FBI broke law for years in phone record searches.

January 19, 2010 9:42 AM

The FBI illegally collected more than 2,000 U.S. telephone call records between 2002 and 2006 by invoking terrorism emergencies that did not exist or simply persuading phone companies to provide records, according to internal bureau memos and interviews. FBI officials issued approvals after the fact to justify their actions. E-mails obtained by The Washington Post detail how counterterrorism officials inside FBI headquarters did not follow their own procedures that were put in place to protect civil liberties. The stream of urgent requests for phone records also overwhelmed the FBI communications analysis unit with work that ultimately was not connected to imminent threats. A Justice Department inspector general's report due out this month is expected to conclude that the FBI frequently violated the law with its emergency requests, bureau officials confirmed. Among those whose phone records were searched improperly were journalists for The Washington Post and the New York Times, according to interviews with government officials.

The searches became public when Mueller, the FBI director, contacted top editors at the two newspapers in August 2008 and apologized for the breach of reporters' phone records. The reporters were Ellen Nakashima of The Post, who had been based in Jakarta, Indonesia, and Raymond Bonner and Jane Perlez of the Times, who had also been working in Jakarta.

posted by VikingSword (93 comments total)

Great. That's great.
posted by Electrius at 9:43 AM on January 19, 2010 [2 favorites]

Shocked.

Oh--!!!
posted by jckll at 9:44 AM on January 19, 2010

... Mueller, the FBI director, contacted top editors at the two newspapers in August 2008 and apologized for the breach of reporters' phone records.

Does Hallmark make a card for that?
posted by Joe Beese at 9:46 AM on January 19, 2010 [12 favorites]

The FBI illegally collected more than 2,000 U.S. telephone call records between 2002 and 2006 by invoking terrorism emergencies that did not exist...

....and in other news, water is wet.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:47 AM on January 19, 2010 [7 favorites]

I hope that they scrutinize, extra carefully, all the hours I spent on hold to airlines, medical providers, banks, insurance companies, and (especially) tech support.

Lots of nefarious plans made, on those calls to Bangalore.
posted by Danf at 9:50 AM on January 19, 2010 [2 favorites]

Fantastic, I look forward to nobody facing any sort of significant consequences and nothing being done to prevent further abuses of the apparently never-ending font of terrorism hysteria.
posted by nanojath at 9:53 AM on January 19, 2010 [31 favorites]

Does Hallmark make a card for that?

You mean something like..

Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
We've made a mockery of a democratic government that claims to respect the rights of its citizens and uphold the rule of law,
And there is nothing you can do.

Sorry for your loss.
posted by jeanmari at 9:53 AM on January 19, 2010 [116 favorites]

Does Hallmark make a card for that?

I'd like to imagine they also sent 'congratulations on your engagement' cards to people planning to elope in secret.
posted by Erberus at 9:55 AM on January 19, 2010 [7 favorites]

Hah. A while ago, there was a rumor that the accounts for Christiane Amanpour and her producers had been tapped. What was additionally interesting was that it was NBC, not CNN, reporting or apparently following up on the rumor.

Guess it wasn't exactly a spurious rumor.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:57 AM on January 19, 2010 [2 favorites]

E-mails obtained by The Washington Post detail how counterterrorism officials inside FBI headquarters did not follow their own procedures that were put in place to protect civil liberties.

Up next: Food supply officials inside the foxhole did not follow their own procedures to protect henhouse.
posted by DU at 9:59 AM on January 19, 2010 [1 favorite]

And nothing will happen and nobody will be punished.
posted by Malor at 10:00 AM on January 19, 2010 [25 favorites]

Fantastic, I look forward to nobody facing any sort of significant consequences and nothing being done to prevent further abuses of the apparently never-ending font of terrorism hysteria.

Of course not. That would just be partisan, which is rude. Are you one of those stupid liberal bloggers?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 10:02 AM on January 19, 2010 [2 favorites]

I guess I've always pretty much assumed that the government not only kept phone records but recorded and logged every phone call, text message, email and web site post everyone that interests them has ever made.

In that light, I find I'm somewhat relieved to read they are occasionally reduced to bullying to get the information. Sad, that.
posted by Pragmatica at 10:04 AM on January 19, 2010 [1 favorite]

Explain to me how politicians keep getting elected who simultaneously oppose a "nanny state" but support domestic surveillance a la "Big Brother"?
posted by explosion at 10:08 AM on January 19, 2010 [7 favorites]

And nothing will happen and nobody will be punished.

Sadly, that seems to be what we can expect from our government, be it the Democrats in power or not. The real question is, what can be done so that something does happen and the culprits get suitably punished?

