Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Government United States Politics

FBI Says Paper Trails Are Optional 244

WerewolfOfVulcan writes "According to this Washington Post article, the FBI says that it doesn't have to comply with even the unconstitutional provisions of the Patriot Act when asking for phone records. Apparently that whole due process thing doesn't include them. Funny thing is, they've apparently already been doing it for years." Quoting: "Under past procedures, agents sent 'exigent circumstances letters' to phone companies, seeking toll records by asserting there was an emergency. Then they were expected to issue a grand jury subpoena or a 'national security letter,' which legally authorized the collection after the fact. Agents often did not follow up with that paperwork, the inspector general's investigation found. The new instructions tell agents there is no need to follow up with national security letters or subpoenas. The agents are also told that... they may make requests orally, with no paperwork sent to phone companies. Such oral requests have been made over the years in terrorism and kidnapping cases, officials said."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FBI Says Paper Trails Are Optional

Comments Filter:
  • double entendre (Score:5, Insightful)

    by User 956 ( 568564 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @05:14PM (#18421215) Homepage
    Funny thing is, they've apparently already been doing it for years.

    Oh yeah, that's funny. it's almost a real riot.
  • by cluckshot ( 658931 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @05:14PM (#18421217)

    Well the committee for State Security, (Russian translation KGB) is alive and well in the USA. It now comes out what I have been posting for some time that this was an effort to trounce the constitution.

  • by Chas ( 5144 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @05:14PM (#18421219) Homepage Journal
    I'd make a funny about "In Soviet Amerika", but it just ain't funny anymore.

    We need to step on these bastards necks NOW.
  • That's fine! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by FatSean ( 18753 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @05:14PM (#18421229) Homepage Journal
    I pick and choose the laws I obey as well, and after reading this, I feel even more vindicated when I do so.

  • by Aphex Junkie ( 633436 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @05:15PM (#18421243)
    The Constitution is the ultimate "law of the land". So change "probably" to "definitely" :(
  • by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @05:16PM (#18421257)
    > Apparently that whole due process thing doesn't include them.

    Well, of course it doesn't. What are you gonna do, call the cops? Oh, wait, the FBI are the cops!

    Silly citizens.

  • Ripe for abuse (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chris Burke ( 6130 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @05:18PM (#18421303) Homepage
    Well yeah. If you were going to use the powers of the USAPATRIOT act inappropriately, why would you keep a paper trail? That way the worst you can be accused of is not keeping the record, not whatever it is you actually did.

    Insufficient accountability morphs directly into a complete lack of accountability. Who is surprised by this? Who did not anticipate this over five years ago? Those who were blinded by fear. Everyone else was either outraged by the potential -- and thus innevitable -- abuse, or lying and appealing to the fearful. Don't worry, there doesn't need to be any safeguards because we promise to use our powers wisely and justly, and besides, don't you hate Terrorists?!
  • by Red Flayer ( 890720 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @05:18PM (#18421309) Journal
    FTA (emphasis mine):

    The new guidance to agents cites a provision in federal law allowing a telephone provider to voluntarily turn over phone records to law enforcement figures "in good faith" if they "believe that an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires disclosure without delay," a senior FBI official said.

    Hmm. That law they cite provides a justification for a telephone provider to turn over records; it does not provide a justification for law enforcement to request the records. Semantics, but important.

    That the law clarifies under what kind of emergency such requests can be made is good-with-a-capital-G. What remains to be seen is if the old definition of emergency ("I can't be bothered with paperwork") will continue to be the de facto reason for a subpoena-less request.

    IMO, any federal agent who acts outside the law wrt information requests should be prosecuted. They've broken the law no less than someone who smoked a joint -- and the cumulative negative effects on society are probably far worse for those who act outside the law in the name of the law.
  • by khasim ( 1285 ) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @05:19PM (#18421327)

    This is social engineering.

    No, this is abuse of authority.

    This is about removing accountability.

