Secret Police in US in near future?

[Phlegm]

This article is from the Washington Post:


Spy chief gets big say over FBI budget, hiring
Dan Eggen, Walter Pincus, Washington Post


Washington -- President Bush ordered another major shakeup of the nation's intelligence services Wednesday, forming new national security divisions within both the FBI and the Justice Department and, for the first time, putting a broad swath of the FBI under the authority of the nation's spy chief.

Building on previous reforms mandated by Congress, the reorganization cements the authority of the new director of intelligence, John Negroponte, over most of the FBI's $3 billion intelligence budget. It also gives him clear authority to approve hiring of the FBI's top national security official and to communicate with FBI agents and analysts in the field on intelligence matters.

The plan represents a particularly sharp rebuke to the historically independent FBI, which has struggled to remake itself into a counterterrorism agency since the Sept. 11 attacks.

The moves also mark a victory for the CIA, which has endured its own blistering critiques but has fought off proposals to cede some of its authority to the Pentagon.

Civil liberties advocates immediately blasted the changes at the FBI, arguing that they represent a radical step toward creation of a secret police force in the United States. Many Justice Department prosecutors and FBI agents also fiercely opposed the changes, but they were overruled by Bush's homeland security adviser, Frances Fragos Townsend, officials said.

"Spies and cops play different roles and operate under different rules for a reason," said Timothy Edgar, national security counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "The FBI is effectively being taken over by a spymaster who reports directly to the White House. ... It's alarming that the same person who oversees foreign spying will now oversee domestic spying, too."

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller downplayed such concerns.

"They're not going to be directing law enforcement," Gonzales said at a news conference. "Every law enforcement official within the FBI is going to remain under the supervision and authority of the FBI director and ultimately the attorney general."

As outlined in a memorandum to senior Cabinet officials, Bush adopted all but four of 74 recommendations made by a special intelligence commission headed by senior appellate judge Laurence Silberman and former Sen. Charles Robb, D-Va.

Bush also ordered the creation of a National Counter Proliferation Center, designed to help combat the spread of weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups and rogue states. In addition, a separate executive order released Wednesday allows the freezing of assets of individuals, groups or companies allegedly involved in weapons proliferation, including eight specific organizations in Iran, North Korea and Syria.

The plans mark the latest in a series of reorganizations, new agencies and other changes that have roiled the government since the Sept. 11 attacks. In addition to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI created a new directorate of intelligence and expanded the number of agents, analysts and other staff dedicated to counterterrorism and counterintelligence.

Under Bush's memo, the FBI will create a National Security Service by bringing together its counterintelligence, counterterrorism and intelligence divisions under one umbrella. The head of the new service will be hired by the FBI director and attorney general, but with the concurrence of Negroponte, who will fund the FBI's intelligence activities.

Gonzales also will pull together several intelligence and counterterrorism operations to form a new national security division, and Bush will ask Congress to allow the hiring of a new assistant attorney general to run it.

At the White House, Townsend said many of the changes are outgrowths of the Intelligence Reform Act approved by Congress in December, which created Negroponte's office and called for other changes to intelligence agencies.

Many of the dozens of changes recommended by the Silberman-Robb commission dealt with details of intelligence analysis, training and sharing of information.

For the CIA, a new official will oversee human intelligence operations overseas by all government agencies, including the FBI and the Pentagon.

Townsend said three commission recommendations require further study, including a finding that three agencies should be held accountable for failures on prewar intelligence in Iraq.
Position of authority

President Bush's order gives more power over the FBI to John Negroponte, who recently took the new post of national intelligence director.

Funding: Negroponte will control most of the FBI's $3 billion budget for intelligence operations.

Personnel: Negroponte must approve the hiring of the head of the FBI's new National Security Service, a division that will encompass counterintelligence, counterterrorism and intelligence.

Quote: "The FBI is effectively being taken over by a spymaster who reports directly to the White House." -- Timothy Edgar, ACLU national security counsel

[brinstar]

Naturally, the common people don’t want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.

inc gestapo

[mofish]

Wow. He mustve read my man James Madison, #4 :

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy"

"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."

"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

"Of all the enemies of public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other."

"The loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or imagined, from abroad."

[Lueyen]

You know, if you ignore the title of the article, and skip past the ACLU comments basically looking past the inflammatory nature of those remarks and concentrate on the meat of the article and what is actually going on, what you have left is an attempt at organization and communication within the security departments of our government. Much of the disaster of failure of prevention of the 9/11 attacks was attributed to lack of information flow between the different security divisions in our government. Of course it is a bit hard to ignore when the article is laced with the word "spy", hell they should have put evil spies would have been a much better read~.

