Record Check
The Bush administration wants Congress to give the CIA and the Defense Department the authority to obtain Americans' personal records without court approval. The FBI already can use "administrative subpoenas" to force libraries, credit card companies, Internet service providers, and other organizations to open their files. It just has to assert that the information is needed as part of a foreign intelligence or terrorism investigation. Organizations that receive the subpoenas have to keep them secret. The White House thinks the CIA and the Pentagon should have the same power, because going through the FBI is a nuisance. The New York Times reports that critics
were alarmed by the idea that the C.I.A. and the military could begin prying into Americans' personal and financial records.
They said that while the F.B.I. was subject to guidelines controlling what agents are allowed to do in the course of an investigation, the C.I.A. and the military appeared to have much freer reign. The F.B.I. also faces additional scrutiny if it tries to use such records in court, but officials said the proposal could give the C.I.A. and the military the power to gather such material without ever being subject to judicial oversight.
Timothy Edgar, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, called the proposal "dangerous and un-American."
Mr. Edgar said that "even in the most frigid periods of the Cold War, we never gave the C.I.A. such sweeping and secret policing powers over American citizens."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
shit! I hate agreeing with the ACLU.
Just waiting for the ubiquitous Tony Blair posting....
Not to rain on the freedom parade here, but how is this unconstitutional? The companies should be protected by the Bill of Rights to not share their records without a court oder, but for the consumers it is buyer beware!
You don't have a right for someone to not keep records (or to not show these records to the police or tell you what happens to the records). I understand the danger ("slippery slope" arugment), but I also understand that we are perhaps under attack from enemy soldiers that appear to be citizens (i.e. terrorists). This seems just a minor impact to my freedom (I can always use cash, not get a library card, etc) that doesn't violate the Constitution and protects me from a major impact to my freedom (as in getting nuked).
t
Mr. Stinker,
I think the operative word used in the post was 'force' them to open their files, and 'force' them to keep it secret from you. Of course we all know that some of these companies sell your info to other people. If they want to give that info away to the government that's one thing, but if because of privacy agreements they've made with you (explicitly these days since laws require them to send you their privacy policy) then it becomes an invasion of your privacy because you did not agree to it.
As others have pointed out before, this is disturbing even if the organizations in question give the info away voluntarily to the government. After all, when other private people or organizations want your personal info, it's so they can try to sell you something. Something you're not required to buy from them. When the government gets your info, they probably plan to use it against you at some point and have the power to imprision or kill you. This is a much more worrisome situation than I think you realize.
You can't own information. If you voluntarily give away your personal information you deserve what you get. If a company violates a contract between you and them, then that company should be held liable. However the details here are sparse - "force" could simply be a threat by the Govt to get a court warrent. In that case the companies are volutarily disclosing.
"As others have pointed out before, this is disturbing even if the organizations in question give the info away voluntarily to the government."
So what? Its their right to do this.
"When the government gets your info, they probably plan to use it against you at some point and have the power to imprision or kill you."
If you are violating the rights of others (through crime or terrorism) this is just.
"This is a much more worrisome situation than I think you realize."
Nope, I understand that everything I give out may be used against me (not just by the government, but by criminals, blackmailers, etc). If I am worried, I use cash or don't give any info out.
The CIA should not be able to access private information just by issuing a subpoena.
They should have to buy it like the telemarketers & credit card companies do.
Chicken Little call your office.
The reporting on this is so bad it beggars belief. It doesn't even try to explain why the Administration feels these new powers are needed. It does not provide any historical context or detail on how the FBI currently uses the "national security letters." It does not explain how the CIA or Pentagon use would differ from the FBI's.
I bet this turns out to be like the "secret" trials that were just standard judicial gag orders or "people held without trial" that were material witness i.e. long standing powers that nobody paid any attention to until someone slapped "part of the war on terror" appellation on it.
Heil Bush!! I read an article recently (lost the link) that shows the parallels between what the White House is doing and what Hitler did right before declaring himself dictator. Act of terror (burning of the reichstag), homeland security office (SS), detain people without trial, start a war (annex Austria) etc., etc.. The US has had 1 act of international terroism (9/11) since the war of 1812 and yet this is cause for all of this fascism? Last year there were 0 incidents or deaths in the US from terrorism yet they want still more power? Americans are so stupid. Dont they realize your a million times more likely to be killed in a traffic accident than by international terrorists? By the way:
"It is my opinion that if the liberties of this country, the United States of America, are destroyed, it will be by the subtlety of the Roman Catholic Jesuit priests, for they are the most crafty, dangerous enemies of civil and religious liberty. They have instigated most of the wars of Europe." - General Lafayette
I forgot to mention that for the past 50 years The US has been under the Emergency War Powers Act which considers all citizens to be enemies of the State. That is why flags in federal courts have gold fringe. This signifies a military flag or that of the Commander-in-Chief (president/king).