    We don't need a paper trail just for a paper trail. We need one to make sure that the requests are legitimate and fair.
  • by diesel66 ( 254283 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @05:20PM (#18421337)
    All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
  • by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @05:30PM (#18421483)
    the submitter seems to have his pants in a knot over the FBI's misconduct, but he fails to realize that all police in all countries try to pull dirty tricks like that, and have done so for many decades. The difference between a free society governed by the rule of law and a dictatorship is that, in a free society, telcos have the liberty and *duty* to tell the police to sod off and come back with a proper warrant.

    That US telcos comply to such oral requests alone should tell you something of the state of this country, which is the merging of the corporate world and the state. As in country that have this other form of government... [wikipedia.org]
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @05:35PM (#18421567)
    is anybody actually surprised by things like this anymore? I can honestly say that when the warrantless wiretapping first came to light, I was shocked by how little press the story received compared to other things and by its subsequent all-but-disappearance from the public eye. Perhaps there is a legal loophole somewhere that purportedly allows corrupt politicians to do whatever the hell they want in Washington, but I haven't seen it. As far as I was aware, on the day of his inauguration, President Bush swore to uphold the Constitution. He broke his oath. It doesn't matter whether or not he believes working around the Constitution was good for America; the simple fact of the matter is that he broke his oath, which is an act of high treason, as far as I'm concerned. Clinton's affair did not undermine the foundation of all of our freedoms that Bush speaks so highly of out of one side of his mouth while he hands out instructions to the Great American Wrecking Co. from the other.

    I was pleased when the Democrats took Congress, because I (perhaps naively) thought that they would order an investigation and discuss impeachment. Nope, didn't happen. There was no trial, and nobody went to jail. I, a concerned citizen of this country, was left feeling unsatisfied and betrayed by the very government I am forced to pay to support. I'm growing tired of hearing about how the democratic process will repair these evils. How? When? How many of our freedoms will we lose before America wakes the fuck up and takes its dream back from these greedy, power-hungry criminals?

    Why do we stand here idly watching while it seems like almost weekly some new affront on everything America used to stand for appears in the news? The USA is dying a slow, agonizing death, and "we the people" appear powerless to stop it. Is there anything we can do?
  • by QuantumG ( 50515 ) * <qg@biodome.org> on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @05:40PM (#18421631) Homepage Journal
    You're just as bad as the Blender developers who use 3d Studio Max as their scapegoat for everything. "Blender isn't user friendly!" "Yeah, but how user friendly is 3ds max?" It's not about holding yourself to the same standard as the competition, it's about holding yourself to a gold standard.
  • by Checkmait ( 1062974 ) <byron@nospam.phareware.com> on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @05:42PM (#18421671)

    Why do people always pick on the federal agents

    Because federal agents usually have the authority of the federal government behind them. And in cases right now, federal agents are using templates for letters which are intended to be used in emergencies.


    But you are right: when agents make an information request without a subpoena, communications companies should resist unless it is *very obvious* that there is an emergency (i.e. publicly broadcasted threats).

  • by kalirion ( 728907 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @05:45PM (#18421725)
    How did they find out about this? Interviews?
  • by Master of Transhuman ( 597628 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @05:45PM (#18421729) Homepage
    Uhm, what part of the following don't you understand?

    Agent: We're the FBI, turn over the documents or we'll get a warrant, trash your offices, and disrupt your business for the next six months looking for them. And then maybe charge you with "obstruction" and "interfering with a Federal officer."

    And refer whatever we find to the IRS as well.

    Yeah, your average corporate wageslave or corporate idiot manager is going to refuse...

    At least some librarians have been known to do so when asked for library patron records. But they don't work for the phone company or a bank - where obedience is Job One.

    You see "Smokin' Aces"? Remember the sceen where Ray Liotta is asked by his partner about whether there'll be a problem at the hotel getting access? He says something to the effect, you show them the badge, they bend over.

    That's how it works. These companies are regulated and controlled by the US government - they do what the government says (unless it means revealing their own management graft or corruption or monopoly acts, of course.)

