Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Constitutional Issues Big brother is watching

As far as I know, that is the only true statement that Bush has ever made.

And I am sure that he never intended it to be made public.
__________________

Roger,

If I understand you correctly, you don't have any desire to discard the US Constitution or Bill of Rights, but only make some changes to limit the power of the President, improve checks and balances, and limit financial influences? And you do support the democratic process, although possibly in a parliamentary system of government? Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

The "bad guy" here isn't the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, but the "bad guys" that have circumvented and subverted it. The rule of law is a prerequisite for any democratic system, and you need a moral and ethical people for that rule of law. You're obviously right that the concentration of power in one person is a bad thing. Congress hasn't been doing its job, so we see the rise of the unitary-executive. However, the US Constitution provides the necessary checks and balances, if exercised. Ultimately, the problem is human nature, and to date, the US Constitution and Bill of Rights has been the best check to it in an imperfect world. Personally, I'm not that enthused about a parliamentary system just based on what Blair has managed to pull off in the UK, not to mention the police state he established in the process.

Joe

numan,

So, what would you replace it with to protect us from tyranny?

Joe

ROger
IMO you missed one big one---somehow eliminate gerrymandering.

I was shocked to learn that re-election rate of a US Congressman is comparable to the old Soviet Polit Bureau! And this happens in large measure because the districts are gerrymandered in such a way that elections are non-competitive. Almost every district has a 60% or greater dominance of one party.

Here are some provisions of the Iowa Plan
link

New Guidelines Would Give FBI Broader Power. If an add appears first in this NY Times article, be patient. The article will load shortly afterwards.

The DOJ Office of Justice Programs published proposals for state and local police in the July 31 Federal Register that would allow the cops to launch their own criminal investigations based on the suspicion that a target in engaged in criminal activity, including terrorism, and solicited public comments. You're looking at the creation of an American Stasi. I commented electronically and received the Comment tracking number 806ece34. However, before anyone can track my comment, the DOJ has to post it.

The text of my Comment follows:

Dear Mr. Deaver:

Re: OJP Docket No. 1473

As an American citizen whose 4th Amendment right has been violated with impunity by state and local law enforcement (see http://www.governmentspying.blogspot.com), I strongly recommend that the DOJ does not enact the proposed changes to 28 C.F.R. Part 23 for the following reasons: 28 C.F.R. Part 23 already provides for information sharing between state and federal agencies. Furthermore, the DOJ does not have the resources or manpower to adequately train the police in the administration of these proposed changes or investigate the inevitable abuses that will result. The proposed changes, in effect, will give state and local authorities carte blanche to “investigate” any law-abiding citizen, including whistle blowers, protesters, and government policy critics, and expand the scope of any criminal investigation to include the lawyers and witnesses of anyone exposing official misconduct or exercising their First Amendment right. State and local police have an inherent conflict of interest in investigating themselves and these proposed changes eliminate any remaining checks and balances; thereby, providing the “legal” framework to cover-up official misconduct and abuse of authority.

As an American citizen whose life has been affected by such abusive law enforcement investigations based not on any reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, but rather self-serving innuendoes and conducted under the color of law, I am specifically concerned with the following proposed changes to Section 23.20(e) and (f) which expands the dissemination of information that may assist in preventing crime or violence or “any conduct dangerous to human life or property.” In effect, these proposed changes would destroy any privacy and civil liberties based on some vague definition of “dangerous.” By deleting the word “imminent,” Section 23.20(f)(2) allows the dissemination of criminal intelligence “to a government official or any other individual, when necessary to avoid danger to life or property” which could easily serve as a pretext to discredit an individual or their charges and intimidate or threaten witnesses under the color of law.

These proposed changes are too open to deliberate misinterpretation and abuse by those with the will to do so. 28 C.F.R. Part 23 already provides all the direction necessary for law enforcement to do their job within the constraints of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights while keeping all of us safe from the real terrorists and criminals.