But really this was my favorite.

"It's alarming that the same person who oversees foreign spying will now oversee domestic spying, too."

Why?, Why is that alarming? I suppose if your a terrorist yes it's alarming it means your more likely to get caught when information is centralized and the right and left hands know what each other are doing. Granted you may not like the idea of being spied on, and that in and of itself can be considered alarming. But the idea of bringing together under one umbrella the foreign and domestic agencies responsible for exposing and eliminating terrorist threats isn't alarming, it's common sense.


Brinstar there is one huge distinct difference between the type of situation that Goering was referring to, and the situation as it exists today. On Sept 11th when Americans woke up to Planes crashing into the world trade towers, most of them didn't need to be told we were being attacked, most of them knew it because it was blatantly obvious. No false danger needed to be created and fed to people. We all saw it with our own eyes and watched in horror.

I can tell you honestly I struggled with my feelings on the matter for several days. I wanted our country to find those responsible and destroy them with fury and overwhelming power. I'm not really a vengeful person, and this bothered me, until I came to the realization of why. I didn't want revenge; I just didn't want to see anything like that happen again. It's very easy to forget in our civilized society when you are going about your daily life to miss the fact that violence is the only thing some people in this world understand. Make no mistake the terrorists in this world aren't going to stop if we start being nice to them, change any foreign policy or whatever else people think is a better solution. The only way we will get our message across is with violence. If you are going to look at the history revolving around Nazi Germany look at the fact that pacification, and concession did not work. Some of you love making comparisons between Bush and Hitler and yet you scream and rant about the war in Iraq, when really comparing Sadam to Hitler would yield far more similarities.

Mofish there is a lot of wisdom in those quotes and they are a good reminder to watch for oppression and the loss of liberties. Ask yourself this though, since 9/11 what liberties have americans lost? Save for what we can take on airplanes I can't think of one. Oh wait yes I can we lost some of our rights to private property... but that wasn't even related to national security, and on that issues the quotes from Madison fall short or are flat out in error.

[veeneedefeesh]

I would just like to go on record as saying:

SEE I FUCKING TOLD YOU SO....

I have been saying this shit was going to happen since the FIRST time you idiots allowed that fugger into office. Buuut NOOOOOOO you had to go and talk about how wonderful he was, and how magnificent it was that we were for "Saving the oppressed people of Iraq" and how much "safer" we were going to be without the threat of turrism. You bought it all hook line and sinker. Well you deserve what you get, and what you will be telling your grandchildren about wont be the price of a hamburger back in your day, but the ability to speak your mind, and not have to worry about big brother making a night visit to your home when you contradict someone in power. It will be a completely foriegn concept to them. You will only tell them about this in the dark of night and only while looking over your shoulder, to see if the FBI is listening.

Just like Pearl Harbor was an excuse to get the US into WW2, 9-11 was an excuse to tighten the governmental grip on the common man, all in the name of patriotism. It would not surprise me one bit if we find out in about 35 years or so when (and if) this is all de-classified, to find out that not only did W allow 9-11 to happen but that it was probably engineered by his father, paid for by the Bush family connections and implemented by friends of the family...

But I am just an alarmist, a whackjob whose paranoia has overcome him completely, you shouldnt be bothered by the rantings of a mad-man. The only prediction I made that hasnt happened yet is the attack on American soil that will preempt the declaration of martial law, allowing the white house to seize total and complete control over the country and will complete the eradication of all personal freedoms in this country. I expect this to happen shortly before W is forced to leave office due to term limitations. We will see what happens, I hope for all our sake that I am just an an alarmist, a whackjob whose paranoia has overcome him completely, but I still believe what my instincts tell me and my instincts tell me that W et al are looking at domination of this country and eventually the world

Lueyen:
The most important of our freedoms which has been lost is our right to have a court order before tapping our phones, a charge actually filed against you BEFORE you are arrested, the ability to contact a lawyer within a reasonable amount of time of being arrested, and the freedom to liberty within a reasonable amount of time if the gov't cant prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of your peers that you arent a traitor and a turrist. You might not realize the significance of those rights because they haven't been abused very much...YET.. but I tell you that you will see them abused and likely by the same people that enacted those "Security measures"

As the Patriot act stands today, if an Iraqi terrorist decides to crank call your house, you can have your phone tapped, be arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit terrorist acts, sent to Gitmo and denied the right to speak to a lawyer (or anyone else for that matter), tried by a military communal by judges who are appointed not elected and convicted of crimes you had no involvement in, all for the sake of "National Security."