  • by msully4321 ( 816359 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @05:48PM (#18421769) Homepage
    If you read his post, you'll realize that he is not defending Bush's actions. He's countering the partisan hacks who believe that their side is significantly less corrupt and abusive of power than the current administration. Both major parties suck.
  • by tsotha ( 720379 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @05:49PM (#18421787)

    This is a story about the FBI calling up and making a request that doesn't have the force of law. If you want to do something about this call up your phone company and ask what the policy is regarding oral requests from the FBI. If you don't like it, use a different one.

    And we're not talking about wiretaps, here. We're talking about records of who you call. The courts have ruled, over the years, that this data is not yours. It belongs to the phone company. In fact, those court rulings are probably what prompted the change in policy.

  • by fyngyrz ( 762201 ) * on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @05:52PM (#18421823) Homepage Journal
    The Constitution was the ultimate "law of the land

    There, fixed that for you.

  • by Master of Transhuman ( 597628 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @05:55PM (#18421869) Homepage
    Short answer to your last question: No.

    "I, a concerned citizen of this country, was left feeling unsatisfied and betrayed by the very government I am forced to pay to support."

    Welcome to - the nature of the state. You have just learned what every OTHER citizen of every OTHER country in the entire history of the world has learned at some point.

    "I'm growing tired of hearing about how the democratic process will repair these evils. How? When?"

    Never. No democracy ever has and no democracy ever will. Because democracies that reach this point are no longer democracies - if they ever were.

    When you reach this point, revolution or destruction by outside attack are the only solutions left.

    It's a tossup which one - or both - will occur to the US and when, but it is inevitable.

    And you haven't seen anything yet. Wait until the war on Iran starts, and car bombs start going off all over the place here as the US economy sinks into the sunset due to quadruple oil prices and the Chinese dumping the US dollar. The Constitution is history. Fergeddaboutit.

    The only thing you need to understand is: the people really running this country WANT THIS TO HAPPEN. To paraphrase the "feel good" movement, everything that happens happens for a reason - and it serves them (not us.)

    But if you're smart enough (which I apparently am not), you can make it serve you, too...

  • Re:That's fine! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by daigu ( 111684 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @06:02PM (#18421953) Journal
    It's not fine. A government that picks and chooses which laws it obeys is a government based on tyranny. You, on the other hand, aren't a tyrannt no matter how many blunts you smoke at home.
  • Re:That's fine! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by HomelessInLaJolla ( 1026842 ) * <sab93badger@yahoo.com> on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @06:17PM (#18422133) Homepage Journal

    Not that this has in recent years done much to deter prosecutors in general
    Recent news [google.com] suggests that prosecutors lose their jobs when they place the rule of law above the rule of man.
  • Re:Ripe for abuse (Score:5, Insightful)

    by incabulos ( 55835 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @06:20PM (#18422173)
    Don't worry, there doesn't need to be any safeguards because we promise to use our powers wisely and justly, and besides, don't you hate Terrorists?!

    The FBI seems to love terrorists, because they have bought about a regime in which anyone merely claiming to be an FBI agent can ask for and receive any confidential or private information on any US citizen. The terrorists will surely be posing as agents NOW, and because there is no validation of authority, paper trail or any safeguards at all, they will be able to find out everything they want to know.

    Robert Mueller and the rest of his complicit conspirators need to be in jail.
  • by vux984 ( 928602 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @06:31PM (#18422287)
    Why do people always pick on the federal agents for asking for documents, video, etc... without documentation.

    Because in an presumed emergency, you trust the authority figures who are tasked with dealing with them. If your an IT manager for a bank, and a child has just been kidnapped from the premises, do you really want to tell the police to go back to the station fill out a subpoena, and get it signed by a judge before you'll let them review the surveillance tapes to see if they show who grabbed the child. You could, but that delay might seal the kids fate.

    The people you should be angry with are the corporate folks who comply they're the ones who should ask for a warrant, subpoena, etc...

