After Inauguration Obama Should Send The FBI The Following Order...

[Blackhatjack]

"Provide every present and former member of Congress for the last eight years with a copy of their complete, unexpurgated FBI file."

Let that percolate for a couple of days, ... wait for the outraged members of Congress to act ... and then move on to the members of the MSM.

I think the breadth of surveillence would be astounding, and the repercussions would change the point of view of those who promote more government surveillence and less transparency.

[grasswire]

1. WOW

What a dynamite idea.

WOW.

I suspect that Rove kept some separate files, too. It would be a good thing to know if all material discovered by the FBI goes into FBI files or whether some is kept separately by politicos.

[BlueCaliDem]

2. Excellent idea! I'm for it. ;-) eom

[Lars39]

3. k and r

Let the truth shine.

[Overseas]

4. K&R for an interesting idea. //nt

[Blackhatjack]

5. This idea would not violate any confidentiality of the members of Congress...

They could choose to release what, if anything, their file contains. But I think the incentive for new legislation to rein in the FBI's secret surveillence would be huge.

[Blackhatjack]

6. It would be similar to the post-Joe McCarthey backlash ....

And the gasps and shocked faces would be widespread among these privileged of Americans.

[Sirius1]

7. Interesting Idea. n/t

[Lerkfish]

8. error: you've already reccomended this thread

dang.

[AtomTan]

9. "Outraged" members of congress "act"ing? Yeh, then you woke up.

[Blackhatjack]

16. It all goes back to 'whose ox is being gored...' --this idea makes it personal to them.

[NYC Liberal]

21. They'll be pissed if it's personal. Otherwise I'd agree with you

[Atman]

50. Hey, come on...Harry Reid writes a very stern letter!

I'd been he'd pen a gem about this!

:rofl:

.

[Terran]

10. damn good idea n/t

[The Backlash Cometh]

11. kick

[WeDidIt]

12. Kaboom

:nuke:

The Congress and MSM would be calling for Shrub's and Deadeye's heads on a platter.

[TexasObserver]

13. Great idea. Require ALL intel groups to do likewise.

NSA, Military intel, CIA, Homeland Security, etc.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. Pretty phenomenal idea, but I'd do it on background.

In other words, I wouldn't make a media event out of it directly. If someone wants to say something, fine, but I wouldn't make a dog and pony show out of it happening. That'll happen on its own.

[Blackhatjack]

17. Obama wouldn't have to even announce it ... let the Congressmen take it from there.

Of course, once Congress starts considering legislation to rein in this kind of unconstitutional activity, Obama could publicly announce he has ordered the FBI to follow the law.

THis would be too easy.... light the fire and sit back and watch...

[uponit7771]

15. That would piss the FBI off, I don't think the FBI is unpartisan

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

24. We have to make the FBI, the Justice Dept non-partisan again

I don't know if this is the way to start, but the Nazi trappings of Bush II need to be exposed to as much light as possible.

This would certainly start the ball rolling.

[tomp]

18. what if they are legitimately under investigation...

...wouldn't that be tipping them off? what, you say members of congress aren't criminals?

[Blackhatjack]

22. The FBI file on a person is different from an FBI Investigation File...

There are legitimate reasons to engage in surveillence of an individual, and there are requirements to meet in order to do that surveillence in accordance with the law. Court ordered wiretaps, for example, require a showing of evidence to back up the request.

The FBI investigatory file would not be sent to an individual, unless the Court orders that it happen.

The FBI surveillence files on individuals do not meet that standard.

The FBI has historically kept files on famous individuals(ie. John Lennon, MLK, Elvis, etc), but since George W. Bush took office it has mushroomed and holds the potential to wreak all kinds of havoc.

[tomp]

35. thanks for the clarification, but...

...are surveillance files legal? and, as i suspect not, would the fbi admit to having them?

[Blackhatjack]

37. It is common knowledge that the FBI has opened thousands of files on individuals in the past...

... which does not necessarily mean the individuals have done anything wrong.

Some files are opened for security clearances, or to comply with background checks requirements(like being licensed to practice law).

The issue is how deep and extensive the files are, and for what period of time. They become illegal when they pass certain perimeter standards, and when that information is passed on to individuals and entities who do not have clearance to access that information.

Of course the FBI could lie and say they have no files, but too many people know of their existence for the FBI Official to risk their entire career to try and keep their existence a secret.