I don't think a letter-writing campaign or standing around in the cold with signs saying "I DISAPPROVE" will do it.
posted by dunkadunc at 10:10 AM on January 19, 2010

Explain to me how politicians keep getting elected who simultaneously oppose a "nanny state" but support domestic surveillance a la "Big Brother"?

A "nanny state" is one that keeps you from doing illegal stuff you like. "domestic surveillance" keeps people you don't like from doing legal stuff they like.
posted by DU at 10:10 AM on January 19, 2010 [19 favorites]

And nothing will happen and nobody will be punished.

Not quite the Change I was hoping for.
posted by zarq at 10:11 AM on January 19, 2010 [8 favorites]

Explain to me how politicians keep getting elected who simultaneously oppose a "nanny state" but support domestic surveillance a la "Big Brother"?

Because if we don't vote for them, the wrong lizard might get in.
posted by Pragmatica at 10:12 AM on January 19, 2010 [3 favorites]

The USA Patriot Act expanded the use of national security letters by letting lower-level officials outside Washington approve them and allowing them in wider circumstances. But the letters still required the FBI to link a request to an open terrorism case before records could be sought.

Shortly after the Patriot Act was passed in October 2001, FBI senior managers devised their own system for gathering records in terrorism emergencies.

A new device called an "exigent circumstances letter" was authorized. It allowed a supervisor to declare an emergency and get the records, then issue a national security letter after the fact.

And why wasn't this reviewed and stopped? Partly because the Patriot Act prevents the person surveilled from knowing they are being surveilled, and partly because of the Orwellian structure of the FISA system on which the Patriot Act is built, which allows for court orders to issue with minimal basis, and no effective appellate court review.

It is time to repeal FISA and the Patriot Act and make law enforcement agencies actually demonstrate probable cause (as the 4th amendment requires) to a judge, subject to publicly conducted review by higher appellate courts. I mean, really time. I am so tired of living in a U.S. legal structure which ignores the Constitution's requirements. FISA dates back to President Clinton, for goodness' sake.
posted by bearwife at 10:14 AM on January 19, 2010 [4 favorites]

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (the law they broke) provides for up to a 5 year sentence for these crimes and a minimum $10,000 civil fine. I'd like to seem some actual prosecutions come of it, especially for the "senior FBI managers up to the assistant director level" that approved the procedures for emergency requests, particularly for those who did so "for two years after bureau lawyers raised concerns and an FBI official began pressing for changes." (quotes from the linked article).

The fact that the Justice Department is using phrases like 'informal methods' and 'technical violation of the law' and 'determine whether discipline is warranted' does not give me much hope, however. I suspect at most some low-level agents will get a mark in their records. The best I'm realistically hoping for is that Obama at least does not reward the criminal behavior à la Bush.
posted by jedicus at 10:14 AM on January 19, 2010 [2 favorites]

Sadly, that seems to be what we can expect from our government, be it the Democrats in power or not. The real question is, what can be done so that something does happen and the culprits get suitably punished?

What can be done? Round 'em up, arrest 'em, prosecute them for multiple counts to the full extent of the law, then try them before a jury of their peers.

And if they're found guilty, fine them, throw them in jail and tell the country that they're criminals, and their behavior Won't Be Fucking Tolerated.
posted by zarq at 10:15 AM on January 19, 2010 [4 favorites]

jedicus: The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (the law they broke) provides for up to a 5 year sentence for these crimes and a minimum $10,000 civil fine.

So if the culprits are tried for multiple counts, the most they can get is 5 years and a major fine? Or do multiple counts mean multiple sentences?
posted by zarq at 10:17 AM on January 19, 2010

What can be done?

No-fly list? Also a no-job-in-government list and no-profiting-from-your-crime-by-writing-a-book-or-getting-on-a-major-corporations-board-of-directors list.
posted by DU at 10:18 AM on January 19, 2010 [3 favorites]

What can be done? Round 'em up, arrest 'em, prosecute them for multiple counts to the full extent of the law, then try them before a jury of their peers.

And if they're found guilty, fine them, throw them in jail and tell the country that they're criminals, and their behavior Won't Be Fucking Tolerated.

Yes, but the problem is that nobody is Rounding Them Up in the first place. The law is not being enforced against these people, be they spying on us or authorizing the torture of prisoners or committing war crimes. It's not happening.
posted by dunkadunc at 10:19 AM on January 19, 2010 [1 favorite]

I call India a lot. Am I on the list? Can someone check and see?