    I disagree.

    The reason for these 'emergency protocols' is so that things can happen as quickly as possible in emergencies. We really shouldn't blame 'corporate folks' for assisting law enforcement just because full protocol hasn't been followed, especially if the 'corporate folks' have been misled to beleive that an urgent response is required.

    If the federal agents are verbally asking for records and its not an emergency we should be angry at the federal agents, and demanding accountability from them. They should be harshly dealt with when they abuse those policies. I'd even say it should be a matter of public record when emergency protocols are invoked, so that we can all review them after the fact.

    The challenge is to make law enforcement accountable *without* making the accounting so onerous that they are unable to respond effectively in time sensitive situations. "Due Process" is great when time isn't a big deal, but sometimes it needs to be set aside for the greater good -- the trick is to ensure that it only happens when its actually needed. Simply banning 'emergency responses' isn't going to get rid of emergencies, and without emergency responses those emergencies are going to end badly.

  • Re:double entendre (Score:5, Insightful)

    by morleron ( 574428 ) * <morleron&yahoo,com> on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @06:33PM (#18422307) Journal
    Of course, the memo authorizing this travesty, which utterly destroys the last vestiges of due process for ordinary Americans, says that agents are to use the "exigent circumstances" requests only in case of "dire need". Yeah, we know how well that crap worked when they were supposedly abiding by the extremely dubious constitutional grounds provided by the infamous PATRIOT ACT. Our legislators continue to drag their feet and express surprise that the FBI would abuse its power: these are the jerks that handed the Feds the gun in the first place, now they seem surprised to find that the Bush administration has made use of its secret police powers to investigate at least 143,000 Americans, few of whom are at all likely to be terrorists - I guess that happens when most of one's eighteen functioning brain cells are mainly concentrating on how to maintain oneself in position at the public trough.

    This is a clever move on the part of the Foul Breathed Investigators as it seems that "exigent circumstance" requests may be made by phone; in the interests of saving time and lives of course. Now, with no need to issue even minimal follow-up paperwork there will be far fewer traces of the abuses of power that will continue. After all, the cockroaches can now safely occupy the middle of the room: the lights have been turned off. No need to worry about having to scurry for cover should any noxious Inspector General or Congresscritter show up asking "What the hell?" So, America takes yet another step towards the darkness that is a police state. How long before phone records are used to justify having the military pick up some local "unlawful enemy combatant" in your neighborhood? Think it can't happen here? Think that Americans somehow don't have that "dark side" that shows up everywhere else in the world when governments are allowed virtually unlimited police powers? If that's true, how do you account for the FBI PATRIOT ACT abuses, the current dustup over the firing of eight US District Attorneys, the Valerie Plame affair, the use of secret CIA prison camps and the "extraordinary rendition" of prisoners to other nations with even fewer safeguards against torture than we have, the fact that the military tribunals now being held at Gitmo are secret (can't have anyone finding out who we really detain down there), and the remainder of the whole sordid list of abuses that our little sawed-off tinpot "Decider" in the White House has loosed on this country?

    It's getting to be very close to the point at which openly dissenting from government policies will become very dangerous. It will be too late to put a stop to these abuses once the malevolent piece of vegetation that we "elected" President decides to start really using all the powers he's been given over the past six years. After all, how many people are going to be willing to openly risk the "midnight knock" that is more and more a possibilty for anyone who stands out from the crowd? Once people begin to disappear in numbers large enough to attract the attention of the sleep-walking American populace there will be little chance of peacefully reigning in our out-of-control Federal government. The time to act is now. Join the next demonstration against the war, start one to call attention to how Texas' Favorite Idiot has trampled our Constitutional liberties into the mud, write the spineless wimp that occupies your local Congressional district office and insist that he begin living up to his oath of office - which requires the protection of the Constitution and I'm not talking about shielding the document itself from destruction, write your local newspapers explaining why continuing to allow President Bush, Vice President Richard "Sparky Crashcart" Cheney, Attorney General Alberto "Torquemeda" Gonzales, and Secretary of State Condi "Head in the Sand" Rice to remain in office is a Bad Idea, do something to protect this country before it's too late. The government IS NOT THE COUNTRY and the sooner everyone realizes this the sooner we can kick the SOBs out of o
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @06:37PM (#18422343)
    Then this whole law thing has become a bit of a joke hasn't it?