[tomp]

86. do all members of congress get security clearance files opened? nt

[crossroads]

19. K&R

[longship]

20. R&K a fantastic idea.

Let them see for themselves what they've done.

:kick:

[Duppers]

23. ....

:kick:

[file83]

25. I'd be interested to see what kind of surveillance they performed on Cynthia McKinney...

...I wouldn't be surprised if they bugged her office, home, etc...

[dmr]

26. You and me, both n/t

[WHAT]

27. I love these little, clever ideas...

B-)

[mopinko]

28. that is one of the best ideas i have heard in a long time.

absolutely elegant.

[Martin Eden]

29. YOWZA!!!

Be interesting to see what happens.

[Agent William]

30. OMG thats perfect.

Priceless.

[old mark]

31. I'd be interested to see mine.

I was not able to get a high security clearance when I was in the army in 1970 because I supposedly had an FBI file.
Still not sure what it was about, and really don't much care, but it would interest me to see how they wasted money back then.

mark

[Blackhatjack]

32. I'd be surprised if most members of Congress aren't clueless as to the level of surveillence on them

Members of Congress tend to think that they are above this kind of unbridled surveillence, but those files would be like a cold bucket of water in their faces.

This suggestion would not require the public disclosure of any information in those files, but you wouldn't have to look very hard to notice who is outraged after receiving their copy of their FBI file.

[bertman]

33. Great idea!! SNOWBALL'S chance . . . national security, you know.

[Blackhatjack]

34. FBI is under Executive Branch Authority -- Obama can do this...

He could make the FBI produce evidence to support their refusal to release an FBI file on a Congressman to that Congressman.

These are elected members of Congress. National security is not going to be an issue unless they believe one of them is a traitor.

I don't know about the chances of it happening, but it sure would put the heat on the FBI and those Congressmen would have a thing or two to say about it.

[bertman]

43. I agree 100%, but I don't think Obama wants to start out taking on the FBI. Just sayin'.

[Blackhatjack]

48. As President Obama is responsible for the FBI. Making it comply with the law is part of his job...

If there are those who don't want Obama to change the way they have always done things under Bush, too bad!

Are we going to say, Obama does not want to start out taking on the CIA and 'extraordinary interrogation techniques' as they were done under Bush?

Nonsense! Obama is an agent of change, even if he does nothing at the present, because he is no George W. Bush. If Obama makes enough changes in matters that the public can see, those who are breaking the law in the shadows will change their conduct as well.

[bertman]

55. You're speaking of the ideal, Blackhatjack. I'm speaking of the real. Taking on the CIA

on interrogation tactics is no skin off their backs. They are going to run their show just fine using the tactics they utilized before 911.

The FBI has evolved over the last 50 years into the American Gestapo. Their core role as a domestic federal police force has morphed far beyond that into areas that neither they nor their handlers want the American public to know about. Do a little reading about the FBI role in the 911 events if you want to get the flavor of what I'm describing. These guys are working all over the world. They are infiltrated into every business, industry, and government function in the U.S. They have their own national, civilian, undercover corps working with them to ensure "domestic tranquility"--Infragard.

My point is that they will not be happy with someone upsetting their apple cart. And they will not stand idly by and watch it happen. They are part and parcel of the shadow government that has been guiding our slow and inexorable drive toward fascism and they are not going to let even a President stop that.

If Obama wants to rein them in, his best move is to get firmly established as the President, find out who and where his allies in the national security apparatus are, THEN start working on dismantling the shadow government. To do that right off the bat would be suicidal--literally, I fear.

[Blackhatjack]

58. I don't subscribe to the theory of waiting until Obama is firmly established to act...

That just allows the opposition within the FBI to solidify their opposition and obstructionist plans.

Obama will never stand on stronger ground to make such a move than on day one.

If you were a top official at the FBI who would oppose such a move, would you rather have more time to disarm the new President's power or less time to do so?

If Obama allows things to continue as they always have until he feels more comfortable, that decision to 'not act now' will be the equivalent to condonation of the continued conduct by those Obama will ultimately have to rein in.

[bertman]

81. Perhaps waiting strengthens the opposition, but maybe it gives the FBI folks who are

in favor of a constitutional, law-abiding FBI a chance to flex their muscle on the INSIDE when they see that President Obama is a champion of open, constitutional government.

