FBI broke law for years in phone record searches

[chauncy republicans]

By John Solomon and Carrie Johnson
Special to The Washington Post and Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 19, 2010

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.
The records seen by The Post do not reveal the identities of the people whose phone call records were gathered, but FBI officials said they thought that nearly all of the requests involved terrorism investigations.
FBI general counsel Valerie Ca****i said in an interview Monday that the FBI technically violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act when agents invoked nonexistent emergencies to collect records.
"We should have stopped those requests from being made that way," she said. The after-the-fact approvals were a "good-hearted but not well-thought-out" solution to put phone carriers at ease, she said. In true emergencies, Ca****i said, agents always had the legal right to get phone records, and lawyers have now concluded there was no need for the after-the-fact approval process. "What this turned out to be was a self-inflicted wound," she said.
Ca****i said FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III (http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Robert_Mueller) did not know about the problems until late 2006 or early 2007, after the inspector general's probe began.
Documents show that senior FBI managers up to the assistant director level approved the procedures for emergency requests of phone records and that headquarters officials often made the requests, which persisted for two years after bureau lawyers raised concerns and an FBI official began pressing for changes. "We have to make sure we are not taking advantage of this system, and that we are following the letter of the law without jeopardizing national security," FBI lawyer Patrice Kopistansky wrote in one of a series of early 2005 e-mails (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/investigative/documents/nsl_documents_23_011910.pdf) asking superiors to address the problem.
The FBI acknowledged in 2007 that one unit in the agency had improperly gathered some phone records, and a Justice Department audit at the time cited 22 inappropriate requests to phone companies for searches and hundreds of questionable requests. But the latest revelations show that the improper requests were much more numerous under the procedures approved by the top level of the FBI.
FBI officials told The Post that their own review has found that about half of the 4,400 toll records collected in emergency situations or with after-the-fact approvals were done in technical violation of the law. The searches involved only records of calls and not the content of the calls. In some cases, agents broadened their searches to gather numbers two and three degrees of separation from the original request, documents show.
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.

Story continued @ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/18/AR2010011803982.html

[Smitty_Damitty]

So wait, this makes Bush a socialist, right? No, I got it, a fascist? I think I like the places this thread is going to go already...

My .02, if you're not cheating, you're not doing your job. You pick any agency at random, do an exhaustive investigation and you'll find that they cut corners and break a few laws as well, we sure as hell did. It's part of the game. But, the Lefties can use this as proof that Bush was a horrible Nazi. In a few months to a year when it's discovered that Obama's FBI is guilty of the same thing, Righties can use this as evidence that the "Great One" is converting the bureau into a secret police force, in order to solidify his socialist regime.

All in all, I haven't been wiretapped and shipped of to Gitmo because of all of this, the bad guys haven't committed a terrorist attack since 9/11...I don't feel violated.

[chauncy republicans]

People resort to cheating when they lack the capability to work within their means. Which is why cheaters never win, before you cheat your just a looser.

So the way I'm understanding this is... you don't mind if the government breaks the law as long as it makes you feel safe? Why not just lock yourself in a hardened bio dome and throw away the key, no terrorist could get you then. I wonder if John Wayne needed the FBI to keep him safe?

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

I wonder if John Wayne needed the FBI to keep him safe?Probably given his links to HUAC, Tricky ****ie and the John Birch Society p-) Wayne also incured the wrath of certain communist states so its very likely that LE were keeping a weather eye on him.

[Smitty_Damitty]

People resort to cheating when they lack the capability to work within their means. Which is why cheaters never win, before you cheat your just a looser.
Are we talking about the FBI or a freaking Boy Scout meet? Maybe in your ideal society, everybody plays by the rules and prays before eating but, I live in a society that is run by man and man is not infallible, nor do I expect them to be in a middle of a war. Sh*t happens. Let's do an integrity check shall we? How do you feel about "enhanced interrogation", I'm curious.


So the way I'm understanding this is... you don't mind if the government breaks the law as long as it makes you feel safe? Why not just lock yourself in a hardened bio dome and throw away the key, no terrorist could get you then. I wonder if John Wayne needed the FBI to keep him safe?

Then you'd be misunderstanding there chief. What I'm saying is that plenty of agencies, law enforcement, military or otherwise cut corners, "cheat" even. Sometimes it pays off, sometimes you get your ass kicked, again sh*t happens. You can wish for a faithful, clean, bloodless way of doing things in one hand and sh*t in the other, see which one fills up faster. All in all, I don't concern myself with feeling "more safe" or "less safe", I'm safe until something blows up. After that, then we respond however necessary. What the FBI does or doesn't do has no effect on my "feeling" safe.

The second half of your reply is so goddamn funny to me, that I don't want to reply to it for fear of it looking like I take this sh*t seriously. But, when 9/11 happened I didn't lock myself in any bunker, I signed the dotted line and enlisted. As for me worrying about terrorists coming to get me, please. I went over to their place and swapped rounds with the f*ckers. And this last part, what the hell does that even mean?? But Stalin did plot to have John Wayne assassinated, so take from that what you will, as to whether or not he needed FBI protection.

EDIT:Bacilluspoxy-wha****face beat me to the point about John Wayne:-D

[chauncy republicans]

Are we talking about the FBI or a freaking Boy Scout meet? Maybe in your ideal society, everybody plays by the rules and prays before eating but, I live in a society that is run by man and man is not infallible, nor do I expect them to be in a middle of a war. Sh*t happens. Let's do an integrity check shall we? How do you feel about "enhanced interrogation", I'm curious.

