New Guidelines Would Give F.B.I. Broader Powers

[FRED]

Just a suggestion. Instead of worrying about why a building hit by jet liners full of fuel fell down, how about discussing a series of changes in the law which, if they keep up, may wind up putting someone we know in prison for nothing?

New Guidelines Would Give F.B.I. Broader Powers
By ERIC LICHTBLAU

Published: August 21, 2008

Loosened restrictions would allow agents to open a national security or criminal investigation against someone without any clear basis for suspicion.

[metalman]

Re: New Guidelines Would Give F.B.I. Broader Powers

Just a suggestion. Instead of worrying about why a building hit by jet liners full of fuel fell down, how about discussing a series of changes in the law which, if they keep up, may wind up putting someone we know in prison for nothing?

New Guidelines Would Give F.B.I. Broader Powers
By ERIC LICHTBLAU

Published: August 21, 2008

Loosened restrictions would allow agents to open a national security or criminal investigation against someone without any clear basis for suspicion.

thx but 911 shit is comfortably in the past were i like to keep my thoughts about the gov't on my ass... why dwell on the present?

see this guy?



he thinks he's a modern day edward r. murrow.

but some day the gov't will throw him in prison, and the american people won't even remember his name.

[phirang]

Re: New Guidelines Would Give F.B.I. Broader Powers

thx but 911 shit is comfortably in the past were i like to keep my thoughts about the gov't on my ass... why dwell on the present?

see this guy?

he thinks he's a modern day edward r. murrow.

but some day the gov't will throw him in prison, and the american people won't even remember his name.

pfff... the people have no power. The government fears strong unions and real community activists, not some useless tv guy who can be replaced with car-chases if he gets too irksome.

The US gov should have been overthrown in the 1930's, but Americans were and remain extremely naive politically.

[metalman]

Re: New Guidelines Would Give F.B.I. Broader Powers

pfff... the people have no power. The government fears strong unions and real community activists, not some useless tv guy who can be replaced with car-chases if he gets too irksome.

The US gov should have been overthrown in the 1930's, but Americans were and remain extremely naive politically.

ok, fair enough. if he actually stands up when the shit comes down he'd get in trouble, but he won't... now he's all about ratings, like the fate of the nation is some kind or reality tv show.... and at some level he must know the american people will throw him under the bus to get run down like a squirrel when he's vilified for 'giving comfort to our enemies'.

[Guest]

Re: New Guidelines Would Give F.B.I. Broader Powers

The US gov should have been overthrown in the 1930's, but Americans were and remain extremely naive politically.

Sorry Phirang, but this is the kind of "gadfly" statement that I regard a little dubiously. It has a nice self-assured sort of sort of ring to it, but what does it mean? According to you we've been ripe for a revolution ever since the '30's? Americans have been too "naive" to recognize a whole slew of governments they should have summarily overthrown in a liberating act of revolution, ever since 1930?

Lessee .. Harry Truman and Ike Eisenhower were in reality tinpot dictators, lording it like sold out apparatchiks over a hapless, ignorant and enslaved American electorate too stupid to know it was merely the mule pulling the American economy for the benefit of a claque of oligarchs? Ike and Harry Truman, the tin-pot tyrants, each "put one over" on the nation, while wearing a fig leaf of a cynical democratic veneer, but were only serving a little coterie of oligarchs that provided such a wretched administration of the country in return, that a mere bus-driver in the 1950's could raise a family of five kids and even put a couple of them through college?

They certainly had those hapless sheeple fooled about their standard of living, eh?

According to your "Americans should have staged a revolution instead" thesis, this was actually just a clever illusion of prosperity so compromised it could only be remedied by an overthrow of the entire governmental system. Too rotten to salvage. Meanwhile the US "hegemony" during this era oversaw the largest proliferation of fledgeling democracies take root throughout the world as had occurred in 100 years. Oh yeah, and another surge of democracies have taken root since the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. Of course, America today is rotting from the inside out, but think before throwing out these assertions about irremediable governments since 1930 - some people might conclude your politics were a little too "impetuous"?