I think we will have to disagree on this one.

I'm going to trust Obama to do the right thing.

[Truth2Tell]

36. I'd bet that the Congressional surveillance

has been conducted either by the NSA or by elements in the FBI who would not be loyal enough to Obama to come clean. The people they would choose for that kind of activity are the same type of people who would destroy or hide the evidence without batting an eye.

[newtothegame]

38. good idea n/t

[EmilyAnne]

39. I love this! Such a perfect idea!

[H2O Man]

40. I really like

the way that you think.

Nominated.

[Blackhatjack]

46. I try to think of ways to create motivation in those who have the power to effect change ....

If Obama were to issue this order there would be no further action required on his part. The aggrieved parties would have the power to correct any abuses through new legislation or through the Courts.

[OakCliffDem]

41. I think Obama should send the FBI, U.S. Marshals Service and local police to visit Republicans

Let law enforcement carry a simple message:

You are under arrest.

[ksimons]

42. K&R Although they should SELL it to Congressmen so we start chipping away at the 700 Billion

[RobertDevereaux]

44. This has got MY vote!

[Richard D]

45. maybe they already did . . .

. . . and that's why congress has been such a lapdog for the last years.

[MsLeopard]

47. I agree

The only reason I can find for the way Congress, especially Dems, have caved again and again and again to these war criminal traitors. It seems there's not an ounce of courage among them all, for at least one to stand up and say "enough."

[jamesatemple]

52. There is the possibility of other explanations, as well,

for the consistent caving of Dems (the heroic Dennis Kucinich being the exception)~

1) re-election considerations (Some Dems represent small areas in larger, Repug-dominated voting districts and desire to continue doing so, with the idea that "a little good beats no good at all".);

2) monetary considerations (Surely avarice and greed are distinct possibilities among a minority(?) of our Dem reps culpable to offers of vacations, donations, etc.);

3) heartfelt opinions that differ from that of the majority of the electorate (the father-knows-best thinking that culminates in inaction rather than "getting things done in a spirit of co-operation".)

4) More coffee will be required for me to make additions to this list.

Yet, the conclusion that Dems fold from fear of complicity revelations cannot be the only reason they do so. And, my idea that most problems can be solved by the proper application of a baseball bat may not necessarily be the most effective administrative direction to take. But, just once in while...

[nichomachus]

49. "Why those &^*#^*&$^. She wasn't 14. She showed me her ID"

Will be heard all over Capitol Hill.

[Kokonoe]

51. Stop Telling !

Brush will burn the world to cover his tracks.

EYE ON THE PRIZE

[mikehiggins]

53. Appoint Wes Clark Director and give him the order

One thing Clark has shown over the years is his willingness to take on difficult assignments and force them through. I don't beleive there is any Congressional oversight on the appointment of the Director of the FBI and though there would be a lot of controversy over it, Clark's military credentials would go far towards arguing that some discipline has to be exercised over the Bureau's runaway apparachniks.

Of course, this is another "dream idea". I'm confident that Obama has this one so I am also "chilling the )$(% out"

GOBAMA!

[Lincolngirl]

54. I can only Imagine!!!!

The results might put into perspective how far our government has gone overboard!
:evilgrin:

I'm new here, and wanted to say hi!

[Blackhatjack]

56. Exactly! Welcome to DU!

[Lincolngirl]

69. thanks!

[Mira]

57. This needed another Kick and Recommend

[Blackhatjack]

59. Thanks!

[crickets]

60. Wow.

When you have a brainwave, you don't mess around. Brilliant. :thumbsup:

[Phred42]

61. K & R - Excellent Idea!

:toast:

[NorCalDem]

62. recommended!

excellent idea!

[Baby Snooks]

63. Pelosi would never allow it...

Someone might put two and two together and figure out why she kept everything off the table.

[Lincolngirl]

65. She needs..

We need to keep an eye on Pelosi, as well as the rest of Congress. I don't want to see this Presidency turn into a power trip. Don't think Obama will get a big head, not his nature, but I can see some of the members of Congress trying to take advantage.
Please let me know what you are talking about by "everything off the table." I'm new here, and would like to catch up.
Here to learn!!

:hi:

[Blackhatjack]

66. Sorry, but Pelosi gets her own FBI file ... but otherwise she wouldn't have a say in it.

The beauty of an operation like this is the individual members of Congress can disclose as much or as little of the information as they see fit. They can even refuse to admit they received a copy of their FBI file.

