| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| New FBI Guidelines Debated |
| 2008-08-21 |
| New rules on FBI investigations of national security cases should be delayed, top Senate Judiciary Committee members said Monday, raising concerns that ethnic or racial groups could be targeted despite no evidence of wrongdoing. In a letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, the senators called for congressional hearings on the rules before they are finalized. They suggested delaying the rules — known as the attorney general guidelines — until FBI Director Robert Mueller appears before the panel Sept. 17. Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the panel's top Republican, called the guidelines a "laudatory effort to ensure that front-line agents are given clear rules to follow in pursuit of their investigations." "Nevertheless, efforts to harmonize the rules governing criminal and national security matters also raise potential civil liberties concerns, given the broader latitude currently given to investigators to consider race and ethnicity in national security matters," Leahy and Specter wrote. They added: "The important aims of the guidelines, and their potential implications for civil liberties, require a meaningful dialogue between Congress and DOJ." Among the factors that could make someone subject to an investigation is travel to regions of the world known for terrorist activity, access to weapons or military training, along with the person's race or ethnicity. Mukasey repeatedly has said that investigations will not be opened solely on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion or other traits that could amount to unconstitutional profiling. He has declined to answer whether the new rules could change the standards for opening an investigation or otherwise allow FBI to scrutinize Americans without evidence of a crime. |
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #8 trailing wife: Right now, I can win any law and order argument with just two words. "Obama administration." I wonder who his attorney general might be? Ice-T? He played a cop on TV once, and his character was a Republican. This would show that Obama is bi-partisan. Just forget that whole "Cop Killer" thing. He might offer it to Danny Glover, who also played a cop a few times in the movies, but Glover would want to be Secretary of State, or at least ambassador to Cuba. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-08-21 16:51 |
| #7 Fraud? Give 'em hell. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-08-21 14:13 |
| #6 We have to be careful on this stuff. The potential for abuse is signficant. The Patriot Act already gives some potentially dangerous powers to the government wrt arrest and hold without charges, etc. It is easy for those of us who are not law breakers to cheer for more government power, but who knows, in the future, these same laws could be used against you because someone in power does not care for what you write here at the burg, or the composition of your gun collection. Just sayin... |
| Posted by: remoteman 2008-08-21 13:19 |
| #5 It's the "police paradox". That is, while there is a huge emphasis on stopping terrorism, and many laws are passed to do just that, actual terrorism is only .000001% of all criminal activity in the US. So invariably, the anti-terrorism laws are used for the vast majority of non-terrorism criminal investigations. When asked, a LOT of people will still say "Fine! Let's crack down on the other criminals, like murderers, arsonists, drug dealers, child p*rnographers and other violent felons using the anti-terrorism laws!" Unfortunately, even these criminal acts are by far the minority or felonious crimes committed in the US. Is it worth surrendering constitutional protections so that anti-terrorism laws can be used against: drug possession, vehicular burglary, fraud, unlawful possession of a firearm (Take THAT, Heller!), and consensual statutory r*pe? Which means that most anti-terrorism laws are being used against teenagers who have s*x after stealing their father's credit card from his car, and who own a gun in New York State. While they *might* someday be used against a real, honest to goodness terrorist, is it worth it to abuse tens or hundreds of thousands of naughty, gun carrying Americans right now? It's a numbers game. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-08-21 10:05 |
| #4 Sorry this crap doesn't fly in any way shape of form. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2008-08-21 09:35 |
| #3 I was kinda hoping for the return of COINTELPRO... :-) |
| Posted by: Raj 2008-08-21 08:56 |
| #2 Here's an idea, quit breaking the law, then it doesn't matter if they look at your cell phone records. Or those 1-to-500 calls per month to Pakistan, will the Dhimacrats preclude a look-see at those individuals just because the one or both individuals are Muslims? Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Dear Lord, We know both these asshats were democratically elected; but PLEASE help us out here, for truly they must have been a sent to us straight from Hell. |
| Posted by: Red Dawg 2008-08-21 08:10 |
| #1 Senate Judiciary Committee members said Monday, raising concerns that ethnic or racial groups could be targeted despite no evidence of wrongdoing. Here's an idea, quit breaking the law, then it doesn't matter if they look at your cell phone records. |
| Posted by: Slats Hupeaper4197 2008-08-21 07:29 |