I'd comment.... but... wow. - Darkforum.com - Dark Stories, Dark Art, Poetry, Photography, Debates and Discussions

SirVLCIV · **I'd comment.... but... wow. -** 10-10-02

WASHINGTON (Oct. 9) - FBI agents illegally videotaped suspects, intercepted e-mails without court permission and recorded the wrong phone conversations during sensitive terrorism and espionage investigations, according to an internal memorandum detailing serious lapses inside the FBI more than a year before the Sept. 11 attacks.

The blunders - roughly 15 over the first three months of 2000- were never made public but garnered the attention of the ``highest levels of management'' inside FBI, said the memo written by senior bureau lawyers and obtained by The Associated Press.

Lawmakers reviewing FBI missteps preceding the terror attacks expressed surprise Wednesday at the extent of errors detailed in the memo, which focused on sensitive cases requiring warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The mistakes extend beyond those criticized in a rare public decision this summer by the secretive U.S. court that oversees the surveillance warrants. That court admonished the FBI for providing inaccurate information in warrant applications.

The April 2000 memo - marked ``immediate'' and classified as ``secret'' - describes different problems from those cited by the court. It describes agents conducting unauthorized searches, writing warrants with wrong addresses and allowing ``overruns'' of electronic surveillance operations beyond their legal deadline.

``The level of incompetence here is egregious,'' said Rep. William D. Delahunt, D-Mass., a member of the House Judiciary Committee who obtained the memo from the FBI and provided it to AP.

Said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.: ``Honest mistakes happen in law enforcement, but the extent, variety and seriousness of the violations recounted in this FBI memo show again that the secret FISA process breeds sloppiness unless there's adequate oversight.''

The FBI's deputy general counsel, whose office approves requests for national security warrants, acknowledged Wednesday the mistakes led to broad concern inside his agency long before Congress began investigating whether the bureau missed signs of Sept. 11.

``There's always going to be mistakes,'' said M.E. ``Spike'' Bowman. ``We looked at those incidents very, very hard. We found no common thread. A lot of it was inattention to detail.''

These warrants are among the most powerful tools in the U.S. antiterrorism arsenal, permitting secret searches and wiretaps for up to one year without ever notifying the target of the investigation.

The court approved 1,012 such warrants in 2000.

Bowman said the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility investigated the problems. No FBI agent lost his or her job as a result of the internal inquiry, Bowman said, and the FBI has not had the same number of mistakes since. It averages now about 10 mistakes a year in such cases, he said.

The FBI also notified the U.S. court about the warrant problems, and the response from judges was ``a lot of head scratching over how this could happen,'' Bowman said.

``It's important to understand that government doesn't abuse these secret authorities we get,'' Bowman said. The FBI has never detected an agent intentionally violating a special surveillance warrant, he added.

Lawmakers approved changes last year under the USA Patriot Act giving new powers to use these special terrorism and espionage warrants. But some lawmakers have since complained they were not adequately informed of problems under the old rules.

``As the Justice Department pushes the Congress for more powers, we should first be sure that these problems are being corrected and that existing laws are being used responsibly,'' Leahy said.

Delahunt predicted Congress will press the Bush administration for explanations about such mistakes before it is asked to extend new surveillance powers from the Patriot Act set to expire in December 2005.

The memo cites examples in specific cases ordinarily kept from public view.

It describes the FBI eavesdropping on conversations long after the subject of one surveillance gave up a cell phone and its number was reassigned to an innocent person.

The new owner spoke a different language than the FBI's target, and an interpreter notified investigators. FBI agents did nothing ``for a substantial period of time'' and failed to report the problem to headquarters, the memo says.

The memo, which was approved by then-FBI Deputy Director Thomas Pickard and other senior officials, also describes agents in other cases videotaping a meeting of suspects and intercepting e-mails without the court's permission.

Bowman said that in one instance, FBI agents searched a storage locker even though they did not have permission in the warrant; an earlier, expired warrant had included permission to search the same locker. He said that in other cases, telephone recording equipment was not shut off at the time specified by the warrant.

Another memo from the same period, disclosed months ago under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, described the FBI mistakenly intercepting e-mails of innocent citizens during an investigation in Denver by its Osama bin Laden Unit and International Terrorism Operations Section.

It indicated the FBI incorrectly used its ``Carnivore'' Internet surveillance software, now called ``DCS-1000,'' and captured too many e-mails. That memo's author wrote to Bowman that describing an oversight official at the Justice Department as unhappy about the incident ``would be an understatement of incredible proportions.''

Copyright Associated Press.

neonwraith · 10-10-02

Excellent,

Doesn't your constitution provide you with some defnece against this sort of intrusion.

Article 8 of the ECHR (European convention on Human Rights) gives us somethign similar to a privicy law.

This sort of surveilance however rarely stands up in court. Being fruit of the forbidden tree.

What an arse up. All info gained subsequently is also illeagally obtained and therefore inadmissable

Neon

SirVLCIV · 10-10-02

They SAY every transgression was a "mistake." Sure.

Yes, the Constitution supposedly provides a defense, but with the "Patriot Act".....

I suppose if you are interested check out:

http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveilla..._analysis.html

http://www.ccr-ny.org/whatsnew/usa_patriot_act.asp

Or go to www.google.com and type in '"patriot act" "bill of rights"'

Regardless if someone calls any given source "radical" or "anti-American", it's interesting how many are really scared about this. I'd go so far as to say a minority of US citizens are for the act. There goes democracy.

SirVLCIV · 10-10-02

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Da...iot020701.html

"In Cambridge, where the measure passed the city council by a 5-4 margin on June 17, the resolution says in part, "We believe these civil liberties [freedom of speech, assembly and privacy; equality before the law; due process; and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures] are now threatened by the USA Patriot Act.""

""At times like these, I think our constitutional rights are even more important," she said. "There have been times when we relaxed these things — the McCarthy era, the '60s civil rights struggle, the detention of the Japanese-Americans in World War II. We look back at those times with shame. … I think this will be another time we look back on with shame. That's what I fear."

SirVLCIV · 10-10-02

Side link -
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20021009_22.html

http://deploymentlink.osd.mil/curren..._chart_3.shtml

neonwraith · 10-11-02

That's the oops, we didn't mean to breach your civil rights on a hunch get-oout clause.

The Patriot act is quite Draconian, but the U.K. already has similar acts in place.

An important case was IRC v Rossminster. This basically said that it didn't matter how evidence was obtained. Whereas the fruit of the forbideen tree law used to apply in the U.S. it has never been part of U.K. law.

Neon