Enjoy your freedom while it lasts, because you won't have it much longer.

[Harrison]

Conspiracy theorists are funny.

[LostCause]

FUSH BUCK

[Ciladan]

I heard a story of a guy who walked into a bank to rob it and said "FREEZE MOTHER STICKERS THIS IS A FUCKUP" and made everyone "lol" even though he was pointing a double barreled shotgun at them. The guard was going to draw his weapon but burst out laughing. Hilarious bank robbery for all.

[brinstar]

Brinstar there is one huge distinct difference between the type of situation that Goering was referring to, and the situation as it exists today. On Sept 11th when Americans woke up to Planes crashing into the world trade towers, most of them didn't need to be told we were being attacked, most of them knew it because it was blatantly obvious. No false danger needed to be created and fed to people. We all saw it with our own eyes and watched in horror.

i agree but what does that have to do with iraq

oh yeah, nothing

[Phlegm]

Brinstar there is one huge distinct difference between the type of situation that Goering was referring to, and the situation as it exists today. On Sept 11th when Americans woke up to Planes crashing into the world trade towers, most of them didn't need to be told we were being attacked, most of them knew it because it was blatantly obvious. No false danger needed to be created and fed to people. We all saw it with our own eyes and watched in horror.

i agree but what does that have to do with iraq

oh yeah, nothing

The hijackers were arab muslims. Iraq is full of arab muslims. Is that close enough for government work?

[Captain Insano]

Actually Catholic nuns flew the planes into the twin towers.

It's a christian conspiracy to cleanse the world of all the heathens (ie: muslims).

[Lueyen]

Lueyen:
The most important of our freedoms which has been lost is our right to have a court order before tapping our phones, a charge actually filed against you BEFORE you are arrested, the ability to contact a lawyer within a reasonable amount of time of being arrested, and the freedom to liberty within a reasonable amount of time if the gov't cant prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of your peers that you arent a traitor and a turrist. You might not realize the significance of those rights because they haven't been abused very much...YET.. but I tell you that you will see them abused and likely by the same people that enacted those "Security measures"

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

Veeneedefeesh:

Have you read and studied the patriot act (serious question not trying to take a jab)? Honestly.. and sadly I had yet to look at it closely myself, most of my knowledge about it was what I had heard/read about it, not of the document its self. As of yet I haven't even really scratched the surface of "doing my homework" on it. It's quite extensive, and further complicates research with many slight changes to other statutes (and admittedly a slight wording change can make a huge policy change). So in studying it one must cross-reference the other documents it refers to in an effort to get a clear picture of it. The reason I ask if you have read it is that I did a quick overview of it while on break at work (and admittedly didn't do it justice) looking specifically for the provisions where you could derive the conclusions of what you stated above. My initial impression is that while yes it does enact some questionable ideas, it also is very specific to terrorism and foreign powers acting against the country. The worst I will say about it at this point is that it needs to be refined with some additions to clarify, and possibly the removal of some things if safeguards against abuse cannot be made or clearly defined. I have a feeling you and I will disagree on the intent, however if the charges you stated above are clearly factual, and not hyped up rhetoric based on extreme interpretation then I would have no problem agreeing with your concerns.

Oh yea,

But I am just an alarmist, a whackjob whose paranoia has overcome him completely, you shouldnt be bothered by the rantings of a mad-man. The only prediction I made that hasnt happened yet is the attack on American soil that will preempt the declaration of martial law, allowing the white house to seize total and complete control over the country and will complete the eradication of all personal freedoms in this country. I expect this to happen shortly before W is forced to leave office due to term limitations. We will see what happens, I hope for all our sake that I am just an an alarmist, a whackjob whose paranoia has overcome him completely, but I still believe what my instincts tell me and my instincts tell me that W et al are looking at domination of this country and eventually the world

I'll ask you now, if this comes to pass will you allow me some salt to sprinkle on my hat before I eat it... cause man that’s just way the heck out there.

Brinstar there is one huge distinct difference between the type of situation that Goering was referring to, and the situation as it exists today. On Sept 11th when Americans woke up to Planes crashing into the world trade towers, most of them didn't need to be told we were being attacked, most of them knew it because it was blatantly obvious. No false danger needed to be created and fed to people. We all saw it with our own eyes and watched in horror.

i agree but what does that have to do with iraq

oh yeah, nothing

The hijackers were arab muslims. Iraq is full of arab muslims. Is that close enough for government work?