Which is exactly why Law and Order must always be maintained, especially when it concerns those who are paid by the public to enforce it.
Right now these incidents are a result of us tracking our nation's enemies, but as you pointed out man is entirely fallible, and it's only a matter of time that down the road this precedent will be abused. History repeats itself, and there are examples of what happens when a populations cedes it's laws and liberty to it's government. The thing here is you wont be around to deal with it, you live it up apathetically right now, but down the road your children, or grand children will risk the chance that all of your apathy will come back to haunt them. I don't know about you, but I'd prefer my daughter to grow with all the protections and freedom our Republic offers.

Enhanced interrogations are not part of this topic, if you'd like, start a thread on it.

[Jobu]

A few higher-ups in the bureau should lose their jobs for this.

[Smitty_Damitty]

Which is exactly why Law and Order must always be maintained, especially when it concerns those who are paid by the public to enforce it.
Right now these incidents are a result of us tracking our nation's enemies, but as you pointed out man is entirely fallible, and it's only a matter of time that down the road this precedent will be abused. History repeats itself, and there are examples of what happens when a populations cedes it's laws and liberty to it's government. The thing here is you wont be around to deal with it, you live it up apathetically right now, but down the road your children, or grand children will risk the chance that all of your apathy will come back to haunt them. I don't know about you, but I'd prefer my daughter to grow with all the protections and freedom our Republic offers.

Enhanced interrogations are not part of this topic, if you'd like, start a thread on it.




Well, I'm in partial agreement with what you've said. You're absolutely right, the rule of law must always be maintained...always. But like I said, people cheat and when it comes to fighting terrorism, you wanna know what, I'm fine with that. Here's why: I'm going to compare the war to, of all things, a basketball game. One side shoots, scores and so does the other. Eventually one side is down considerably and some douche shoots an elbow at the star player. The star player gets a concussion, is forced out of the game and the elbow is never caught by the refs. The losing team comes back and wins the game. The elbow thrower got away with it...that time but, he knows he did that at great risk to himself.

Those in charge of public safety should always be aware that by flaunting established laws and conventions, you do so at tremendous risk to yourself. They should be aware that the more often the do this, the more likely their transgressions are going to be discovered. And when it is discovered, then they are punished accordingly. That is the definition of the maintenance of law and order, not a triple redundant network of different orgs watching one another to make sure no one does the slightest thing wrong. That my friend, is another thing entirely. The danger comes forth when the officers, agents and servicemembers that cheat have no fear of retribution. We the people, did not cede anything to the gov't or the FBI. They did it without public knowledge, they got caught and now the people will demand that justice be served.

As to my being apathetic, apathy would be defined as me not giving a flying f*ck about any of this at all. Apathy would be me not bothering to inform myself through this article. Apathy would make me a rich, valley teenager. All of these Constitutionalists(for lack of a better term) predict the downfall of the Republic like Christian fundies predict the coming of the Christ. I happen to think that through all the events that really threatened the Republic and freedom as we know it, (the Civil War, Slavery, Civil Rights, WW2, Vietnam anti-war movement) that we emerged with a Constitution far stronger than the Founding Fathers ever imagined. Reports of its impending doom are highly exaggerated. I and my "apathetic" attitude, on the other hand, have done more for my children and grandchildren, then most of our fellow citizens.

As for the last part, you're right but, it's a subject that's probably been beaten to death on here, maybe I'll PM you about it.:-)

[skyeye]

http://i777.photobucket.com/albums/yy57/skyeye96d/MP%20MISC%20PICS/****-2.jpg
1234567890

[Fat Lazy American]

Are we talking about the FBI or a freaking Boy Scout meet?

Have you met any FBI OGC people? They think wearing a blue shirt with their suit is rebellious.

[Clockwinder]

105347 I (a voice in the wilderness perhaps) think they can use whatever tactics they want to catch criminals. I don't give a rats' a$$ about rights for people who have no social conscience or ethics.

[ex1cdo]

105347 I (a voice in the wilderness perhaps) think they can use whatever tactics they want to catch criminals. I don't give a rats' a$$ about rights for people who have no social conscience or ethics.

woot

Oh, sorry mate. Missed the sarcasm...

[Smitty_Damitty]

Hehe. Nah, only FBI bubbas I dealt with were two CT guys attached to our battalion, and they gave f*ckall about appearance. They talked **** about their higher ups as much as we did ours, as a matter of fact.

[AEX1911]

I would be more concerned about this, because one thing may lead to another. These things build on each other, and unwarranted wiretapping may lead to unwarranted searches which may lead to unwarranted detention. I don't care if it's a democrat or republican who's in office, these problems need to be stopped in their early stages.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Using my math skills, I determine that this works out to less than one call per day. Considering the billions of possible calls, and thousands of agents involved, it doesn't really look like a systemic problem to me.

[Nano]

Using my math skills, I determine that this works out to less than one call per day. Considering the billions of possible calls, and thousands of agents involved, it doesn't really look like a systemic problem to me.
Really that's the best excuse you could come up with to excuse the FBI from essentially breaking the law and strong arming phone companies. It is obviously a problem when a government agency decides to start targeting people for no legitimate legal reason. That could be different nowadays given that the Patriot Act is more or less a law that violates various aspects of the U.S. Constitution. The NSA has long been known to monitor massive amounts of electronic communications internally. The FBI at some point wanted to get into the same act of monitoring just as the NSA, but it went bust for one reason another unknown to me. Non of what some of these two agencies have done in this regard is legal and violates the constitution's provisions against unwarranted search and seizure. Even if it is just a single phone call a day. It be kinda like killing millions, but once one starts counting the people killed per second it appearss rather minuscule in comparison.