But once the members of Congress get a gander at how extensively they have been serveilled, I don't think they will continue to sit on their behinds and say 'very good, carry on.'

[harun]

64. Exactly, down with fascism (n/t)

[alfredo]

67. Excellent idea. Maybe the idea should come from Congress and the media.

[Metta]

68. Great idea. Shining the healthy light of day ....

Glad you posted.

[Politicalboi]

70. Let the Sun Shine In

[Pryderi]

71. Cheney has the only copies. n/t

[dkofos]

72. I like that idea.

[georgecolombo]

73. Simple, Elegant, Devastating

That is AWESOME.

[DFW]

74. There is a precedent for this. Look at the former East Germany

They made the Stasi (Secret Police) files available to all former citizens of
East Germany, and they could see what information the State had gathered on
them, and who was responsible for gathering it. Some friendships, and more
than a few marriages dissolved when the victims of surveillance found out who
was spying on them.

But it also gave the Germans a healthy reminder about the need for State respect
of the privacy laws in place--not that they are always respected. The Germans are
already wrestling over allowing the State to go into private computers connected
to the internet without the owners knowing that their files were being examined.

All in the name of combating terrorism. Sound familiar?

[tclambert]

75. Okay, first thing, you know there's gonna be some Congressman who doesn't get a file

Congressman Non-entity: "Whattaya mean, I don't have a file? You sayin' I'm not worth wire-tapping? Hey, I'm important! I'm somebody! I have secrets, skeletons in the closet. I demand somebody put a team on me right now! Hello? Anybody there? Shucks!"

[tclambert]

76. Second, the FBI is gonna mess it up somehow.

They'll delay, insist on reviewing and redacting every file. They'll claim it's to protect sources and to protect classified means of technological surveillance and to not hinder "ongoing investigations". And some of that might be legit. But they'll hold stuff back, some juicy bits they want to keep for leverage. And of course they'll want to hide the parts obtained illegally, so they don't have to go to jail. Also, some of it will "accidentally" leak to the media, in order to punish a chosen few.

Probably won't happen. But it would be glorious.

[northamericancitizen]

77. Too late to recommend...but kicking this brillant idea!

[tigereye]

78. re-open the X-Files!

:hide:


sorry, I just had to go there! :evilgrin:

[debunkthelies]

79. Cange I can Belive in.

Now that's an idea that makes sense.:toast: :bounce: :bounce: :thumbsup: :kick: :headbang: :headbang: :yourock: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :applause: :applause:

[valerief]

80. Gah-roovy idea!

:kick:

[RavensChick]

82. For real!!

Seeing KKKarl in handcuffs will be the icing on top of the cake for me!

[ProfessorGAC]

83. Ooooh! I Like It

They're people having gun accidents in no time. Or, they will suddenly have taken up skydiving and have forgotten their parachute.

If the real criminals knew that everyone they were extorting found out what they saved, it would be frighteningly bad for them.

Cheney would have to take some people hunting.
The Professor

[beac]

84. Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

Well damn, b/c this is a GOOD one!

KICK!

:dem:

[swimmernsecretsea]

85. Whoa! That was good!

And that should be merely a starting point.

[Doctor_J]

87. You are a dangerous man, jack

:woohoo:

[boomerbust]

88. A good idea

Because it would expose the Blue Dog Dems for what they really are. Pukes with a D before their names.

[nyc 4 Biden]

89. Even the anit-American members?

:sarcasm:

[DrDan]

90. they will act to stop it for members of congress

you are dreaming if you think it will be stopped for us plebians.

[Blackhatjack]

91. Maybe... but it would be hard to do just for members of Congress

And it would raise questions among so many other groups they likely could not keep a lid on it.

[DrDan]

92. well . . . they have no problem granting themselves

plush health benefits with most showing little or no concern for the health benefits of others.

Same with pensions - Ted Stephens getting an immediate pension of more than $100K is a slap in all of our faces. Yet this was supported by a majority of congress.

No - members of congress definitely see themselves as patricians - worthy of special treatment.

[Blackhatjack]

93. I think it would be different if Congress passed a law to exclusively protect themselves only...

There are so many people who are affected by the warrantless spying any such act passed by Congress would get a lot of attention.