I think both of you are oversimplifying (well maybe not in Phlems case, I'm not quite sure if that comment was made in sarcasm or not). I think there is a connection, but it's not cut and dry, black and white.... and maybe Phlem came closer to what the truth may be then he realized. In the aftermath of 9/11 many countries and leaders all over the world expressed horror, concern and condemnation of those who perpetuated the events.... Iraq was not one of them. Sadam wouldn't issue a statement condemning the events, and I would think the reason why would be fairly obvious. He hates the United States and everything it stands for. I do not believe for one second that Sadam had absolutely no ties to any of the extreme pseudo religious groups who had ill intent toward this country.. you know the groups I mean, we simplify it by blanketing them all under the "terrorist" umbrella. Even if Sadam had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks (and I find that very hard to believe... maybe not officially, but off the record I'd be willing to bet on it) his hatred, animosity toward the U.S. and his general mode of operation suggests that if he had the chance to damage us in any shape or form he would jump on it. This is why I did see him as a threat. This same reasoning could apply to other countries in the Middle East, however Iraq's was the loudest, most obstinent official "voice" in the region. Yes there were other countries where terrorist cells (and still are) located however Iraq and Sadam were the direct and easy to see target. Take Saudi Arabia for example... I'm sure there are terrorist cells that operate within her borders, however her government does not denounce us in an official capacity, quite the opposite.

Bottom line, Iraq was the mouthy kid on the block, the tangible target, the one whose government openly opposed and hated us, and I think it was for this reason that Iraq was chosen as a battlefield against terrorism.

Chosen as a battlefield? That probably sounds kind of strange however consider this. Currently Iraq's government has been ousted, her military has been defeated... yet we are still fighting. Who is it that we are fighting? The media labels them "insurgents", where did they come from? We hear about these insurgents pouring into Iraq, they are not freedom fighters... their very presence there is what keeps us there longer. We are trying to help the Iraqi people establish their own stable government... yet these people go there to fight and disrupt the progress of the forming of a fledgling government and a nation getting back on it's own feet. No these people are not there because they are some sort of freedom fighters (even our obnoxious media wouldn't go so far as to call them that), these people are the very same groups who plot to hurt our country with a religious fervor. Hey guess what we've drawn them out into open battle... they are coming to us, we don't even have to hunt them down. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that international analysts predicted this would be the result, and I wonder just how much of our actions were calculated as an attempt to draw our enemies out of the shadows where they could be confronted... and ultimately destroyed.

[brinstar]

I think both of you are oversimplifying (well maybe not in Phlems case, I'm not quite sure if that comment was made in sarcasm or not). I think there is a connection, but it's not cut and dry, black and white

in other words, you have no idea

In the aftermath of 9/11 many countries and leaders all over the world expressed horror, concern and condemnation of those who perpetuated the events.... Iraq was not one of them.

not justification to attack

Sadam wouldn't issue a statement condemning the events, and I would think the reason why would be fairly obvious. He hates the United States and everything it stands for.

again, not justification to attack

Even if Sadam had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks (and I find that very hard to believe... maybe not officially, but off the record I'd be willing to bet on it)

in other words, you have no idea

his hatred, animosity toward the U.S. and his general mode of operation suggests that if he had the chance to damage us in any shape or form he would jump on it.

he had neither the means nor the opportunity

This same reasoning could apply to other countries in the Middle East, however Iraq's was the loudest, most obstinent official "voice" in the region. Yes there were other countries where terrorist cells (and still are) located however Iraq and Sadam were the direct and easy to see target.

every Napoleon needs a Snowball

We are trying to help the Iraqi people establish their own stable government... yet these people go there to fight and disrupt the progress of the forming of a fledgling government and a nation getting back on it's own feet.

maybe they're still pissed at the way the last regime we set up there turned out? maybe they don't think democracy is that spiffy?

Hey guess what we've drawn them out into open battle... they are coming to us, we don't even have to hunt them down. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that international analysts predicted this would be the result, and I wonder just how much of our actions were calculated as an attempt to draw our enemies out of the shadows where they could be confronted... and ultimately destroyed.

yeah because we're making so much progress

[labbats]

This was psuedo-interesting writing until there were 10 minute dissertations and cut-and-paste hijinx. Brevity is key, gentlemen.

[Phlegm]

I think both of you are oversimplifying (well maybe not in Phlems case, I'm not quite sure if that comment was made in sarcasm or not). I think there is a connection, but it's not cut and dry, black and white

It was sarcasm. But like most sarcastic remarks, it has some truth to it.

[Lyion]

This was psuedo-interesting writing until there were 10 minute dissertations and cut-and-paste hijinx. Brevity is key, gentlemen.