[Supercilious]

Re: New Guidelines Would Give F.B.I. Broader Powers

Slightly off topic and a little bit in truther spirit, but still interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kB-JGqDukbY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6i8ESCVj-4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiFlouOozpk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-JF6wZC6v0

[Slimprofits]

Re: New Guidelines Would Give F.B.I. Broader Powers

Just a suggestion. Instead of worrying about why a building hit by jet liners full of fuel fell down, how about discussing a series of changes in the law which, if they keep up, may wind up putting someone we know in prison for nothing?

New Guidelines Would Give F.B.I. Broader Powers
By ERIC LICHTBLAU

Published: August 21, 2008

Loosened restrictions would allow agents to open a national security or criminal investigation against someone without any clear basis for suspicion.

Interesting that is says in the article the plan hasn't been released to the public, yet the ACLU attorney quoted appears to already have full knowledge of it. I suppose the Democrats shared it with them.

It also says in the artice that the plan could be made public next month. Does "could" refer to the time frame or the idea that the plan could be made public?

[metalman]

Re: New Guidelines Would Give F.B.I. Broader Powers

Slightly off topic and a little bit in truther spirit, but still interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kB-JGqDukbY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6i8ESCVj-4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiFlouOozpk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-JF6wZC6v0

thanks for posting this. the commentator claims access to 'members of congress who leaked information' on the contents of the secret session... usa economic collapse, gov't finances collapse, rioting is not a completely crazy scenario but i wish there was also another source. do you know of one? is the commentator this michael herzog?

[Rajiv]

Re: New Guidelines Would Give F.B.I. Broader Powers

What was discussed at a closed session of the U.S. House of Representatives?

Tuesday March 25, 2008 7:37pm EST

BRISBANE, Australia - The House has held a closed session for the first time in 25 years and apparently discussed a hotly contested surveillance bill.

Republicans had requested privacy for what they termed "an honest debate" on the new Democratic eavesdropping measure.

Conspiracy theorists around the world have filled many pages of blogs and emails with theories as to why the public was prevented to hear what their elected representatives said and heard.

That is the nature of secrets: those "kept in the dark" want to know and in the absence of knowledge, seek answers.

Writers suggested that the special closed session of the U.S. House of Representatives discussed a lot more than the pending security surveillance provisions.

Last week's session was only the fourth time in 176 years that Congress has closed it's doors to the public.

Word has begun leaking from last weeks special, closed-door session of the United States House of Representatives.

Theorists wrote "Not only did members discuss new surveillance provisions as was the publicly stated reason for the closed door session, they also discussed: The imminent collapse of the U.S. economy to occur by September 2008, the imminent collapse of US federal government finances by February 2009, the possibility of Civil War inside the USA as a result of the collapse and advance round-ups of "insurgent U.S. citizens" likely to move against the government.

Also theorised was the detention of those rounded-up at "REX 84" camps constructed throughout the USA and the possibility of retaliation against members of Congress for the collapses and the location of "safe facilities" for members of Congress and their families to reside during expected massive civil unrest

Other answers included "the necessary and unavoidable merger of the United States with Canada" (for its natural resources) and with Mexico (for its cheap labor pool), the issuance of a new currency - THE AMERO - for all three nations as the proposed solution to the coming economic armageddon.

Members of Congress were FORBIDDEN to reveal what was discussed and ABC News via WCPO web site at the link below CONFIRMS congress members were FORBIDDEN to talk about it!

Several are so furious and concerned about the future of the country, they have begun leaking info. More details coming later today and over the weekend.
http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story...4-4a27f8407536

That is the problem with secrets and inadequate explanations for their necessity, imaginations run wild.

[raja]

Re: New Guidelines Would Give F.B.I. Broader Powers

Just a suggestion. Instead of worrying about why a building hit by jet liners full of fuel fell down, how about discussing a series of changes in the law which, if they keep up, may wind up putting someone we know in prison for nothing?

New Guidelines Would Give F.B.I. Broader Powers
By ERIC LICHTBLAU

Published: August 21, 2008

Loosened restrictions would allow agents to open a national security or criminal investigation against someone without any clear basis for suspicion.