    Hahaha!
  • by Qzukk ( 229616 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @06:40PM (#18422375) Journal
    That US telcos comply to such oral requests alone should tell you something of the state of this country, which is the merging of the corporate world and the state.

    Merging of the corporate world, what?

    No, the reason this is happening is because every time a company does something bad (whether its censorship, seizing assets, turning people over to the gestapo, or whatnot) the droning starts. Millions of people chanting in unison: "The Constitution only applies to the government. The Constitution only applies to the government. The Constitution only applies to the government. The Constitution only applies to the government. The Constitution only applies to the government."

    Your phone company giving your phone records to whoever they want? "The Constitution only applies to the government."

    The drones have won.
  • by carpeweb ( 949895 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @06:41PM (#18422395) Journal
    I sure do see a lot of arguments that boil down to "the other side is worse". What is the point of that argument? Personally, I think W is worse than Clinton, but I don't see how that is relevant to an argument about whether something should or should not be done. I'm not sure "if nothing else, at least it's different" does a whole lot to advance the discussion, since "different" can be worse, by definition. If you have specific reasons making it actually better, or less worse, that would be a much more credible argument.

    BTW, I "get" the frustration angle; I even share it; I just don't think your response to it makes any sense.
  • Re:That's fine! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @07:13PM (#18422747)
    No, Clinton did not do the same thing. Clinton and Bush both fired all the US attorneys at the beginning of their terms. That is very typical for Presidents, it's much like picking a new Cabinet.

    This separate firing of eight attorneys, however, is very different. Firing some US attorneys in the middle of a Presidential term for more-or-less undocumented reasons and then replacing them without Congressional approval (as per the provisions of the PATRIOT Act) is unprecedented and worrisome. Although they are appointed by the President and serve "at his pleasure", they are not supposed to be his employees, there's a huge difference.
  • by camperdave ( 969942 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @07:38PM (#18422997) Journal
    They rounded up the king and queen and separated their heads from their necks.

    That's all well and good in a monarchy, but what are you supposed to do in a democracy? Unfortunately, in a democracy, the chain of responsibility gets severed at every election. Lopping off Bush's head, as appealing as that may be, isn't going to solve the problem. He didn't authorize it (as far as we know). Suppose Clinton authorized it. Lopping of Clinton's head also isn't going to solve anything. He's out of the picture. So, who do we hold responsible? The current administration who know nothing about it, or the previous administration who are no longer in power?
  • Re:That's fine! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Slipgrid ( 938571 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @08:10PM (#18423257) Homepage Journal
    No, Clinton did not do the same thing. Clinton and Bush both fired all the US attorneys at the beginning of their terms.

    I know the difference you are speaking of. At the same time, to think that their is much difference between Democrats and Republicans is a mistake. Democrats provide only a kinder form of facism.
  • by mmell ( 832646 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @08:12PM (#18423275)
    "What is J. Edgar Hoover doing on your telephone?"

    "Why shouldn't he be on my phone - he's on everybody else's!"

  • by SwashbucklingCowboy ( 727629 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @08:19PM (#18423337)
    They have rendered the Constitution irrelevant.
  • by SEAL ( 88488 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @08:33PM (#18423455)
    Don't get me wrong: I don't think it's unreasonable for people to expect better of the telcos.

    I'm just telling you why it's not going to happen. In a nutshell, they were handed a golden goose by the government. In order to keep that money-train rolling, they've willingly cooperated with government requests -- including unlawful ones.

