FBI Uses Blanket Warrants
Just last week, Robert Mueller, head of the FBI, disclosed that the bureau had violated the law regarding use of National Security letters which drew only a ho-hum from senators at the hearing.
But, according to the NYTimes today, "details have not previously been disclosed about its use of “blanket” warrants, a one-step operation used to justify the collection of hundreds of phone and e-mail records at a time.
"The inspector general’s ongoing investigation is also said to be focusing on the F.B.I.’s use of the blanket letters as a way of justifying the collection of large amounts of records at one time. F.B.I. officials acknowledged the problem Wednesday, calling it inadvertent, and said officials had been instructed that they could no longer issue blanket orders. Instead, officials have to determine why particular records are considered relevant."
How can it be "inadvertent" when these violations occurred for four consecutive years? That's stretching credulity.
If the FBI has done this, what might other intelligence agencies do if given an unconstitutional blanket warrant OK in a FISA bill.
Warning bells should be going off among House Democrats "negotiating" the FISA bill regarding blanket warrants, also.
There have been some positive developments among House Democrats and their stance on retroactive telecom immunity and as Glenn Greenwald writes, "Members of the House Judiciary Committee have now finally been able to review the documents relevant to the telecom's claims which the Senate long ago reviewed. Chairman Conyers and 19 Members of the Committee have now issued a comprehensive report concluding that "the Administration has not established a valid and credible case justifying the extraordinary action of Congress enacting blanket retroactive immunity as set forth in the Senate bill." The report is quite well-argued and thorough."
However, it is still prudent to maintain a wait and see attitude regarding the final outcome since House Democrats have caved before.
When the Restore Act included blanket or basket warrants, the ACLU stated, "..the bill gives the government the ability to spy upon Americans without an individual warrant. Since the bill does not require individual warrants before government agents seize material from Americans on American soil, it fails to be constitutional.
"...broad year-long basket warrants that require only minimum court oversight to collect the maximum amount of information. Basket warrants, by definition, are not warrants at all. They do not give Americans protections that the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Fourth Amendment. The colonists rose up against King George for the same type of government overreaching.”
This still holds true for blanket warrants in the House FISA legislation. It is unconstitutional. House Democrats must remove it from the bill. No blanket warrants or retroactive telecom immunity.
But, according to the NYTimes today, "details have not previously been disclosed about its use of “blanket” warrants, a one-step operation used to justify the collection of hundreds of phone and e-mail records at a time.
"The inspector general’s ongoing investigation is also said to be focusing on the F.B.I.’s use of the blanket letters as a way of justifying the collection of large amounts of records at one time. F.B.I. officials acknowledged the problem Wednesday, calling it inadvertent, and said officials had been instructed that they could no longer issue blanket orders. Instead, officials have to determine why particular records are considered relevant."
How can it be "inadvertent" when these violations occurred for four consecutive years? That's stretching credulity.
If the FBI has done this, what might other intelligence agencies do if given an unconstitutional blanket warrant OK in a FISA bill.
Warning bells should be going off among House Democrats "negotiating" the FISA bill regarding blanket warrants, also.
There have been some positive developments among House Democrats and their stance on retroactive telecom immunity and as Glenn Greenwald writes, "Members of the House Judiciary Committee have now finally been able to review the documents relevant to the telecom's claims which the Senate long ago reviewed. Chairman Conyers and 19 Members of the Committee have now issued a comprehensive report concluding that "the Administration has not established a valid and credible case justifying the extraordinary action of Congress enacting blanket retroactive immunity as set forth in the Senate bill." The report is quite well-argued and thorough."
However, it is still prudent to maintain a wait and see attitude regarding the final outcome since House Democrats have caved before.
When the Restore Act included blanket or basket warrants, the ACLU stated, "..the bill gives the government the ability to spy upon Americans without an individual warrant. Since the bill does not require individual warrants before government agents seize material from Americans on American soil, it fails to be constitutional.
"...broad year-long basket warrants that require only minimum court oversight to collect the maximum amount of information. Basket warrants, by definition, are not warrants at all. They do not give Americans protections that the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Fourth Amendment. The colonists rose up against King George for the same type of government overreaching.”
This still holds true for blanket warrants in the House FISA legislation. It is unconstitutional. House Democrats must remove it from the bill. No blanket warrants or retroactive telecom immunity.
Comments