"The senators said the new guidelines would allow the F.B.I. to open an investigation of an American, conduct surveillance, pry into private records and take other investigative steps “without any basis for suspicion.” The plan “might permit an innocent American to be subjected to such intrusive surveillance based in part on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, or on protected First Amendment activities,” the letter said."

OR if he/she brings to public awareness the stealing of money from American citizens through corrupt economic policies and giving it to Wall St., bankers and politicians . . . . :eek:

[Rajiv]

Re: New Guidelines Would Give F.B.I. Broader Powers

Also for perspectve, here is Kucinich interviewed the next day -- ( he did not attend the secret session)

Also Ron Paul on Mar 12, the day before the secret session -- that was called by the republican whip

The last minute is what is relevant

[Rajiv]

Re: New Guidelines Would Give F.B.I. Broader Powers

All 9 parts of the debate can be heard here

Debate about Secret Session in House of Representatives

[Guest]

Re: New Guidelines Would Give F.B.I. Broader Powers

Rajiv - I appreciate the high level of civic concern for the potential demise of the Republic, and I stand firmly with you and others of like concern on this. But this quote invites the exercise of a small degree of critical faculties be applied to the assertion that all this material was a central component of those closed door discussions:

<< Theorists wrote "Not only did members discuss new surveillance provisions as was the publicly stated reason for the closed door session, they also discussed: The imminent collapse of the U.S. economy to occur by September 2008, the imminent collapse of US federal government finances by February 2009, the possibility of Civil War inside the USA as a result of the collapse and advance round-ups of "insurgent U.S. citizens" likely to move against the government. Also theorised was the detention of those rounded-up at "REX 84" camps constructed throughout the USA and the possibility of retaliation against members of Congress for the collapses and the location of "safe facilities" for members of Congress and their families to reside during expected massive civil unrest >>

Now STOP and THINK coolly for a moment, divorced from the very critical and controversial nature of this discussion - with all critical faculties intact, as a highly educated individual accustomed to think for themselves and not get fooled to easily. You have 400+ congressional delegates, and at any time a random selection of these attending a special closed session to discuss such a wildly controversial issue as "martial law" "collapse of Federal Government", "possibility of civil war" "federally enforced mass round-ups". Who then, with a level head on their shoulders, would read "solemnly sworn not to divulge or leak the contents of this special session" without cracking a smile?

People who buy into this feverish speculation are demonstrating an almost childlike suspension of disbelief IMHO. You really want to exasperate the laws of probability right out to disneyland levels, by assuming, as though it were a "fait accomplit", that there was not a single member of that session who would have been outraged enough to find a way to leak a HIGHLY DETAILED set of minutes or even just a detailed memory recovered proximation of those minutes, to the general public? A single member who wanted to alert the US public to this issue would have taken care to leak something more detailed, to lend credibility to the agenda reported, so as to awaken due concern!

And if the agenda was of such explosive content, why on earth would Kucinic NOT attend in order to exercise his ability to remain a lone witness for the free Republic?? To overlook such reasoning evidences the fact that such speculation abdicates it's own critical faculties!!

This is of the same preposterous rational contortionism as the thesis that Bilderberger groups have come down through the decades and centuries and there has never been any serious leak of the more nefarious parts of their closed sessions? The suspension of disbelief on the part of it's proponents is nothing short of astonishing.

You've got the US here, with 400+ members of Congress, who's web of interests tying them to FIRE economy subornment are far inferior to those of the average Senator - these are REPRESENTATIVES, much more closely bound to their constituencies, and you erect this gossamer floating thesis where suspension of disbelief is wafted up to truly ethereal heights, where the enactment of a "US KRISTALLNACHT" is openly discussed within what is putatively billed as a "US congressional session of sternly enforced secrecy" and only the flimsiest whispers by third, fourth or fifth attribution can be scrounged up in the nation subsequently, to evidence that a US KRISTALLNACHT was discussed there?

