Oh, boy. Give this administration an inch and it'll take a mile.
The New York Times reports:
Plan Would Let F.B.I. Track Mail in Terrorism Inquiries
Of course, keep in mind that environmentalists and animal rights activists are "terrorists," too!
(more)
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: May 21, 2005
WASHINGTON, May 20 - The F.B.I. would gain broad authority to track the mail of people in terror investigations under a Bush administration proposal, officials said Friday, but the Postal Service is already raising privacy concerns about the plan.
The proposal, to be considered next week in a closed-door meeting of the Senate Intelligence Committee, would allow the bureau to direct postal inspectors to turn over the names, addresses and all other material appearing on the outside of letters sent to or from people connected to foreign intelligence investigations.
The plan would effectively eliminate the postal inspectors' discretion in deciding when so-called mail covers are needed and give sole authority to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, if it determines that the material is "relevant to an authorized investigation to obtain foreign intelligence," according to a draft of the bill.
The proposal would not allow the bureau to open mail or review its content. Such a move would require a search warrant, officials said.
Whew! Now that's a safeguard, eh? They can collect your mail, but they can't open it.
Uh-huh...
But guess what? It doesn't stop at simply intercepting mail...
The provision is part of a broader package that also strengthens the bureau's power to demand business records in intelligence investigations without approval by a judge or grand jury.
Business records? (Gee, I wonder why they didn't do this with Enron?)
Future grand jury transcript to follow:
PROSECUTOR: Mr. Johnosn, did you take Ramdash Gulistan to a Cubs game on May 27, 2005?
JOHNSON: Yes, yes, I did. And I bought him a hot dog and two beers.
PROSECUTOR: And you claimed these costs as "business expenses?"
JOHNSON: Yes, yes I did. Mr. Gulistan is a client.
PROSECUTOR: You do realize, don't you, Mr. Johnson, that Mr. Gulistan has brown skin and speaks with a Middle Eastern accent?
JOHNSON: Well, not exactly. He's from India... but you're at least within 10,000 miles.
PROSECUTOR: So you're not denying that he has brown skin.
JOHNSON: No, I'm not denying that.
PROSECUTOR: Ladies and gentlemen of the grand jury, I ask for indictments of both of these men. I rest my case.
JOHNSON: Huh?
Even the Postal Inspectors think this is a bad idea:
"This is a major step," the chief privacy officer for the Postal Service, Zoe Strickland, said.
"From a privacy perspective, you want to make sure that the right balance is struck between protecting people's mail and aiding law enforcement, and this legislation could impact that balance negatively."
The new proposal "removes discretion from the Postal Inspection Service as to how the mail covers are implemented," Ms. Strickland said in an interview. "I worry quite a bit about the balance being struck here, and we're quite mystified as to how this got put in the legislation."
"Mystified?"
Ah, Mr. Strickland, you are dealing with true fascists. Open your eyes, my friend.
But all this is saving us from terrorists, right?
"Prison wardens may be able to monitor their prisoners' mail," said Lisa Graves, senior counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, "but ordinary Americans shouldn't be treated as prisoners in their own country."
Marcia Hofmann, a lawyer for the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a public interest group here, said the proposal "certainly opens the door to abuse in our view."
"The Postal Service would be losing its ability to act as a check on the F.B.I.'s investigative powers," Ms. Hofmann said.
So who is protecting whom?
Tale the poll.