Who or what is national security? Is the primary mission of a government agency like the FBI to protect the American people, or is its first goal to protect the government itself? Citizens or state?
"The state" seems to have won. The FBI's interpretation of the rules under which it operates have changed since the 1976 when a Congressional committee curbed some of the worst offenses. Each administration has found a way to give the FBI more latitude to scrutinize and intrude. After 9/11, civil liberties gave way to a very statist view of "national security."
A Freedom of Information lawsuit has opened up the agency's "Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide." The post 9/11 revisions suggest that civil liberties have been deprioritized -- shoved to the back burner, at best. "National security" means the maintaining the safety of law enforcement and government institutions rather than guarding the integrity of the Constitution.
The manual authorizes agents to open an “assessment” to “proactively” seek information about whether people or organizations are involved in national security threats.
Agents may begin such assessments against a target without a particular factual justification. The basis for such an inquiry “cannot be arbitrary or groundless speculation,” the manual says, but the standard is “difficult to define.”
Assessments permit agents to use potentially intrusive techniques, like sending confidential informants to infiltrate organizations and following and photographing targets in public.
F.B.I. agents previously had similar powers when looking for potential criminal activity. But until the recent changes, greater justification was required to use the powers in national security investigations because they receive less judicial oversight.
There's a good reason for judicial oversight. The judiciary stands between you and me and the state. Allow the state to take the judiciary out of the equation and it's you vs. self-protecting government agencies which have the police and military on their side.
Citizens can be selected as targets. Their political views and ethnicity are once again factors in the investigation. Wiretapping is a cinch because all the FBI needs to do is "turn up something specific to suggest wrongdoing." Once the FBI has any citizen's private information in their database, they can keep it there indefinitely. Of course, that private information is made easier to gather by wiretapping.
FOA allows us a look at the FBI's post 9/11 guidelines -- but not all of them.
Portions of the manual were redacted, including pages about “undisclosed participation” in an organization’s activities by agents or informants, “requesting information without revealing F.B.I. affiliation or the true purpose of a request,” and using “ethnic/racial demographics.”
Since the Church Committee tightened the FBI's guidelines, successive administrations have loosened them. The most glaring instances of FBI intrusion into citizen privacy occurred during the Bush administration. It looks as though the Obama administration will allow the FBI to keep its increasing powers.
There are no signs that the current attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., plans to roll back the changes. A spokeswoman said Mr. Holder was monitoring them “to see how well they work” and would make refinements if necessary.
"How well they work" not "how well they protect our liberties." I guess we should consider ourselves lucky to be allowed glimpses into the state's maneuvers to increase its powers. No problem as long as it's our neighbors under scrutiny and not us.
