FBI Admits That Obeying The Constitution Just Takes Too Much Time
from the oh-the-horrors dept
While much of the news coverage of FBI Director Robert Mueller's Congressional hearing this week focused on his admission that the FBI has used drones domestically, there were some other points raised, including his "defense" of the broad surveillance techniques that appears to amount to the idea that it just takes too long to obey the Constitution and go through the proper procedures before getting information:Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Mueller addressed a proposal to require telephone companies to retain calling logs for five years — the period the N.S.A. is keeping them — for investigators to consult, rather than allowing the government to collect and store them all. He cautioned that it would take time to subpoena the companies for numbers of interest and get the answers back.Well, shucks. Having some amount of oversight, someone in a position to make sure that the data requested is legit would just take too long? It seems like Mueller maybe has been watching too many episodes of 24. First off, it does not take an "awful" long time. Law enforcement has regularly been able to go through legal processes to get a wiretap or subpoena other information very, very rapidly, especially when they make it clear it's an emergency situation. But the fact is, it's unlikely that most of these searches are such a timely emergency that they need the data now, and can't wait an hour or so until an employee at the telco can retrieve it for them.
“The point being that it will take an awful long time,” Mr. Mueller said.
Mueller later made some outrageous claims about how long it would take the telcos to respond to a request for information following the standard procedures in an emergency.
“In this particular area, where you’re trying to prevent terrorist attacks, what you want is that information as to whether or not that number in Yemen is in contact with somebody in the United States almost instantaneously so you can prevent that attack,” he said. “You cannot wait three months, six months, a year to get that information, be able to collate it and put it together. Those are the concerns I have about an alternative way of handling this.”He didn't explain it because it wouldn't take that long -- especially with the telcos who generally have a cozy relationship with law enforcement and a "how high?" response to the "jump!" command from the government.
Mr. Mueller did not explain why it would take so long for telephone companies to respond to a subpoena for calling data linked to a particular number, especially in a national security investigation.
Yes, I'm sure it's more convenient for the government to not have to wait an hour or so to get this info. And it's more convenient not to have to wait for a telco employee to make sure the request is legit and to retrieve the info, but we don't get rid of our Constitutional protections because of convenience for the surveillance state. The whole point of the rights of the public against such intrusions is that we, as a country, have made a conscious choice that surveillance over the population is not supposed to be convenient. It's supposed to involve careful checks and balances to avoid abuse. It's a shame that so many in our own government don't seem to recognize this basic point.
Mueller also admitted that the goal is to collect as much data as possible to "connect the dots."
“What concerns me is you never know which dot is going to be key,” he said. “What you want is as many dots as you can. If you close down a program like this, you are removing dots from the playing field,” he said. “Now, you know, it may make that decision that it’s not worth it. But let there be no mistake about it. There will be fewer dots out there to connect” in trying to prevent the next terrorist attack.Again, this is an anti-Constitutional argument. It's an argument that says any violation of privacy and civil liberties is okay if something collected might possibly be useful later. But that's not how we're supposed to do things in the US. We're only supposed to allow law enforcement to collect the dots if there's evidence that the dots show some law being broken. Furthermore, we've already seen that having lots of dots actually makes it harder to connect the dots. Since Mueller is one of the folks who has claimed that today's system might have prevented 9/11, he ought to know that the 9/11 Commission never said that an absence of dots was the problem leading to the attack, but rather the failure of existing agencies to actually do anything with the dots/evidence they had. Collecting more dots doesn't make you any more likely to connect them. In fact, it's much more likely to send you on a wild goose chase -- including some that will potentially infringe upon the rights of innocent people.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: constitution, fbi, nsa surveillance, robert mueller, subpoenas, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Let us not forget...
Meaning, the reason there are supposed to be a great deal of barriers to collecting "dots" is because the greater number of "dots" they have, the more likely they will find one that subjectively fits their analysis objectives, even if you have nothing to do with the type of crime or scheme they are looking for.
We are all human, we are all guilty of imperfection and that basic fact alone should demonstrate that data collection without a predicate scheme and probable cause is fundamentally wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let us not forget...
At that point in time, it wouldn't matter if you were innocent or not because like you said, they'll use the information fit their analysis objectives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let us not forget...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let us not forget...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let us not forget...