Kidding! No, I do call India a lot. My family is there. But they are very nice, law-abiding, non-violent, happy people.
posted by anniecat at 10:20 AM on January 19, 2010

This is why I began every phonecall from 2002 to 2006 with "Eat a dick if you're listening, FBI."

Those calls always bugged mom but god damnit I was right
posted by bhance at 10:20 AM on January 19, 2010 [19 favorites]

Kidding! No, I do call India a lot. My family is there. But they are very nice, law-abiding, non-violent, happy people.

Apparently, the federal government will be the judge of that.
posted by zarq at 10:21 AM on January 19, 2010 [1 favorite]

so... how does somebody go about demanding justice for this? I mean, we're years deep into what is clearly an attempt to set the precedent that the government can violate us any way they want and get away with it. how do we turn that around? besides outright revolt, what the fuck do we do to make it clear to everyone we've put in charge that this shit is not ok and we will not stand for it? I mean, I've always thought that my vote would make the difference because I could vote for the guy who would make someone actually and effectively accountable for this. I THOUGHT that's what I did in 2008. Since I was clearly deluded about that, what the fuck is my option, now? How do I get my government to stop fucking me and start representing me, for once?
posted by shmegegge at 10:26 AM on January 19, 2010 [6 favorites]

Silly Law Enforcement! Laws are for Law Abiding Citizens!
posted by yeloson at 10:28 AM on January 19, 2010

So if the culprits are tried for multiple counts, the most they can get is 5 years and a major fine? Or do multiple counts mean multiple sentences?

The civil fine is separate from the criminal prison sentence; it would involve a separate trial with a different plaintiff and different burdens of proof. (A criminal fine is possible, too). Anyway, yes, the prosecution could decide to bring a separate count for each instance, potentially adding up to many, many years, but I imagine such a long sentence would get reduced on appeal. I mean, in all fairness, these were call records (i.e., who called whom when and for how long) not the content of conversations. People should go to jail, but in my opinion probably not for more than 5-10 years and then only for the most egregious offenders who a) knew better and b) were ultimately responsible.

On the other hand, the statute specifically states that the civil fine is per violation. It's actually the greater of the actual damages, $100 / day of the violation, or $10,000. Since this was a records issue and not an ongoing wiretap, I imagine the $10,000 will be the greater amount.

If $10,000 in statutory damages seems excessive, the Justice Department might want to take a look at the Copyright Act sometime. And if 5 years in jail seems like a lot, well, take a look at what you can get for growing certain plants in your back yard.
posted by jedicus at 10:30 AM on January 19, 2010 [1 favorite]

This is my not-surprised-face.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 10:31 AM on January 19, 2010

George Carlin, from the bad old days we used to think were gone: "Whenever I answer the phone I first say 'Fuck Hoover!'"
posted by twsf at 10:33 AM on January 19, 2010 [4 favorites]

Yes, but the problem is that nobody is Rounding Them Up in the first place. The law is not being enforced against these people, be they spying on us or authorizing the torture of prisoners or committing war crimes. It's not happening.

Step one was electing a candidate who promised to change the status quo. Step two is making him keep his promises, while recognizing that even a candidate who campaigned on a platform of change and was elected through the desire of the masses to fulfill those promises can only do so much to alter the status quo in a short time period.

Step three is to continue to make our voices heard at the voting booth. Elect only those candidates who promise to enforce the law in these matters.
posted by zarq at 10:33 AM on January 19, 2010 [2 favorites]

Explain to me how politicians keep getting elected who simultaneously oppose a "nanny state" but support domestic surveillance a la "Big Brother"?

Because they're the kind of guys we'd like to have a beer with.
posted by rocket88 at 10:34 AM on January 19, 2010 [3 favorites]

This back and forth between the lawyer and the agent/manager/civil_rights_violator reminds me of frustrating e-mails I have with a co-worker who doesn't read e-mails received on their blackberry carefully. They don't actually read the whole thing and and only address half of the questions. Except instead of being about TPS reports, it is about violating people's civil rights. Banality of evil for the win.
posted by edbles at 10:36 AM on January 19, 2010 [2 favorites]

zarq: "Not quite the Change I was hoping for."

That's not what he promised. The change has to come from with us.