    Yes, nowadays there's more of a duopoly between them and the cable companies. But don't think they are any better. One reason the government is scrutinizing VOIP is because they want the same level of oversight that they've had with the telcos for years prior.

    So when you see members of Congress pass bills such as the Patriot Act and others, granting overreaching powers to the FBI, think carefully for a moment. Considering that the average age [senate.gov] of Congress members is 55 for Representatives and 60 for Senators, most of them should be familiar with J. Edgar Hoover [wikipedia.org]. That should be required history for the younger generation as well. Substitute "terrorist" for "radical", with superior surveillance technology, and that's what you have today.

    When your elected representatives express shock and disbelief that the FBI could ever abuse its power, don't believe them. They know damn well what they are voting for from the start.
  • by hab136 ( 30884 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @09:14PM (#18423767) Journal

    If the feds didn't follow up with the required paperwork, then does this even qualify as a patriot-act request? Seems like the companies could follow up in next month's phone bill

    They could, but that would generate no profit while pissing off the government. So why would they?
  • by tftp ( 111690 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @09:42PM (#18424007) Homepage
    If the federal agents are verbally asking for records and its not an emergency we should be angry

    How do you know if this is an emergency or not? Do you expect the agents to brief you on the case, so that you can make your own decision?

  • by DahGhostfacedFiddlah ( 470393 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @10:13PM (#18424221)
    Unfortunately, the bootup process is powered by blood.
  • by lawpoop ( 604919 ) on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @11:20PM (#18424687) Homepage Journal
    "Don't get me wrong: I don't think it's unreasonable for people to expect better of the telcos.

    I'm just telling you why it's not going to happen...
    "

    I have to grudgingly respect your point. I think there was a time in very recent American history ( i.e. before 9/11 ) when people would have raised a huge outcry is this story had broken. I think it was probably that way for the past 100 years. But like they kept telling us, "9/11 changed everything". I guess they were trying to hypnotize us with a mantra. It worked.

    So now, you are right. After torture, extraordinary renderings, illicit war, warrantless wiretaps, FBI sneak-and-peaks, nobody is surprised that telcos are sharing information with the government. I hope someday I'll be able to return to the country that I grew up in.
  • Re:double entendre (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rasit ( 967850 ) on Wednesday March 21, 2007 @04:46AM (#18426223)
    I rather die standing then live on my knees in fear of "my" goverment
  • Re:double entendre (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 21, 2007 @04:53AM (#18426247)
    "There are four boxes to use in the defence of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now. - Anonymous"

    Last of all, pay attention to the list of "the four boxes" that protect liberty and decide for yourself which one it's most important to make sure continues to exist, then act to ensure that it's used effectively and properly.


    I'm buying firearms and ammunition, and learning how to use them.

    Seriously.

    Hopefully it's just a waste of money, but I'm not giving up all my rights or "going quietly into the night" if this country turns into an oppressive, fascist police state. And hey... punching holes in paper from 100 yards away is kinda fun.

    (Posted anonymously for the obvious reasons...)
  • Re:double entendre (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mpe ( 36238 ) on Wednesday March 21, 2007 @06:37AM (#18426699)
    Even if only 1 person in the 143,000 investigated was a terrorist,

    Remember also consider the number of terrorists amongst the people not being investigated. One of the basic problems with corrupt law enforcement is not only do they waste time harassing innocent people they also have a tendency to ignore (even "partner with") actual criminals. "Law enforcement" is by it's very nature attractive to criminals, which is why proper oversight is needed.

    it was worth giving up my civil liberties to catch this child molester.

    How do you know that giving up your civil liberties actually made it easier to catch this person. It may have made no difference, it may even have made them harder to catch. Mass snooping (even if conducted by entirely honest operatives) tends to increase "noise" far more than "signal".
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 21, 2007 @10:37AM (#18428625)
    "I think there was a time in very recent American history ( i.e. before 9/11 ) when people would have raised a huge outcry is this story had broken."

    nope....america has been apathetic for years.....

This file will self-destruct in five minutes.

Working...