Anyone who's stared into a TV displaying static (yes, I'm dating myself) knows this: you'll see shapes in there. They don't exist outside of your mind, but you'll see them nonetheless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let us not forget...
As far as I'm concerned the government is rapidly showing it IS a terrorist...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let us not forget...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let us not forget...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let us not forget...
1. These "dots" could help connect you to other crimes not necessarily within the purview of the investigation they are running (even if you're completely innocent).
2. These "dots" help create "confirmation bias".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and all he gives you is a light beer !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yet they are correct
Technology allows it, we need to accept that police need to be on at least an equal footing to the criminals, or justice will almost always lose.
As a side note, Mike, it's enough with the moderation already. If you don't like my comments, that's fine, but censorship? I didn't think that you had it in you. I have plenty of comments from the last few days (all valid) that did not appear on the site. Are you now down to censoring people because you disagree with them? Are you perhaps confusing multiple people are a single person, and blocking various anonymous commentators to try to swat one fly? It seems perhaps that you have lost the plot and fallen for the very tools of evil you rail against.
Censorship sucks, and it sucks worse when someone who opposes it thinks it's the best solution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: yet they are correct
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: yet they are correct
We are giving the benefit of the system to the innocent. It's called innocent until proven guilty and it's called the Fourth Amendment. It's better to let a few guilty men go free than to imprison or infringe on the rights of one innocent man. The government cannot be allowed to become the perpetrator of crime against innocent people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: yet they are correct
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: yet they are correct
If the police are actually on an equal footing with criminals, then justice has already lost. To level the playing field means that we need to allow cops to engage in illegal an unethical behavior, just like the criminals can.
For overall justice to prevail, we have to accept that police powers must be carefully constrained and that some determined criminals will be able to escape justice because of those constraints.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: yet they are correct
LAW MAKES US CRIMINALS! So lets pass laws to make us all criminals so we can just skip to the end of this "AGENDA" and live peacefully behind bars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: yet they are correct
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: yet they are correct
[citation needed]
Though I assume because of your status as a hard core republican dinosaur, that you don't know how to use technology correctly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: yet they are correct
Every comment I make, even one as simple as this is "held for moderation". Many of the comments I have made in the last few days have either not made it to discussions, or appeared in the discussions so far after the fact as to no longer be relevant.
Mike and team made a simple mistake of assuming that I am the same person as another anonymous who went off the rails, or decided to just take the chance to shut down all opposition for while. Either way, it's censorship, just on a small scale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: yet they are correct
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: yet they are correct
Seeing how much you lie is a clear indication that you weren't spanked enough as a kid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: yet they are correct
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: yet they are correct
In the context of the 'terrorism' we're told this surveillance is supposed to prevent, neither of these statements are true.
"If you don't like my comments, that's fine, but censorship?"
There are commenters that are far more deserving of being 'disappeared' than you, and they seem to be commenting just fine. I think you overestimate your impact on this site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: yet they are correct
That was the understatement of the year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: yet they are correct
Ah, well. What else can we expect from Mr. Mancrush-on-John-Steele?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: yet they are correct
The USA was created so that the people are protected, because in all countries throughout history who quickly distribute their brand of justice many innocents paid with their lives. Study history - real history.
This country was founded on the radical concept that individuals have natural rights that cannot lawfully taken away or modified. That PROVING that the person being charged is extremely important, requiring: a reason for thinging they might be guilty of a crime, lawfully signed warrants describing the crime/item/area to be searched & specifically what looking for, lawful warrant for spying/tracking/serching/ etc, not incriminating oneself, representation, innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law to be judged by ones peers - remember the charges itself - against the person - is/are also being tried by that group of jurors; that it is not only guilt or innocence of the person but is the "law" one we even want in our nation (called jury nullification), etc.
No, the police do not need to be on an "equal footing to the criminals" in the manner you are meaning. They are on an equal footing: training, weapons, technology, etc - but the USA is NOT a "police state" like Nazi Germany, China, Russia, etc where they (police, military, representatives, bureaucrats, guy next door make the decision of life and death, guilt or innocence - not LAWFULLY anyway. Nor do most Americans want that type of life here.
