home

The Justice Dept. IG's Report in Simple English

As TalkLeft noted here, the Justice Department's IG issued a report today on the FBI's use and abuse of national security letters. Also noteworthy is this:

The department’s inspector general, Glenn A. Fine, said his office’s interviews with F.B.I. Director Robert S. Mueller III and his top aides had shown a commitment in “energy, time and resources” to fixing deficiencies, and that “significant progress” had been shown since the abuses were first disclosed a year ago.

However, Mr. Fine’s report cautioned, “we believe it is too early to definitively state whether the new systems and controls developed by the F.B.I. and the department will fully eliminate the problems” uncovered in 2007.

In simple English for the legalese impaired: the nation's top law enforcement agency is doing a better job of obeying the law now that it has been caught taking shortcuts, but will probably continue to disobey it this year, just less often.

< More Debates Coming | No to Obama's Proposal of 50-50 in Michigan >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    So is there any recourse? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:13:12 PM EST
    Let me make sure I have this clear...

    The government can't reveal who is injured by their extra legal actions because it is a matter of national security, so the injured parties don't even know they've been injured. So there is no standing for ANYONE on this in court, unless there is a leak. But if the injured party brings suit, the government won't agree to be sued for national security reasons...

    Is that about right?

    Gosh (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by digdugboy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:32:43 PM EST
    We've certainly come a long way from Katz vs. United States, where a person had a reasonable expectation of privacy while in a public telephone booth.

    It's boggling when viewed in context of the history of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

    First they came for the phone booths. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:45:14 PM EST
    And how do they propose . . . (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Doc Rock on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:10:33 PM EST
    . . . to make whole those whose privacy they invaded?  Notify them; prove they have purged any illegally made records, data bases, etc.; protect them from further harm; reprimand wrong-doers?

    ok, i'm assuming this is (none / 0) (#7)
    by cpinva on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:02:37 AM EST
    a trick question:

    none of the above.

    Parent

    Since it's safe to assume..... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:06:33 AM EST
    the FBI will never straighten up and fly right, it's time for concerned citizens to take matters into our own hands....by spying on the FBI.

    Anytime somebody leaves headquarters, follow them around with a video camera and recording device.  Plant a gps receiver on all their black suv's.

    I put the over-under on how long it takes to get locked up at 15 minutes.

    So in super simple English... (none / 0) (#3)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:03:51 PM EST
    ...same as it always was.  

    Not to be too simplistic, but "spying" has always occured in the dark and grey areas of the law. When the light hits, there's always remorse and lots of talk about doing better.  But as soon as the lights go out again...

    actually, it gets even better. (none / 0) (#4)
    by cpinva on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:06:48 PM EST
    as i understand it, DOJ has now classified the memos and opinions used to support bush's executive orders ignoring laws he feels he doesn't have to follow.

    as a result, not only is he ignoring congress' express determinations, via legislation, should he be taken to task for it, the opinion used to support it will be deemed pretty much a national security issue.

    how do i get this job again?