The change will be that we just accept that we're living in a (and I'm not calling it fascist) nation with a philosophy of 'what's good for corporations is good for the nation,' where we're very concerned with strong leaders, strong moral values, and where we scapegoat foreign or minority group(s). It naturally follows that only the guilty would be concerned with hiding their communication from government agents, who are only serving the greater good
posted by mullingitover at 10:38 AM on January 19, 2010 [3 favorites]

Seconding Shocked, Shocked.
posted by Aquaman at 10:42 AM on January 19, 2010

That's why whenever I finish a phone call, I always finish it with, "GOD BLESS THE FBI!"
posted by ExitPursuedByBear at 10:43 AM on January 19, 2010 [1 favorite]

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1033-276115.html
note that the fbI wanted access prior to 9/11
posted by Postroad at 10:48 AM on January 19, 2010

Putting aside the obvious complete F.U. to civil liberties that this is (and let's not forget that it IS an F.U.), this particular issue right here should be the negating factor in any bureaucratic decision to more broadly define what is a 'critical issue':

The stream of urgent requests for phone records also overwhelmed the FBI communications analysis unit with work that ultimately was not connected to imminent threats.

Anyone who has ever worked in any kind of medium or big corporation ought to know, unless they are drunk 24/7, that the minute you broaden the definition of a critical issue, hundreds of middle and upper managers will come running with suddenly critical issues. End result..nothing is critical, and nothing gets done. Bureaucracies eat themselves, plain and simple.
posted by spicynuts at 10:49 AM on January 19, 2010 [2 favorites]

That's not what he promised. The change has to come from with us.

I said as much here.

However, the importance of his role here -- keeping his legislative promises -- should neither be dismissed nor discounted. We elected him with the hope that he would keep those promises and help us change the status quo. He has already failed to do so with regard to FISA and telecommunications immunity. We did our part. He didn't do his.
posted by zarq at 10:52 AM on January 19, 2010 [1 favorite]

Gratuitous self-link : "You are the dullest person I ever had to trail!"
posted by The Whelk at 10:57 AM on January 19, 2010

Surely, this...

Oh, wait... that meme is dead? Oh.
posted by symbioid at 11:00 AM on January 19, 2010 [1 favorite]

so... how does somebody go about demanding justice for this?

Give up. Jesus, have you taken a look lately at transfer of wealth figures, or income inequality, for the last 30 years? Take a good hard look at the way those graphs trend during the Clinton years and find out what a successful Democratic presidency during a "great" economy really means. And do you think the ability to expend wealth has a greater or lesser impact now than it did then?

Rich people and politics are in a glorious feedback cycle now and they have perfected the art of keeping the middle class on a short and scary enough leash that we will not raise too much of a ruckus while they shave a few more millimeters off the side of our little slice of pie. Turn into a revolutionary you're liable to end up like all those really poor people who don't get any pie at all.

They fucking beat us. You can't demand justice from somebody who works for the people who own your ass. The next revolution is going to be the one where we wreck the planet, use up all the resources necessary to uphold technological civilization, and head right into the next Dark Age. It is not only not inconceivable, it is de rigueur for humanity, and there is not a shred of evidence contrary to its being the guaranteed outcome of what is unquestionably the most unsustainable global human civilization in history. On the bright side I suspect it will probably proceed just slowly enough that nobody will really notice in that "oh God the end of the world, it's all burning, I have to get my poor innocent child past the cannibals as we proceed down The Road" sort of way that the Survivalist types have such a hard-on for. Have a nice day.
posted by nanojath at 11:02 AM on January 19, 2010 [31 favorites]

Step three is to continue to make our voices heard at the voting booth. Elect only those candidates who promise to enforce the law in these matters.

The problem here is that actually enforcing these laws is seen as radical, unserious, and naive, and anybody who proposes to do so is almost universally derided as stupid and out of touch.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:02 AM on January 19, 2010 [2 favorites]

Step three is to continue to make our voices heard at the voting booth.

I'm sure the FBI has that covered. Heard and seen in the voting booth.
posted by pracowity at 11:10 AM on January 19, 2010

Just to be clear, we've known about this since the IG's 2007 report, right? That FBI agents outside the CAU were sending the telcos "exigent letters" — which indemnify the telco's cooperation under 18 USC 2702(c)(4) — without open control cases? This is just confirmation from FBI internal memos that they really didn't have them linked to case files.
posted by nicwolff at 11:12 AM on January 19, 2010 [1 favorite]

jedicus, thank you for the explanation. Much appreciated!
posted by zarq at 11:14 AM on January 19, 2010

the most unsustainable global human civilization in history.

Isn't it really the ONLY global civilization in history? Well, maybe the British Empire but I wouldn't call that a global civilization so much as a global master/servant relationship.
posted by spicynuts at 11:16 AM on January 19, 2010

I believe we've already established that the Executive Branch can't break the law, as they are solely responsible for enforcing it. Whatever they do is the law, and therefore legal.