This is the ONLY nation where individual rights are PROTECTED by the supreme law of this land; the US Constitution and all the is in PURSUANCE THEREOF it. Where it is the peers who decide guild or innocence, not a cop, military, representative, etc.
Read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, notice that it adds ADDITIONAL LIMITATIONS with FURTHER DECLARATORY AND RESTRICTIVE CLAUSES on the federal government to the US Constitution (Bill of Rights):
Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, IN ORDER TO PREVENT MISCONSTRUCTION OR ABUSE OF ITS POWERS, THAT FURTHER DECLARATORY AND RESTRICTIVE CLAUSES should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scope
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Scope
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Scope
Does it help you if you need hay without needles? No.
They want to collect all the data so that they can say,
'at least there was a statistical possibility that I could have found it in the data'. It gives them a defense for when they fail, a way for them to avoid personal accountability and push it away from themselves onto something or someone else. If they don't want the REAL responsibility though, they should find something else to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Scope
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Scope
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Scope
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Connect the dots to create a terrorist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Connect the dots to create a terrorist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Connect the dots to create a terrorist
Something I'd find equally fascinating, is to learn how many successful terror plots of recent years were FBI-inspired that got away from their handlers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Connect the dots to create a terrorist
The FBI plots never involve real explosives, to prevent that kind of thing from happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Bank robbers could claim they prevented banks from stealing money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prevent or punish?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prevent or punish?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prevent or punish?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prevent or punish?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Police work is always easy in a police state
In a state with a constitution guaranteeing freedom, police work is harder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
got nothing to do with recognising anything. it's to do with expecting, as a matter of course, to be able to get whatever information wanted, from whatever source, from whoever as soon as possible with the least, if any at all, wait period. the first thing is, if it were one of those saying this is ok, there's no need to tread carefully because they're only ordinary people, that was on the receiving end, there would be all hell let loose! everything bad is always fine when it's someone else on the receiving end.
this whole issue is not even about terrorist attacks or anyone else executing an attack of any description on anyone. it is all about having total control of everyone that is not in a powerful position in either business or politics. in other words, if you are just a 'joe soap', you've got no right to even have rights! if you are above 'joe soap' level, you're fine and can get away with almost anything unscathed!!
the horrendous, cowardly attacks on 9/11 were just that. although every nation has to remain vigilant, i think the 'in case of terrorism' is wearing a bit thin as an excuse for locking everyone, everywhere down all the time. there may be other attacks. i certainly hope to God there are not but to take the steps of prevention to the lengths they are at the moment, is making the people more afraid of their own government. it appears that terrorism has won because governments are doing the terrorists job, making everyone too afraid to do, go or say anything in case it is misconstrued. in other words, they are terrified!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also, maybe moar dots could have saved WTC 7 from spontaneously collapsing..
Justifying everything with 9/11 is getting old
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why don't we just make law enforcement agencies exempt from obeying the law?
/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time to obtain records from Tel Co's
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time to obtain records from Tel Co's
Why are you assuming otherwise?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time to obtain records from Tel Co's
Perhaps the volume of requests speaks volumes as to the nature of the problem. If the telco delays are taking weeks, perhaps that's because the request(s) is(are) out of line.
FBI creating it's own "crisis" to justify it's massive spying programs. Releasing the details of the requests that are taking so long would clear that up.
A government that operates in secrecy deserves no trust, and NO assumption of common sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time to obtain records from Tel Co's
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time to obtain records from Tel Co's
If that doesn't satisfy you, then we can establish a system of priority. Suppose the following:
Tel Co: Sorry FBI... It will be at least 3 days before I can get you that information.
FBI: I don't have 3 days; I need this now!
Tel Co: Well X County Constable was first in line with 25 subpoenas related to the recent Jolly Burger theft. Constable said it is really important because the suspects got away with $50 and 2 cases of meat.
FBI: I don't care about the Jolly Burger theft. By the way, how did he get 25 subpoenas issued related to that minor theft.
Tel Co: Since word got out that you all were usurping the Constitution, these magistrates have been handing out subpoenas like crazy. I'll get you the requested information when I'm done working the JB theft. Have a nice day!
