On Apr 6, 3:25=A0pm, Scotius <yodas...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> In article <e8ebd11b-8682-4dd6-80d9-
> 6fe74f02d...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> igor_the_terri...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > For situations like this M61s and tractor trailer loads of ammo are
> > absolute miracle workers. =A0Better yet, they are cheaper than
elections=
> > (or recalls), tie up less TV air time, and such solutions are long
> > term and very effective. =A0:D
>
> > ACLU: Military skirting law to spy By LARRY NEUMEISTER, Associated
> > Press Writer
> > Tue Apr 1, 7:42 PM ET
>
> > NEW YORK - The military is using the FBI to skirt legal restrictions
> > on domestic surveillance to obtain private records of Americans'
> > Internet service providers, financial institutions and telephone
> > companies, the ACLU said Tuesday.
>
> > The American Civil Liberties Union based its conclusion on a review of
> > more than 1,000 do***ents turned over by the Defense Department after
> > it sued the agency last year for do***ents related to national
> > security letters. The lawsuit was filed in Manhattan federal court.
>
> > The letters are investigative tools used to compel businesses to turn
> > over customer information without a judge's order or grand jury
> > subpoena.
>
> > ACLU lawyer Melissa Goodman said the do***ents the civil rights group
> > studied "make us incredibly concerned that the FBI and DoD might be
> > collaborating to evade limits put on the DoD's use of NSLs."
>
> > It would be understandable if the military relied on help from the FBI
> > on joint investigations, but not when the FBI was not involved in a
> > probe, she said.
>
> > The FBI referred requests for comment Tuesday to the Defense
> > Department. A department spokesman, Air Force Lt. Col. Patrick Ryder,
> > said in an e-mail that the department had made "focused, limited and
> > judicious" use of the letters since Congress extended the capability
> > to investigatory entities other than the FBI in 2001.
>
> > He said the department had acted legally in using a necessary
> > investigatory tool and noted that "unusual financial activity of
> > people affiliated with DoD can be an indication of potential espionage
> > or terrorist-related activity."
>
> > Ryder said the information in the ACLU claims came in part from an
> > internal review of DoD's use of the letters.
>
> > "We have since developed training and provided it to the services for
> > their use," he said.
>
> > He said that there was no law requiring it to track use of the letters
> > but that the department had decided it was in its best interest to do
> > so.
>
> > Goodman, a staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project,
> > said the military is allowed to demand financial and credit records in
> > certain instances but does not have the authority to get e-mail and
> > phone records or lists of Web sites that people have visited. That is
> > the kind of information that the FBI can get by using a national
> > security letter, she said.
>
> > "That's why we're particularly concerned. The DoD may be accessing the
> > kinds of records they are not allowed to get," she said.
>
> > Goodman also noted that legal limits are placed on the Defense
> > Department "because the military doing domestic investigations tends
> > to make us leery."
>
> > In other allegations, the ACLU said:
>
> > * The Navy's use of the letters to demand domestic records has
> > increased significantly since the Sept. 11 attacks.
>
> > * The military wrongly claimed its use of the letters was limited to
> > investigating only Defense Department employees.
>
> > * The Defense Department has not kept track of how many national
> > security letters the military issues or what information it obtained
> > through the orders.
>
> > * The military provided misleading information to Congress and
> > silenced letter recipients from speaking out about the records
> > requests.
>
> > Goodman said Congress should provide stricter guidelines and
> > meaningful oversight of how the military and FBI make national
> > security letter requests.
>
> > "Any government agency's ability to demand these kinds of personal,
> > financial or Internet records in the United States is an intrusive
> > surveillance power," she said.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 It depends on what kind of information is being
overheard.=
Notice
> I didn't say "What kind is being recorded", but rather, overheard.- Hide
q=
uoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I hear you. The key point here is your privacy is being violated.
This whole situation was fabed just for the reason of government
gaining more control over its subjects. Now if the POS government of
ours would mind its own business, it wouldn't be sticking its nose in
someone else's and pissing them off. Besides, are thing in this
country running too smoothly to where they can tell some other
sovereign nation how to run their affairs? I still think a M61 would
be the ultimate problem solver. ;-)
|