Jim,
You ought to do a FOIA on yourself sometime, especially if you have done any overseas travel. 🙂
greetings!
as Rick B (i believe) noted yesterday, we should call, write, pester, hound, badger, and contact our representatives, urging them to 86 this PATRIOT act and the jackbooted conquest of our civil liberties.
this is an evil set of laws. and even for those who approve of them in the misguided, twisted name of "fighting terror", just wait until a janet reno uses these same laws to go after shooting and sporting clubs and the like.
america is an amazing place -- the freedom, liberty, opportunity, diversity... and we're pissing away the first three ("diversity" in the non-leftist meaning, of course). this stinks...
cheers,
drf
I think the Democrats at tomorrow's debate are going to BOMB THE PRESIDENT will have no problem making mince meat out of these fools. What really bugs me is the way that rappers from New York seem to have a JIHAD AGAINST THE WEST coast rappers.
What's a carnivore?
Two years ago there were zero deaths in this country from terrorism, yet they want still more power? Americans are so stupid! Dont they realize that PATRIOT has been festering in the bowels of DC for decades -- just waiting for a 9-11 to happen, so it could (finally) raise it's snake-haired, hydra-monster, ugly, multifarious head and go . . . Baaaarf! on us?
"Mr. Stinker" wrote: "If you are violating the rights of others (through crime or terrorism) this (obtaining your info and using it against you) is just."
Two Points: 1. If the government uses illegal means to obtain information such as violating proscriptions against illegal search and seizure, even if the subject turns out to be guilty, those means are not "just". 2. Giving the CIA and the military license to pry into the lives of Americans that the FBI rightly doesn't have increases the likelihood that these powers will be used to damage liberty by being invoked against dissent and domestic political "enemies". Remember Clinton, Nixon.
As "Mr.Stinker" wrote: "The companies should be protected by the Bill of Rights to not share their records without a court oder..."
But that's one of the dangerous things about this proposal, as the abstract of the piece pointed out: "...officials said the proposal could give the C.I.A. and the military the power to gather such material without ever being subject to judicial oversight..."
Ok; After we and all the friends we can cajole and contact our congress persons and senators and tell them not to repeal the sunset provisions of the Patriot Act and not to pass Patriot II also contact them and tell them not to give the CIA and the military expanded powers to snoop on American citizens. If the readers of Reason online won't do it, who will? And if we don't...what will happen to our freedom?
It doesn't follow that because "law always equals justice." is a false statement that when government takes action that violates the rights of a person who turns out to be guilty(he really did it)that that government action is "just"
"Given the mass damage a terrorist attack is likely to inflict, the overall liberty of all Americans must be weighed against this slipperly slope."
I think what you mean to say is that the potential threat to liberty of this proposal must be weighed against potential damage of a possible terrorist attack. Right? First off, were all agreed any violation of constitutional rights is off the table. Now; How likely is it that another terrorist attack will occurr here? We have done Afghanistan, Iraq, had prominent citizens make vicious, hateful, anti-Muslim and anti-Arab staements. Yet, nothing. No more terrorist attacks. Not even, of the type of smaller scale barbarity that plagues the people of Israel, to which we would be practically defenceless.
But, When we look at history we can see that in times of war the government always seems to violate rights. Look what happened to dissenters during Viet Nam. The interment of Japanese Americans and the theft of their property. As I write this Arabs continue to be held without due process. Even in non-war situations: Clinton, Nixon. Should we give the military(in expicit contradiction of the founders intent) and the CIA the legality to view financial and other records of the people?
"Again the key word here is "could" same "slippery slope" argument."
"could" "means if the act is past"
The FBI can't try people either and do you have actual knowledge that under this proposal that "Any info gathered could be just intel for overseas operations."
"Libertarians of all people should understand the difficulty and danger of claiming "ownership" of ones information."
That doesn't preclude the rights of people not to have the government access that information.
"If the government uses illegal means to obtain information such as violating proscriptions against illegal search and seizure, even if the subject turns out to be guilty, those means are not "just"."
This only makes sense if you think that law always equals justice. Common sense says it doesn't. But it this case anyway, I don't see evidence of violating search and seizure. The companies seem to be voluntarily giving out the info.
"Giving the CIA and the military license to pry into the lives of Americans that the FBI rightly doesn't have increases the likelihood that these powers will be used to damage liberty by being invoked against dissent and domestic political "enemies"."
This "slipperly slope" argument is more valid than your point #1, however it seems clear that the targets of these investigations are terrorists. Given the mass damage a terrorist attack is likely to inflict, the overall liberty of all Americans must be weighed against this slipperly slope.
"...officials said the proposal could give the C.I.A. and the military the power to gather such material without ever being subject to judicial oversight..."
Again the key word here is "could" - same "slippery slope" argument. If they do use it to violate search and seizure or other Bill of Rights that would be wrong. But since this is the CIA and the military and not law enforcement, this seems impossible: neither the CIA or the military has the power to try any civilians anyway. Any info gathered could be just intel for overseas operations.
Libertarians of all people should understand the difficulty and danger of claiming "ownership" of ones information. If you want to be totally free of this, don't give it out.
EMAIL: draime2000@yahoo.com
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://www.enlargement-for-penis.com
DATE: 01/26/2004 02:44:03
The Tao's principle is spontaneity.