/concur

[Lueyen]

No Brin, I'm not a security analyist, nor am I an expert on Middle East politics and factions. I do not have access to classified intelligence concerning the region.. but then again neither do most people. What I do know is that there are many factions with differing agenjdas, and alliances, and that all of this are cloaked in a shadowy veil. Speaking with former Iraqi citizens who immigrated to this country has given me a pretty clear view of the complexity of the situation over there in this regard. In one of these conversations the political factions and thier relationships to each other was compared to a cesspool. While I don't have available to me information on every alliance or partnership over there thats a far reach from having no idea, I have a pretty good idea of the situation. Though there may be no official records of transactions and ties to Al Quedea, that does not mean that there was nothing going on in the underworld out of official view, and I see it as highly probable that at the very least there was indirect contact and aid.

The things I stated that you said were not justification to attack were not meant as a justification for attacking. I was illustrating that his disposition toward our country was of a threatening nature. To say "he had neither the means nor the opportunity" is a falicy. Did you forget the assasination attempts on a former president.. an american citizen? Do you choose to ignore the fact that even when there was no official military conflict that his military was still shooting at ours? Let alone refusal of cooperation with U.N. weapons inspection, something madated as a provision in ending the first conflict.

To jest that we are making no progress there is sticking your head in the ground. We have removed Sadam and his oppressive regime from power. We helped facilitate elections for the new government. We have helped facilitate the build up and training of Iraq's own security forces. Heroldo Rivera probably put it best when he said we are not rebuilding Iraq, we are building Iraq. This was in reference to basic infrustructure that wasn't rebuilt, it was never there to begin with and yet now it exists. For the first time some areas of the country now have the benefit of running water. I'm sorry but the only way I could see someone viewing the situation as having a lack of progress is if thier goal was complete failure so as to provide more ammuntion for Bush's critics.

One more thing

maybe they're still pissed at the way the last regime we set up there turned out? maybe they don't think democracy is that spiffy?

In other words, you have no idea.

Sorry man, I had to

[Lueyen]

This was psuedo-interesting writing until there were 10 minute dissertations and cut-and-paste hijinx. Brevity is key, gentlemen.

Yes because short comments about someone being a conspiracy theorist, ninja nuns, and the ocassional interjection bashing Bush are so in depth and thought provoking. I have to admit though Ralf rarely fails to make me snicker.

[Harrison]

Did you forget the assasination attempts on a former president.. an american citizen? Do you choose to ignore the fact that even when there was no official military conflict that his military was still shooting at ours?

Last time I brought this up the retards stopped their cackling of ignorance...incidentally the thread was quiet from that point onward.

I faintly remember someone saying some bullshit about it not being Saddam's work but that of a rogue element in their intelligence agency

Morons.

[Rust]

The release of the Downing Street memo makes it quite clear Bush decided to invade Iraq many months before they did so, and shaped the evidence to meet their decision.

If you haven't read it, do so before commenting.

--R.

[Harrison]

Ohnoz, he made up his mind to invade Iraq before doing so?



I'm mad now!

[brinstar]

no you should be mad that he cooked evidence and lied to america in order to justify doing so

[Harrison]

I really don't give a fuck.

I'm upset we didn't level the entire middle east(part of africa while we're at it). I am sick of their shit as is the rest of the world. I don't give a fuck if he said there were fluffy bunnies wielding AK's shooting at kitties. I fully support the annihilation of the middle east.

Democracy is good enough for me if we aren't going to turn the fucking place into glass. Even if we have to kill some despots and religious fanatics whose only wish is to murder innocent americans at every turn..I can live with that.

[mappatazee]

I really don't give a fuck.

I'm upset we didn't level the entire middle east(part of africa while we're at it). I am sick of their shit as is the rest of the world. I don't give a fuck if he said there were fluffy bunnies wielding AK's shooting at kitties. I fully support the annihilation of the middle east.

Democracy is good enough for me if we aren't going to turn the fucking place into glass. Even if we have to kill some despots and religious fanatics whose only wish is to murder innocent americans at every turn..I can live with that.

Who is 'we' Finawin? What are you going to do? What say do you have? What makes you think your opinion matters? You're a lazy ass highschool dropout sitting behind his mom's computer shoving Doritos into your be-jowled face.

[Lyion]

no you should be mad that he cooked evidence and lied to america in order to justify doing so

Yes, he personally lied to every intelligence agency worldwide and provided dozens of moles in Iraq who told various agencies EXACTLY what he wanted to do.

Oh wait, you are just completely full of shit and clueless. Sorry.