government policies by secretly conducting surveillance on U.S. citizens for more than a year without notifying Justice Department officials, according to declassified government documents released Monday."

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20...tofsurveillance

    Surveillance = Monitoring
    U.S. Citizen = Citizen
    Violated Government Policies = Abuse
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 26, 2005
  4. Laser200

    Laser200 Guest

  5. Jack Tracey

    Jack Tracey New Member

    Yes, OK. My mistake.
    Jack
     
  6. Laser200

    Laser200 Guest

    The Big Picture

    No Problem, I just want people to be aware of what is going on because it is getting worse.
     
  7. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

  8. DTechBA

    DTechBA New Member

    Re: The Big Picture

    What is your basis that it is "getting worse". Are there some statistics you can point to?
     
  9. Laser200

    Laser200 Guest

    Getting Worse

    Good question DTech. I'm glad you asked. In past administrations the code of conduct was respected. Based upon the two stories I have brought to your attention it is apparent that this code is not respect or is becoming diluted by individuals within the FBI.


    Here is another article that further illustrates this conclusion.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4971504

    These stories are just the incidents we know about. It is likely that more have occurred but they have not become public because of the intensive declassification process.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 26, 2005
  10. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    Re: The Big Picture

    The story spoke of "several" cases where surveillance of suspects occurred without proper Justice Department supervision, whatever that means. I'm sure that errors and conceivably even intentional abuse do occur in a small percentage of cases. But considering that the FBI probably surveils thousands of people in the course of a year, 'several' most likely represents less than one percent. So in rreal life, this story seems to be saying that the FBI is following whatever procedures it has been saddled with pretty successfully.

    What's more, the violations were discovered, noted and revealed in response to inquiries, even when those inquiries were from political activist organizations hoping to make trouble for the agency.

    And there doesn't seem to be any suggestion that the subjects in these instances shouldn't have been investigated by the FBI in the first place, only that established procedures weren't followed.
     
  11. DTechBA

    DTechBA New Member

    Re: Getting Worse

    Again, where is the data? All you have so far if conjecture and speculation. Please, something more reliable than the NPR....
     
  12. Rivers

    Rivers New Member

    Re: Re: Getting Worse

    Although I agree the article laser uses is weak to say the least, the question now must be asked DTechBA..What makes NPR unreliable?
     
  13. DTechBA

    DTechBA New Member

    Getting Worse

    Puhlease!!!! You ask that question after reading the article he uses as support for his statement? The NPR is a rebroadcasting service, they do little or no research. You answered your own question....
     
  14. DesElms

    DesElms New Member

    Re: Getting Worse

    That's simply not true. NPR (and PBS) programming is, in largest measure, either completely original, or is commissioned for exclusive use by NPR/PBS, or is the original work of an NPR/PBS affiliate in conjunction with either NPR or PBS... such as, in the case of the latter, most Frontline stories, for example, just to name one of the many PBS and NPR programs.

    Public broadcasting -- which includes both NPR and PBS -- does its own news gathering just like the big networks... only does it arguably better. It's a quite large, quite well-equipped, quite well-trained, quite professional organization that need make no apologies to anyone for the quality of its work. It has spawned many extremly competent -- even gifted, I would argue -- reporters/commentators who we now see on the commercial networks... such as ABC's Cokie Roberts, and the FOX NEWS CHANNEL's Mara Liasson, just to name two. There are many, many others.

    Public broadcasting's news programming, generally, is among the most fair-minded, thorough and accurate of all. It gets it right far, far more often than it gets it wrong; and it gets it wrong far less often than most other news organizations.

    The sticking point for conservatives is that public broadcasting tends to cover/expose things that the Right would prefer weren't covered/exposed -- and it's covered/exposed generally more accurately and completely -- than most any of the networks... especially the FOX NEWS CHANNEL, which is arguably on the exact opposite end of the spectrum from public broadcasting among news gathering/programming entities. It is for precisely that reason that the Republican-controlled congress, and the Bush administration, always want to cut funding to public broadcasting. I'm sure, if they thought they could get away with it, they'd redirect that money to the FOX NEWS CHANNEL, which is, arguably (and I dare say "provably"), the mouthpiece of the Republican party while it disguises itself as a so-called "fair and balanced" news organization.