Can't you people keep up?
posted by blue_beetle at 11:20 AM on January 19, 2010

I'm sure the FBI has that covered. Heard and seen in the voting booth.

Coming in March 2010: FBI's Most Shocking Home Videos. Starring you and your family. Also don't forget to buy our hit CD FBI's Stupid Things People Tell Each Other While On The Phone.
posted by wet-raspberry at 11:20 AM on January 19, 2010

Why isn't the Patriot Act revoked? Why is this still going on?
posted by Malice at 11:22 AM on January 19, 2010 [2 favorites]

OutrageFatigueCat is...fatigued. Really really fatigued.
posted by emjaybee at 11:23 AM on January 19, 2010 [5 favorites]

nanojath is right......the best thing you can do is teach your children about the 3 F's; Farming, Firstaid & Firearms.
posted by gigbutt at 11:24 AM on January 19, 2010 [1 favorite]

If nanojath is right, there's no point in that first F.
posted by spicynuts at 11:26 AM on January 19, 2010

The problem here is that actually enforcing these laws is seen as radical, unserious, and naive, and anybody who proposes to do so is almost universally derided as stupid and out of touch.

We have an opportunity to change that. I don't believe apathy and cynicism are valid responses to criminal acts. Nor should they be allowed to dominate matters.
posted by zarq at 11:33 AM on January 19, 2010 [2 favorites]

What's to stop the people who know they were surveilled from suing the government for unreasonable search and seizure?
posted by joannemerriam at 11:33 AM on January 19, 2010

What's to stop the people who know they were surveilled from suing the government for unreasonable search and seizure?

The "state secrets" defense. Courts virtually never rule against that. The government says 'state secret' and the case is over, finished, done.

In the one case where that didn't appear to be happening (the telecom surveillance program), Congress rushed through a retroactive law making it legal.
posted by Malor at 11:37 AM on January 19, 2010 [1 favorite]

9/11 was a Tuesday. Friday night I got a one line email from my mom, the first I'd heard from her despite efforts otherwise: "Am fine, working hard, be in touch when I can." My friends were incredulous up till then because I'd been completely nonchalant about not hearing from my own mother after something like that. Completely normal in my house.

She was working 20 hours a day that week, and 18/day the next. It turned out one of the hijackers had stayed in her city on 9/10, and since she worked for the FBI, they were systemically going through each and every business in the area around where they had staid to find out where they had been, what they had done, and in general, trying to discover anything at all that would expand the scope of the investigation beyond those hijacking cowards who were now dead and beyond the reach of the law. Every time I go see her I pass all the places they'd been. I still get the urge to demolish them.

The Afghanistan war came pretty quickly after that, because people like my mom were doing the same thing in hundreds of cities all over the globe. They had to in order to prevent any further attacks. Those are the FBI types: quit, analytical, systemic. Like all externally focused intel agencies, the CIA, on the other hand, collates information from all sources and looks for patterns. Multiple occurrences of identical info from different sources gets bumped up because it's slightly more likely since it can't be one paranoid person's ramblings, etc. It works from them because we ask them to divine the unknown before it happens. The FBI figures it out after it happens, but before it happens again. There's more focus on the dismantle and understand side of things.

What they do is hard, hard work. How they do it while maintaining civil liberties always boggled my mind. I can't say anything about the folks in the unit above, I didn't know them. But I do know my mom, now retired, and her coworkers at the time. They're the best people I've ever met, and they cared about our liberties. It was often shoved in their face quite dramatically. My mom actually left because of all the lie detector tests and such everyone was being forced to do. Once a year was one thing, but... It got too ridiculous and she'd already belted away a lifetime with them anyway. Other's did as she did, and some staid. All walked that line between privacy and investigation though, they did it well, and I'm proud of them.

Freaking weird childhood though. Her retirement party was a room full of men in suits with peculiar bulges under their arms or by their legs. Other than in stores, I'd never been around so many guns in my life.

Anyway, the problem isn't about promises and lies. That's why I just told you all the above. There are a lot of people in the government just like us, doing their part day in and day out as best they can. Some of us work in places that go south pretty quickly because of bad business dynamics though. A new person gets hired, there is a misunderstanding, the person who'd normally smooth it over just died, and before you know it it's business as usual even if people know it's wrong. Ask yourselves how to prevent that. It's a matter of communication, good management, and oversight. Establish guidelines and benchmarks for that and you'll stop these things from happening.