Respectfully submitted,
Joe Keegan

I received an interesting letter, dated August 25, 2008, from Glynis Raval, DOJ Special Litigation Section, Civil Rights Division, following FBI Dir. Mueller testimony before the US Senate. She thanked me for my correspondence and cited the applicable USC sections for their authority. I sent a letter with evidence to FBI Director Mueller requesting an investigation. If I remember correctly, I believe that it was the FBI Civil Rights CID chief that eventually replied and told me (my words) to buzz off. I'll try to find out what correspondence Ms. Raval is referencing.

Joe

Ms. Raval didn't respond to my fax asking her the dates of my correspondence that she was referencing in her letter, which coincidentally arrived the day after FBI Dir. Mueller's testimony before the Senate. So yesterday I faxed a FOI/PA request letter to the DOJ Civil Rights Division seeking all correspondence both to and from the Special Litigation Section.

Joe

I received two letters yesterday from the DOJ/FBI. The first letter, dated Sept. 22, 2008, was from an Angela L. Byers, Unit Chief, Initial Processing Unit. Her letter apparently is in response to one of two complaints that I filed on March 17, 2008 with the DOJ OIG against FBI employees. As mentioned in above posts, I had to file FOI/PA requests to find out what happened to my complaints. The FOI/PA response was that there was no records of either complaint.

Whoever signed for Ms. Byers wrote that "We acknowledged receipt of your communications dated March 17, 2008, that you directed to the Office of the Inspector General, Department of Justice (DOJ/OIG), on September 25, 2007. First, I faxed and emailed both complaints on March 17, 2008, which is the day that they received it, and I believe that Ms. Byers mistakenly wrote the year as "2007" instead of 2008. If so, she also got the date wrong as her letter to me is dated September 22, 2008 and I supposedly referred it to her unit on September 25- three days after she wrote the letter. If her date is correct, however, my complaint was forwarded to her unit six months before I filed it. Apparently my complaint is caught up in some FBI time/space warp, which would also explain the whereabouts of my other separate complaint charging and incontrovertibly proving that FBI employees lied.

At any rate, she wrote that my complaint was against the FBI's Jacksonville Division,including former Special Agent in Charge Michael J. Folmar. She eventually concluded that I didn't provide any specific evidence to support my allegations and the royal "we" in her unit determined that this matter doesn't warrant further administrative action and the matter is closed. Realize that this is the division that insures the honesty and integrity of FBI employees. Does that surprise anyone?

The second letter, dated September 23, 2008, is from David M. Hardy, who handles the FBI's FOIA's, in reference to Request No: 1111513-001. Section Chief Hardy wrote that his letter was to advised me that my pending FBI request is being reviewed by an analyst. As noted in an above post, I received a letter, dated July 7, 2008, from US DOJ Office of Information and Privacy Associate Director Janice Galli McLeod regarding- Appeal No.08-1881;Request No. 1111513. Assoc. Dir. McLeod remanded my FOI/PA request (1111513)back to the FBI. At the time I wondered why, because the FBI already denied having any records and described earlier appeals as moot, even though they denied one of my request under a FOIA exemption.

Any of this make any sense to you? I can only conclude that the FBI is lying and covering up not only for their own employees failure to investigate my charges, but also for Florida law enforcement official misconduct and abuse, which amounts to psychological torture, as well. The old saying that "one hand washes the other and they both wash the face" is appropriate here. I have suspicions that the FDLE would return the favor if they stumbled upon some illegal FBI surveillance.

So what's my point? My point is that there are no checks and balances to these abuses no matter what FBI Director Mueller may have told the Senate last week. Finally, the condensed and sanitized version of my charges that you're reading here is nothing compared to what the general public will see and possibly you yourself experience in the near future.

Joe

I received a reply from Nelson D. Hermilla, Chief of US DOJ FOI/PA Branch Civil Rights Division yesterday to my 9-25-08 FOI/PA request referenced above in a 9/25/08 post. The DOJ numbered my FOI/PA.: 2008-0520(6-099). However, if memory serves, it's the first time that they assigned a date received- 9/25/-08- to one of my requests. As they say, there's a first time for everything. At any rate, the DOJ maintains that it has a large inventory of FOI/PA's and they'll get to me on FIFO basis. Incidentally, in the past, I've always have gotten along with the FBI and their agents. I want to end the psychological torture. That's not unreasonable, is it? After all, I'm an American and I have rights, right?

Joe