I seriously think we could legislate around this problem. Upon a proper showing, imminent threats to national security would be given top priority. Problem solved. Next excuse, Marc?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time to obtain records from Tel Co's
YOU ! ! !
that's right, i tried a couple years back, and they (windstream) were NOT going to give me MY OWN FUCKING PHONE RECORDS (i remember back in the day, where every bill you got had the listing of all the calls you made)...
i had to go up a bunch of levels *and* threaten a lawsuit to get *SOME*; and *finally* only got a list of records for specific days i requested...
what a sick fucking world, the ONLY person not 'allowed' to look at their own stupid phone records, is the person PAYING THE FUCKING PHONE COMPANY FOR THEIR PHONE...
dog damn how i hate the pukes; i'd throw all the phones in the nearest pond if SWMBO would let me...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't blame the 3-letter agencies here as much as the court that ruled on this incredibly over-broad order in the first place and keeps renewing it every time it expires. The 3-letter agencies and police are expected to try to do everything they can to ensure they have everything they might possibly need to find criminals. It's the courts' job to keep telling them 'no' when they try to (or do) violate our rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not quite. They are expected to do everything they can within the law. If they are making requests that they know is beyond the intent of the law on the off chance that a court might play along anyway, then I fault them for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They do take training concerning the natural rights of the people guaranteed by the US Constitution and state Constitutions (or did). They only have to know the Bill of Rights and apply it to what they are doing to know if what they are doing is lawful or illegal. They also take an lawfully required Oath that they MUST keep to actually meet the requirements of the position they are occupying - will post applicable laws.
But shortcuts bypassing pesky things like warrants, "I don't like this person's attitude so I am going to teach him a lesson", unlawful orders from "superiors" or "officers of higher rank", unlawful presidential orders - for which THEY can be/and have been held accountable (yes, there are precedents and yes, presidential orders can be and have been found to be unlawful), make it easier to do what is unlawful here because it is "easier" at that time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office the three branches of our government, the military, all law enforcement, the heads of the States, all federal employees are required to take before assuming office.
5 U.S.C. 3333 requires the three branches of our government, the military, all law enforcement, the heads of the States, all federal employees sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law,
5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense for anyone employed in the United States Government to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”.
18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath of office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.
The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311. An EO 10450 provision specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration … of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.”
Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States. So according to EO 10450 and 5 U.S. 7311, any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331 which alters the form of government other then by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.
18 USC § 241 – Conspiracy against rights: If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I suggest cutting the congressional retirement fund in order to maintain their "balanced budget". Seems they only care about the deficit when it suits their narrative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Inconvenience
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Inconvenience
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Inconvenience
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Due/do
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe I'm missing it but I can't find where it says "unless it makes government employees work harder" or "unless something bad might be prevented." There is, however, a specific reference to security. Specifically it covers personal security which is the entire point of this amendment (and really the entire Bill Of Rights) to begin with.
The entire point of national security (or law enforcement) is to provide for the people's security so by definition any other security concerns are secondary to that goal. By extension anything that reduces personal security, as defined by the Constitution, also reduces national security.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The entire Bill of Rights? I'm not sure if the 10th appliesAlthough that closing phrase "or to the people" might qualify it. Just nitpicking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Basically, always err to the people, not to the Feds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Under Oath
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Under Oath
Hollywood != reality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Mission Accomplished"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Mission Accomplished"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Mission Accomplished"
funny, that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Snooping
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ok
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
POTUS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: POTUS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: POTUS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Constitution and the FBI
The Constitution is not too hard to follow and live by.... It does restrict Givernment, but allows the people to prosper. It was intended that way. The Democrats have always hated this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Constitution and the FBI
If you think this is a problem with Democrats and not Republicans, then you haven't been paying close enough attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr Mueller hurts his own credibility
It's "trust" in Gvt which is the "loser" here. Mr Mueller obviously thinks we should "trust" him with all information, but his statements show he "lies" so he is his own worst enemy.
He needs to quantify the "real" delay which might be from say (my guess) an hour or so, to 24 hours at most and explain why this is not acceptable and quantify the number of "incidents" which would have taken place were such a delay in force retroactively.