The larger question becomes, though, why those aren't there in the first place. And there's a simple reason for that: Between WW2 and the space age our nation took a giant leap and our civic and government institutions never caught up. Simple stuff like maintaining quality control on a large scale just never made it. Same thing with "Keep it simple, stupid." We put everything to committees instead. It's suicide. And I'm not talking about government transparency, though that's an element of it. It's a matter of bringing our values and knowledge to the government since the people being elected don't have them. That's how you select a candidate. Not the bull we've been doing. Electing one person won't be enough. Critical mass is needed. Start with an example and make it a case study. Teach others. It'll go from there. Maybe all that's needed is knowledge transfer from civilians to government workers... Tasteful and respectful. Hell, it could be an online newsletter I guess. Have to start some place.
posted by jwells at 11:37 AM on January 19, 2010 [9 favorites]

Malice: Why isn't the Patriot Act revoked? Why is this still going on?

Because it was never about terrorism in the first place.
posted by Malor at 11:38 AM on January 19, 2010 [8 favorites]

Isn't it really the ONLY global civilization in history?

There has always been a global human civilization by virtue of all of it living on the same globe at the same time. It just wasn't always all connected, which just might be the point. No quarantine, nothing to keep the disease from spreading to the whole population, and hence, the lowest low ever, the most brutal and lengthy recovery to ensue. Wow I really just need to leave speculation mode now, I'm getting really bummed out. Thanks a lot, fucking FBI.
posted by nanojath at 11:42 AM on January 19, 2010

I just finished Freedom (TM) by Daniel Suarez, sequel to the excellent Daemon. Suarez has a pretty good grasp on the nanojathian future, which I happen to think has a pretty good chance of coming to pass. Unfortunately, there will be no Daemon to save us.
posted by adamdschneider at 11:50 AM on January 19, 2010

Surely, this...

And don't call me Shirley.
posted by Evilspork at 11:57 AM on January 19, 2010

Reminds me of a paperback series I read several years ago titled "U.S.S.A" (United Secure States of America). It read then as purely fantasy, but in this day and age it's fast becoming reality. I wonder how long it will be before 'civil liberties' are nothing but a memory.
posted by Telpethoron at 12:01 PM on January 19, 2010

The problem here is that actually enforcing these laws is seen as radical, unserious, and naive, and anybody who proposes to do so is almost universally derided as stupid and out of touch.

That, pretty much, is the biggest problem. I don't think absolutely no one will be punished. A few people will be scapegoated, as will be the case with Gitmo, as has been the case with a couple war atrocities. I think what Obama is trying to avoid is a protracted and expensive investigation and prosecutions in the hopes that no one as bad as the Bush administration was will ever get in the White House again and do these terrible things; that there will be a change in attitude on a personal level.

The problem with this idea is that someone as bad as Bush almost did get into the White House. He needs to understand that the only way we prevent this from happening again is through investigations and prosecutions. I realize that Obama cannot wave a magic wand and make all this happen - and I've been as vocal as many others when it comes to defending the man - but what I'm saying is, crimes of this stature cannot go unpunished, and it's my hope he realizes this, and that he encourages the Attorney General (or whoever else is relevant) to act on this.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 12:04 PM on January 19, 2010 [2 favorites]

nobody will really notice in that "oh God the end of the world, it's all burning, I have to get my poor innocent child past the cannibals as we proceed down The Road" sort of way

I remember reading one of those end-of-de-world books called "Stark", where the world warms up, and gets wetter, to the point where most crops rot/moulder before they're ripe, and masses of floating plant start metastasizing over the oceans, eating nitrates and starving the waters of oxygen.

I think the happy ending was that the rich bastards who escape the rapid decline end up killing each other in space after the world becomes untenable, because they're all morally bankrupt, of course.

Up north here, it's horrifying to consider that we're spawned from Britain with it's ubiquitous camera and telephone monitoring, and next door to the poor Yanks, wailing as they're drawn into darkness. I think I was smug for a moment, thinking we'd somehow dodged this akwardness, before I realized that we'd likely mesh the two.
posted by LD Feral at 12:11 PM on January 19, 2010 [1 favorite]

OutrageFatigueCat is...fatigued. Really really fatigued.

It is important to note that outrage fatigue does not mean new outrages are being forgotten, bumped off the pile. Instead, they add to the nation's increasing idealism debt, which soon promises to surpass even its monetary debt.
posted by JHarris at 12:16 PM on January 19, 2010 [3 favorites]

Isn't it really the ONLY global civilization in history? Well, maybe the British Empire but I wouldn't call that a global civilization so much as a global master/servant relationship.

