Is the FBI an agency out of control?

Originally posted 006/30/2011 on lubbockonline.com

Kevin Gosztola at Alternet.org looked at 5 types of FBI abuse of power. That abuse of power was, and is, assisted by the FISA court. The FISA court is supposed to oversee the FBI investigations, but unless oversight means rubberstamping electronic surveillance (1506 requests in 2011, 1506 approved) it's falling down on the job.

The court also granted "National Security Letters" on 14,000 people. National security letters pretty much give the FBI full access to your life:

They were also generous with granting “national security letters," which allow the FBI to force credit card companies, financial institutions, and internet service providers to give confidential records about customers’ subscriber information, phone number, email addresses and the websites they’ve visited. The FBI got permission to spy on 14,000 people in this way. Do they really think there are 14,000 terrorists living in the US?

With that backdrop, Kevin tells us that the FBI is seeking greater investigative power, and tells us of 5 types of investigations that show the last thing the FBI needs is more power:

1. Warrantless GPS tracking (I blogged about this last year)
2. FBI Targeting WikiLeaks and Bradley Manning Supporters. The FBI intimidated peole involved with the "Bradley Manning Support Network," a legal grassroots organization, for one.
3. FBI Spied on Children While Using 'Roving Wiretaps,' Intentionally Misled Courts on Freedom of Information Act Requests. Comparing documents from different FOIA requests discovered the deception.
4. FBI Entrapment of Muslims.
5. The Criminalization of Travel by the FBI. Vocal activists (not terrorists) are targeted because of disagreement with policy and travel abroad.

I think you should go read the whole article. It's 6 pages, but they're short, and the details he provides are compelling. The last point strikes me a little harder than the others because if I travelled internationally, I could be one of the people targeted. As it is I'm just a harmless crank who blogs in Lubbock, TX and occasionally emails congressmen and the President on issues I feel strongly about. But how long before that isn't enough to protect me from harassment?

Is Ground Zero mosque a First Amendment issue?

I've been reading a lot of interesting things about the Cordoba Mosque. Some interesting, some amusing, some disturbing, but all hyped up and full of hyperbole:

Paul Shmelzer of the Minnesota Independent reports that Muslim groups are upset that Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty said the Ground Zero mosque is "inappropriate."

I would say he's probably right. If it is really being placed there to build bridges, it's planners need to wake up, because it is having the opposite effect. National head of the Anti-Defamation league Abraham H. Foxman used the example of the Carmelite convent established near Auschwitz as a model(1) for how the mosques planners should act:

The lessons of an earlier and different controversy echo in this one. In 1993, Pope John Paul II asked 14 Carmelite Nuns to move their convent from just outside the Auschwitz death camp. The establishment of the convent near Auschwitz had stirred dismay among Jewish groups and survivors who felt that the location was an affront and a terrible disservice to the memory of millions of Jews who died at the hands of the Nazis in the Holocaust.

Just as we thought then that well-meaning efforts by Carmelite nuns to build a Catholic structure were insensitive and counterproductive to reconciliation, so too we believe it will be with building a mosque so close to Ground Zero.

Is it really that hard to understand? The Carmelites had no connection to Hitlers death camps, yet Pope John Paul II understood that the location of the convent was an afront to the Jewish community and that it should be moved. Feisal Abdul Rauf should be able to understand the same of his Cordoba mosque.

I even read a translated Arabic article that said the U.S. government should confiscate all funds set aside for the mosque. But while I agree that the mosque should not be built two blocks from Ground Zero and that it is offensive to many, we have a document that says our federal government cannot stop it's being built. Unless there is proof that it will be a haven/planning center for terrorists, no one will argue that it is not being built by an established religion. As such the First Amendment to the Constitution applies.

If a project with the stated purpose of "building bridges" causes this much controversy and animosity, it needs to be re-evaluated. It's obviously heading in the wrong direction at the outset.

 

(1)Mr. Foxman didn't include the entire Carmelite Auschwitz story. The convent was moved, but the controversy is ongoing.

OUR VIEW; 'GROUND ZERO' MOSQUE? OFFENSIVE, BUT AMERICAN.(Editorials): An article from: The Santa Fe New Mexican (Santa Fe, NM)