Snowden is no "hero" IMHO and so far I cannot see that he has "leaked" any info which wasn't already in the public domain for reasonably informed people. But the words of Mr Mueller and others in Gvt are really undermining confidence in "Gvt" and creating a widening loss of "trust".
This lack of credible leadership is very worrying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Spying
Not sure what the comparison is supposed to show, maybe it is a dog whistle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Spying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FBI say's respecting the Constitution takes too much time?
The thing that the 9/11 attacks sought to do was to change us into something other than what we were. To take away the freedom that our Constitution gave us. If we allow this mindset so prevalent today to continue,the terrorists will have succeeded. We will no longer be the America that we were before the attacks. The longest lasted constitutional republic ever created will have succumbed to a few religious zealots trying to force their misguided will upon the greatest nation ever to exist on this planet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is nothing unconsititutional
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There is nothing unconsititutional
No, the government is collecting and holding this information in their databases. And, in my opinion, that is unconstitutional.
They absolutely can access this information without a warrant. They're just pinky-swearing that they're not doing that. Also, getting a warrant form the FISA court means absolutely nothing in terms of ensuring that the access is constitutional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There is nothing unconsititutional
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bummer
~~Dwayne T. Robinson (quote from Die Hard)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An inconvenient truth
If the director of the FBI finds it is too difficult to do his job within the confines of the constitution and that he has done his job outside of the constitutional requirements he has just confessed to criminal behavior and should be immediately fired, prosecuted, and immprisoned. I am not a lawyer but in my opinion, this sounds like treasonous behavior and should be dealt with accordingly. I am tired of hearing good reasons for our government to do horrible things. It has reached the point where every person should listen to or read governmental rhetoric with a very cynical approach. My first question is, what is the hidden message in any communication from those whose sworn duties include protecting and defending the constitution of the United States. I am unable to find much protecting and defending or preservation of the Constitution going on out there. We need to put stronger strictures in place for any elected person that fails in their sworn duty to do the preserving, protecting,defending, and/or enforcing the of the Constitution. There is no greater crime, in my opinion, and the maximum punishment we can devise would suit the crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The definition of Terrorist is being broadened.
Then it came down to people who plan an act of terror (or can be goaded into such by undercover agents) but before the act was imminent.
Then it got down to people who talk about maybe committing an act of terror when they're particularly punchy or drunk.
And terrorists got expanded to people who have agendas that might lead to a terror strategy. (Environmentalists, Occupyists, Anonymous)
Then terror got expanded to acts that don't kill or injure but embarrass or inconvenience.
Now terrorists is expanded to any counterculture group that might subvert the mainstream and step outside the public's comfort zone.
And now terror includes brandishing a banana or a finger while playing let's pretend. Or having activities or ideas that are unpopular. Street art is right out.
Denn heute erhört uns Deutschland
Und morgen die ganze Welt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Constitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fbi ignores
We now have the israeli model that was long being sought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There needs to be a Revolution every 100-150 years - Ben Franklin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Constitution in the way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Constitution in the way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
information send to fbi
Do you want to know more information about those files within project I p all pass only check more
information those files contact turlte-officer714dotwebstartsdotcom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: information send to fbi
You know, paragraphs are a thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: information send to fbi
Wall of text crits you for over 9000. You die.
The end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, because they have pilots on stand-by 24/7 ready to take out some more towers. No further planning necessary. Just one call and it is done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perils of Circumventing the Constitution
"It would be pleasant if we could say that Egypt, having discovered the inherent value of the individual man, went on to give the concept greater validity and more effective force within the state. We cannot do so...When, under the national perils of the Second Intermediate Period and the aggressive nationalism of the Empire, the disciplined unity of the state became more important than the rights and opportunities of individuals, the concept of equality and social justice was finally swallowed up. This is the story of a people who once caught a clear but distant view of the Promised Land, but who ended up wandering in the Wilderness."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm just following leadership
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm just following leadership
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the way I’ve seen the United States in the last Fifty years going
downhill it’s one hell of a shame, Your Fuhrer Obama with his evil Empire and the U.S. House of Representatives all have been trampling on our “Constitutions Amendments one by one! and most of all The "First ,Second and now the Forth Amendment of our constitution and our " Bill of Rights”" and now this same Fuhrer that in the White House is everyday eroding are American position world wide by Spying on all Citizens as well as other Countries,
And getting his and our Noses into other Countrys problem wars and then Sending them Arms! Why ? Maybe it's just a Muslims way of #$%$ other Nations off big time— it’s our
economic, military position, as well as America’s influence World Wide is at stack and this needs to STOP!. This Buffoon at the wheel is desperately trying to conserve American power,
influence and our lower out total wealth for only his ideological Muslim reasons, he wants
this slipping to continue and I quote from a 14th century Byzantine
emperor as saying: “Islam had only brought evil to the world and that
it was spread by the sword.” Well guess what!