How is the present situation different? Are you aware of what happens to small countries who don't cling to the US like suckerfish?
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 12:25 PM on January 19, 2010 [1 favorite]

Sometimes I think the only hope we have left for anything resembling privacy is the technical incompetence of our lawmakers and the people who implement our laws.
posted by immlass at 12:38 PM on January 19, 2010

Good! I hope they thoroughly enjoyed my husband describing what nasty Taco Bell did to his colon. If that wasn't terrorism in a bathroom, I don't know what is.

What a waste of time and money.
posted by stormpooper at 12:55 PM on January 19, 2010

....and in other news, water is wet.

But do keep in mind this was done to catch the evil-doooers of 9/11 and to stop future evil doooers so its all good. They'll be easy to spot because they are COMPLETELY FUCKING INSANE - hence only 2000 and the insane people who would question the efforts of the leaders who lead, what with their leading.

so... how does somebody go about demanding justice for this?
Electing one person won't be enough. Critical mass is needed.

You hope for change. (see how well all that change is working out hope-rs?)

You could look at the Grand Jury laws in your area then send a ham sandwich to the people responsible so they can get true billed. Get a critical mass of people using the power of the Grand Jury - at least I'd have a good reason to get the popcorn out at the courthouse.

pass all the places they'd been. I still get the urge to demolish them.

Yea, now THATS the positive action thinking we need more of. Destroy places just because some people used to be there.

left because of all the lie detector tests and such everyone was being forced to do.

Nice to know that being intrusive was practiced 'in the shop' 1st. I'm sure that helps foster good will with others....I mean if you are the "best of the best" and YOU are being checked out - the flawed masses must really need a once-over.

maintaining quality control on a large scale just never made it.

Really? Huh. An interesting claim. All the people talking about six sigma must be fakers.
posted by rough ashlar at 1:13 PM on January 19, 2010

All the people talking about six sigma must be fakers.

Have you actually looked into Six Sigma?
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:42 PM on January 19, 2010

Jesus - “I can’t..” “I hope…” “Give up…” “Nothing will happen…”
Y’know, you look at the sacrifices being made and work being done by so many damn people actually trying to make something happen, actually doing something to see people prosecuted, bringing lawsuits or actually working to change the law – where the fuck have you been for the past eight years?
God forbid you get involved, organize or send a fucking dollar to someone because justice is, what, someone else’s problem?
People have sacrificed and died to *make* justice and liberty and to reveal the truth, and gee we all value that sooo much, buuuut shiiiit, it ain’t gonna happen because *I* can’t do it or be bothered to support someone who is so I'll bitch about how Obama isn't doing everything for me.
Larry Flynt is a goddamn wheelchair bound (former) drug addicted pornographer with bipolar disorder who grew up poor as hell (couldn’t afford shoes) with an alcoholic father, dropped out of high school and ran away from home and he’s done a hell of a lot of work and shows no unwillingness to expose himself to peril or spend his fortune or any sign he’s giving up.

What’s your excuse?
No one wins?
There's nothing you can do to protect yourself?
There's no one working on it?
The ACLU and the NY Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit regarding this back in 2004. The court of appeals ruled the gag order provisions under the national security letters were unconstitutional. And the Obama admin didn't ask the supreme court to review the lower court (granted he doesn't get stellar marks otherwise). And granted Doe v. Holder is ongoing, but let's not pretend there's nothing you or anyone can do therefore nothing is ever going to happen. There's no reason not to try.
And there's no shortage of resources, plenty of folks in groups looking the same way on this stuff.

Now, want to bitch that this is b.s. or you're unsurprised it happened - swell. But nothing to be done? I don't think so.

“Electing one person won't be enough. Critical mass is needed.”
Yup. Leaders don’t make movements. Movements make leaders.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:06 PM on January 19, 2010 [12 favorites]

How is the present situation different? Are you aware of what happens to small countries who don't cling to the US like suckerfish?

The Australian Prime Minister said something vaguely critical of American foreign policy some years back and they cancelled the fuck out of Sunday afternoon M*A*S*H marathons. Now it's all Hanna-Barbera.
posted by turgid dahlia at 2:28 PM on January 19, 2010

Gottal Look forward, not back!
posted by delmoi at 3:30 PM on January 19, 2010

Bureau officials said agents were working quickly under the stress of trying to thwart the next terrorist attack and were not violating the law deliberately.

Aieeeeeee, stop talking about warrants! The stress! Aiiigh! Does someone have Aspirin?
posted by jscott at 3:31 PM on January 19, 2010 [1 favorite]

In 2012 Obama will come to realize that not prosecuting Bush's pals was a fatal political mistake. You can bet that even his Republican opponent will bring it up.
posted by notreally at 4:24 PM on January 19, 2010

You can bet that even his Republican opponent will bring it up.