    Public broadcasting is an absolutely essential programming and news gathering/reporting entity in our society... one that serves as a counterbalance to the outrageously biased programming and reporting of such as the FOX NEWS CHANNEL at the far-Right end of the political spectrum; and even ABC, NBC and CBS (in order of general conservatism, from most to least) that are to its Left.

    I've written extensively about this sort of thing around here in the past. Please feel free to look-up some of those posts if you'd like more information. I cite, in them, all kinds of statisitcs, studies and proofs; and I link readers to independent documentation/corroboration of my claims.

    But let's not make this thread about that, shall we? The subject, here, is the allegation that the FBI is both illegally spying on US citizens and, moreover, is stepping-up said activities in the wake of 9/11 and the weakening of the civil rights of the citizenry brought about by the Patriot Act and the broad and sweeping secret powers of the Nazi-Germany-era-sounding "Department of Homeland Security"...

    ...an allegation, incidentally, which I suspect is probably quite true... and not just 'cause NPR said so. Since it's this thread's topic, let's keep talking about that, shall we?
     
  15. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    How can NPR simultaneously occupy the left-end of the media political spectrum and be the most "fair minded" of all of them? Unless of course "fair mindedness" means exposing the evil nature of the right and putting a political spin on the news.

    I think that I probably agree with you about Fox News. While their straight news coverage doesn't seem a whole lot different than what their competitors are putting out, some of their opinion shows do kind of present a 'red state' spin on things.

    What I like to do is channel surf among the cable news channels and see what they all have to say. In that broader multi-channel context Fox News does contribute to fairness and balance precisely because it expands the range of opinion and provides an alternative to the typical large urban media.

    I don't have an problem with a politically left network. I welcome a variety of opinion and spin. To say nothing of differences in the editorial decisions about which news stories should receive most emphasis.

    But I do have a problem with subsidizing one particular political philosophy's media outlets with taxpayer's funds.
     
  16. DesElms

    DesElms New Member

    You know what, Bill? I understand perfectly your subsidy points and, believe it or not, I sorta' agree... but not completely. And the reason is because of your stated belief that public broadcasting occupies "the left-end of the media political spectrum." See, that's where its enemies have it wrong. I know it sometimes seems that way. But public broadcasting is just as likely to expose a bad or embarrassing thing among the Left-leaning... and has, I might add, to my chagrin, as evidenced by all the dents in the padded dash of my car put there by my fist when NPR made someone like, for example, John Kerry, during the 2004 campaign, look really bad by reporting on something he'd said or done that I'd have preferred it hadn't.

    The degree to which the FOX NEWS CHANNEL's version of a given story differs from public broadcasting's is, I dare say, also the degree to which FOX got it wrong and NPR/PBS got it right. When that happens, it doesn't make public broadcasting "Left" but, rather, simply makes it right... as in accurate. It only seems Left to those on the Right; and right to those on the Left. It's funny... I know liberals who think NPR/PBS is too far to the Right. Just depends on one's viewpoint, I think.

    Public broadcasting provides both sides, believe me. Unlike the likes of the FOX NEWS CHANNEL, public broadcasting really is fair and balanced -- sometimes painfully so -- and should, therefore, be supported with public funds. It's a an essential respite in a commercially-influenced news world; an entity which may be counted upon to provide the straight skinny, without so much of the biased spin. It ain't perfect, I concede... but it's certainly good enough to be publicly funded. In its even-handedness, it is truly a much-needed public service.
     
  17. DesElms

    DesElms New Member

    Dammit... I just realized how badly I let myself continue to be dragged off-topic... and right after I suggested that we all try to stay on it. We really should, you know. Hijacking threads is a big and common problem around here. That said, it's also sometimes what keeps things interesting.

    [sigh] Where to strike the balance, eh?
     
  18. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    It breaks easiest at the midpoint.
     
  19. Laser200

    Laser200 Guest

    Dtech,

    I obviously can't provide you with anything greater than the support of three independent media networks like MSNBC, NPR, and Yahoo/USA Today. Anything beyond this will require me to apply to the government under the Freedom of Information Act.

    I would say three media network articles are substantial evidence to support my case. It is certainly more significant than any evidence presented to counter the argument.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 27, 2005
  20. Rivers

    Rivers New Member

    To refrain from further hijacking,I have opened a new thread in the political discussion area.
     

Share This Page