This sort of animistic thinking does not do your civic minded cause a good service! It on the surface appears to be a robust expression of American civc minded spirit - and in principle, it is absolutely correct. But if one employs a rudimentary skepticism, one has to wonder, how it's possible that every last member of our Congress (and don't forget, these appointees are all limited by terms of office!) is so thoroughly suborned that they can attend a session where the contents conforms to the above darkly breathless description, and NO ONE LEAKS ANYTHING! I have no firm opinion on whether it is truthful or not, but you can count me among the serious skeptics.

And I note that tellingly, a lot of those drawn like moths to a flame by this dark drama are the same people who are drawn like moths to a flame by the equally dark and melodramatic speculations on the "true cause of the world trade center collapse".

At a certain point you guys have to wonder whether the cause of true minded, and critically strong vigilance for a free Republic is well served by crying WOLF one time too many. Once again, I rule nothing out. I am NOT dogmatic about this. I MAY be wrong. It IS possible. But where is the truly probing due and highly necessary counter-interrogation of one's own pet theses here? Where is the skepticism which carefully examines all the potential reasons which invalidate it's own favored thesis? Such self-questioning would lend far more robustness to such speculations. So, we have every last member of that closed Congressional session so suborned that they do not understand the massive threat to the Republic represented here? That would seem to suggest a massive arrogance on OUR part, insofar as we impute to every last one of these Congressmen the quality of sheep.

I distrust the mindset which employs such implicit intellectual arrogance towards fellow citizens. I have never liked expressions around here of reference to all those around us as SHEEP, because while it may be true in a few instances, it is almost never true in any entirety, and it speaks more to the conceits of those engaging in this "sport" than it does about the "sheep" they mis-label as such.

[Rajiv]

Re: New Guidelines Would Give F.B.I. Broader Powers

I totally agree with you here. In fact as Kucinich suggested in the Democracy Now interview -- that this was a ploy to engage in FUD on the part of the Republican leadership -- to get the new FISA passed -- and it appears (since the bill did indeed pass) that they may have been successful in that attempt.

However, it could just as well have been campaign contributions!

HOUSE DEMS WHO CHANGED THEIR VOTE TO SUPPORT FISA BILL, GIVING IMMUNITY TO TELCOS, RECEIVED, ON AVERAGE, $8,359 IN PAC CONTRIBUTIONS FROM VERIZON, AT&T, AND SPRINT

MAPLight.org's research department compiled PAC campaign contributions from Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint and correlated them with the voting records of all House members who voted on last week’s FISA bill. (The analysis used data from CRP; contributions were from January 2005 through March 2008). Here are the findings:

Comparing Democrats' Votes (March 14th and June 20th votes):

Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint gave PAC contributions averaging:

$8,359 to each Democrat who changed their position to support immunity for Telcos (94 Dems)
$4,987 to each Democrat who remained opposed to immunity for Telcos (116 Dems)

88 percent of the Dems who changed to supporting immunity (83 Dems of the 94) received PAC contributions from Verizon, AT&T, or Sprint during the last three years (Jan. 2005-Mar. 2008). See below for list of these 94 Dems.

All House Members (June 20th vote):
Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint gave PAC contributions averaging:

$9,659 to each member of the House voting "YES" (105-Dem, 188-Rep)
$4,810 to each member of the House voting "NO" (128-Dem, 1-Rep)

However what does concern me are similar concerns to those voiced by Dennis Kucincich as to why such a ploy would have been used in this situation.

[metalman]

Re: New Guidelines Would Give F.B.I. Broader Powers

Now STOP and THINK coolly for a moment, divorced from the very critical and controversial nature of this discussion - with all critical faculties intact, as a highly educated individual accustomed to think for themselves and not get fooled to easily. You have 400+ congressional delegates, and at any time a random selection of these attending a special closed session to discuss such a wildly controversial issue as "martial law" "collapse of Federal Government", "possibility of civil war" "federally enforced mass round-ups". Who then, with a level head on their shoulders, would read "solemnly sworn not to divulge or leak the contents of this special session" without cracking a smile?

this forum just entertained a discussion of ufos and 911 conspiracy theory. this thread started off as a serious discussion of actual legislation as reported by that bastion of truth, freedom, and the american way, the nytimes. :eek:

quickly the reptilian brain kicks in and we're talking about martial law.

a lot of green between that ball and the pocket.