Not really.
posted by VikingSword at 4:28 PM on January 19, 2010

Six sigma and TQM came to be regarded as philosophies more than anything else. ISO 9000 certification and Systems Engineering are great examples though, but they haven't seen the sort of widescale adoption needed. Systems Engineering was at least a product of the government though.

For the lie detectors, yes, when you have people like Robert Hanssen and are trying to take on the mafia and the KGB, an intrusive environment is needed. However, as I stated above, that intrusiveness doesn't extend to their dealings with civilians and all but a radical few would consider it wrong under any circumstances. Headquarters doesn't do a good job of backing that up with crap like this and Carnivore though.

And, Rough, it's a little weird you don't think I'm capable of rationalizing the continued business of those places is a big FU to the terrorists and a sign to the rest of the world of our open and inclusive society. I figured that would be a no brainer but I'll keep this in mind in the future to make my already too long missives even longer. Thanks.
posted by jwells at 5:34 PM on January 19, 2010

You can bet that even his Republican opponent will bring it up.

I'm not positive, but I don't believe there is a statute of limitations on treason. If his Republican opponent intends to bring it up, he's entirely free to start the process him or herself.
posted by shmegegge at 6:34 PM on January 19, 2010

>....and in other news, water is wet.

But do keep in mind this was done to catch the evil-doooers of 9/11 and to stop future evil doooers so its all good. They'll be easy to spot because they are COMPLETELY FUCKING INSANE - hence only 2000 and the insane people who would question the efforts of the leaders who lead, what with their leading.

Rough, I'm afraid I have no idea exactly what your point was trying to be. Can you explain?

For my part, the point of my snarky "and water is wet" comment was simply that many of us were already AWARE that the FBI was doing this, and have been telling people this for years, so these "new" revelations are actually not new. I wasn't speaking to the inherant nature of the news, only the notion that it was actually anything "new".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:39 PM on January 19, 2010

It's not that kicking the rule of law in the balls is new or even unloved: Lincoln? Wilson? Roosevelt?. It's not even that everybody knows about it now that makes it different.

It's that nobody cares.
posted by digitalprimate at 6:46 PM on January 19, 2010

God forbid you get involved, organize or send a fucking dollar to someone because justice is, what, someone else’s problem?

How about, hey here's some websites you can go to to learn how you really can help. These guys are doing good work, etc.

Flies with honey, etc.
posted by callmejay at 7:19 PM on January 19, 2010

So this hasn't compromised my Farmville account, has it?
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 7:48 PM on January 19, 2010

Just a gentle reminder cause it's easy to forget for you poor guys in the states, I think, but there are actually heaps of places in the world where stuff like this doesn't really happen - and if it did the outrage would be palpable, and the government would be embarrassed and even voted out perhaps. Maybe not as many places as in the seventies, but still quite a few places. It doesn't have to be this way.
posted by smoke at 8:14 PM on January 19, 2010

Bush was never the problem.
posted by regicide is good for you at 10:17 PM on January 19, 2010

And nothing will happen and nobody will be punished.

I really hope this becomes a Keep Calm and Carry On-style meme.
posted by bright cold day at 9:16 AM on January 20, 2010

"Outright revolt" seems like a pretty good idea, actually.
posted by streetdreams at 9:21 AM on January 20, 2010

Quick, delete all your download music and movies!
posted by bwg at 5:57 AM on January 21, 2010

"Outright revolt" seems like a pretty good idea, actually.

Who wants to volunteer to be arrested? Tasered? Tear gassed? Clubbed? Tortured? Pay lots of legal fees and do time in jail while someone else gets your job and you family goes hungry?
That said, revolt is how things get changed when the government won't represent and won't deal with corruption.

If there's a certain critical mass of people revolting, it's easier for more people to hit the streets and revolt. But if you're just a few hundred, nay a few thousand people, it's all too easy for the cops to roll in with their riot gear and use their "non-lethal" weapons as lethally as possible.
And then they can just shoot you, too.
posted by dunkadunc at 10:34 AM on January 21, 2010

Judge Tosses NSA Spy Cases

EFF Plans Appeal of Jewel v. NSA Warrantless Wiretapping Case
posted by homunculus at 9:01 AM on January 23, 2010

Courts, Congress Shun Addressing Legality of Warrantless Eavesdropping
posted by homunculus at 6:22 PM on January 29, 2010

What’s your excuse?

I don't have a dollar.
posted by Malice at 8:39 AM on January 30, 2010