COINTELPRO II
Boy, just when I finish writing about the original Patriot Act, here comes Patriot Act II. This article appeared just a few hours ago, and it's even more troubling. Apparently now the gummint is proposing that the FBI can do an end-run around the judiciary and obtain all kinds of records: medical, military, tax, and travel, among other things. That hemorrhoid operation you had last year? Now the FBI knows. The charitable donations you made, or political contributions? Not between you and the group you gave to anymore. The trip you took to Mexico for the drugs you can't afford at home? No longer a private matter. That's just the tip of the iceberg, I suspect.
On one hand, yes, there is a need to gather as much information on terrorists of all stripes. I'm not against that, and I doubt anyone else is. But there is such a thing as accountability, and the Patriot Act and its successors (I hope there aren't any, but we got the Patriot Act in the first place, hm?) don't provide for the checks and balances that we pride our system on having. Is going through a judge for a warrant or a subpoena *really* such a hindrance? The FBI, state and local police, and investigators have long had no problem going to court, briefly explaining why they needed X, Y, and Z documents, and obtaining permission to secure such information. Yes, sometimes the process takes a few days, or a little longer. But even in the most immediate of cases, I'm sure an expedited request can be made, and a judge with a modicum of intelligence and common sense can speed up the process.
But without the judiciary as a middleman to check police powers, what's to prevent the kind of tracking and intimidation I mentioned yesterday? What's to prevent all kinds of fishing expeditions? Really, just based on the opinions I've shared thus far, I could have an agent in the near future rooting through all of my records, even though I wouldn't hurt a fly-- and all the agent would have to do is say that I'm a potential or suspected "terrorist." I don't know about you, but I consider that a violation of my privacy, for one thing.
If this is going to happen, I'd like to suggest that instead of being called "Patriot Act II," instead it should be called "COINTELPRO II." Now where's Church Committee II, when you need it?
On one hand, yes, there is a need to gather as much information on terrorists of all stripes. I'm not against that, and I doubt anyone else is. But there is such a thing as accountability, and the Patriot Act and its successors (I hope there aren't any, but we got the Patriot Act in the first place, hm?) don't provide for the checks and balances that we pride our system on having. Is going through a judge for a warrant or a subpoena *really* such a hindrance? The FBI, state and local police, and investigators have long had no problem going to court, briefly explaining why they needed X, Y, and Z documents, and obtaining permission to secure such information. Yes, sometimes the process takes a few days, or a little longer. But even in the most immediate of cases, I'm sure an expedited request can be made, and a judge with a modicum of intelligence and common sense can speed up the process.
But without the judiciary as a middleman to check police powers, what's to prevent the kind of tracking and intimidation I mentioned yesterday? What's to prevent all kinds of fishing expeditions? Really, just based on the opinions I've shared thus far, I could have an agent in the near future rooting through all of my records, even though I wouldn't hurt a fly-- and all the agent would have to do is say that I'm a potential or suspected "terrorist." I don't know about you, but I consider that a violation of my privacy, for one thing.
If this is going to happen, I'd like to suggest that instead of being called "Patriot Act II," instead it should be called "COINTELPRO II." Now where's Church Committee II, when you need it?
posted by Mr. Sandman | 12:43 AM
<< Home