He also the architect and is doing it the very same thing to all the People of the World!
The Citizen of the United States will take back are Bill of Rights.
Dont let this Happen !
Pass this on to everyone!
Vote them all out Of Congress! Let them know that the Voters Rule!
Ant they have not done the will of the People!
Or have lived up to there Oath of Office they were to serve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FBI cop out excuse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FBI & Constitution
Oh, but we neeeeeeed the FBI. We need a national police force. We need a Civilian Army - according to Obie. (Yer right, Obie - its called the Well Organized Militia!) So did Hitler - until he decided he needed a Personal Police force (Remember? The SS took out the SA after that epiphany).
Do we? Do we need a National Police Force? According to the Constitution that was a power left to the numerous States! You can come up with all kinds of argument grounded in Security, Centralized Intelligence and efficiency, etc. The NSA keeps us safe by spying on us (what's a little freedom and liberty for Security as long as we keep it "safeguarded” from abuse... What was it Snowden called it? Turnkey Tyranny? Hmmmmm). The FBI catches criminals that cross State lines and international borders. The DHS protects our borders and keeps bombs off of planes (ROFLMAO!). The IRS steals our money (oh, yes, they ARE a police force!) FEMA builds Concentration Camps to hold who?
And the ATF! Well! We all know what they do! (Waco, Waco...)
Good Gawd! Do we also not know our own First Principles? YIKES! The Purpose of a JUST Government is to protect our individual liberties - NOT to take care of us and protect us. Get this Fellow Americans; the United States was not designed to be run by PROFESSIONALS!
The FBI doesn't like the Constitution, oh my! None of them like the Constitution, wonder why…?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FBI/Constitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lazy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obama does what he wants - you die
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FBI & Obozo?
THE GREAT PURGE – eliminates anyone who threatens his power (all five plus The Clintons).
Relies heavily on PROPAGANDA to support his cause, all five.
Newspapers, radio and art glorified achievements and did not acknowledge their failures, all five.
Writers, musicians, and artists spied on, all five .
Religion attacked (Government meant to replace religion) all five.
One Mulatto spent millions to seal his past and became “… the Biggest Con Man in History…”, Ralph Nader, June 2013. Who did Ralph Nader name? And who did Putin choose?
Choose best answer: A) Adolf Hitler aka Schicklegruber, B) Benito Mussolini aka Duce of Fascism, C) Josef Stalin aka Joseph Dzhugashvili, D) Barry Hussein Soetoro, aka Barry Sutoro, aka Steven Duham, aka Barock Hussein Obama aka Harrison J. Bounel (died in 1981), and uses a Connecticut-issued Social Security # 042-68-4425 — a state Obama had never lived and has no association, E) Vladimir Lenin aka Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easy or Hard
Criminals, why do they do what they do because every other method just takes to much god damned time.
Upholding the law is never quick nor easy and it takes a whole lot of time and effort. Now that's a choice either be a criminal searching for the quick, easy and dirty method or be an upholder of the law, you method being slow, hard and clean.
Honour, integrity and pride of workmanship, don't come easy and that's what gives them their true value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FBI, following the Constitution
Our Core Values http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/quick-facts
RIGOROUS OBEDIENCE to the Constitution of the United States; (caps are mine)
Respect for the dignity of all those we protect;
Compassion;
Fairness;
Uncompromising personal integrity and institutional integrity;
Accountability by accepting responsibility for our actions and decisions and the consequences of our actions and decisions; and
Leadership, both personal and professional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FBI, following the Constitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FBI, following the Constitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fbi and connecting call patterns to being a terrorist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]