A return to the bad old Hoover days?

Who was the most feared man in Washington between May 10, 1924 and May 2, 1972? It was J. Edgar Hoover. Hoover was not a President, though after his appointment as director of the Federal Bureau of Investigations by President Calvin Coolidge in 1924 he lasted for 48 years, spanning the Coolidge, Hoover, Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and part of the Nixon administration. There was a reason he remained in power in Washington for so long. Part of it was that he made the FBI his own personal fiefdom, dismissing agents or anyone else who crossed him, and in fact arranging the end of their careers. No one-- not Congressmen, Senators or even Presidents dared to cross Hoover. He held official Washington in an icy grip of fear.

And the key to his power was because he had files. Up to fifty million of them-- on any American who was noteworthy enough (or even knew anyone who was noteworthy enough) to attract his attention. If he couldn't find 'something' on somebody then he had his agents conduct surveillance (including wiretaps) into their family, their friends, or anyone else he could use as leverage should he ever have a desire to do so. Hoover made it a point to destroy the lives of anyone who dared challenge his power, and abused his charge by conducting surveillance on political opponents who were exercising their Constitutional rights and who had nothing to do with crime or criminal activity.

Once the scope of Hoover's activities came to light following his death, and also other abuses of civil liberties by the Nixon White House and other government agencies (such as the CIA) there was a brief period in the mid-1970's when concerns over civil liberties and privacy led to the the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts, the creation of the FISA court and other reforms that made government more accountable and gave the FBI and similar agencies some laws to follow. Since Coolidge appointed Hoover, in 1924, we've had one President, who made limiting the domestic spying authority of government agencies any kind of a priority at all, and that President was Jimmy Carter, who served one term and signed many of the reforms of the 1970's into law.

FBI to collect database of human physical characteristics.

CLARKSBURG, West Virginia (CNN) -- The FBI is gearing up to create a massive computer database of people's physical characteristics, all part of an effort the bureau says to better identify criminals and terrorists.

But it's an issue that raises major privacy concerns -- what one civil liberties expert says should concern all Americans.

The bureau is expected to announce in coming days the awarding of a $1 billion, 10-year contract to help create the database that will compile an array of biometric information -- from palm prints to eye scans.

Kimberly Del Greco, the FBI's Biometric Services section chief, said adding to the database is "important to protect the borders to keep the terrorists out, protect our citizens, our neighbors, our children so they can have good jobs, and have a safe country to live in."

But it's unnerving to privacy experts.

"It's the beginning of the surveillance society where you can be tracked anywhere, any time and all your movements, and eventually all your activities will be tracked and noted and correlated," said Barry Steinhardt, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Technology and Liberty Project.

The FBI already has 55 million sets of fingerprints on file. In coming years, the bureau wants to compare palm prints, scars and tattoos, iris eye patterns, and facial shapes. The idea is to combine various pieces of biometric information to positively identify a potential suspect.

A lot will depend on how quickly technology is perfected, according to Thomas Bush, the FBI official in charge of the Clarksburg, West Virginia, facility where the FBI houses its current fingerprint database.

Thomas E. Bush III is not a first or second cousin of the current President, though I've not been able to research definitively if or how closely related he is beyond that.

What concerns me is that this seems to be one more brick in a virtually endless succession of steps that have come-- from both Democratic and Republican administrations-- that give official spy agencies such as the FBI pretty much a window into anyone's life.

It is unfortunate that no one really addresses this issue anymore, taking it for granted that 'we have to protect ourselves from criminals and terrorists' or whatever other bogeymen they throw out there, so therefore we should all just accept these new spy powers.

Yeah, I know. I may get some more comments from Ron Paul supporters. I still consider him to be somewhat of a nut though, what with arguing against the civil rights movement and even against the Civil War, apparently having no problem with institutional racism. Unfortunately, Bush I (the former head of the CIA) raised an endorsement from the ACLU as a red flag against Michael Dukakis in 1988, and since then it seems that all major candidates of both parties have taken it as a matter of course that they should just go along with the flow towards ever and ever more restrictive police powers (I never hesitate to remind people that when Clinton's ATF tried to shoot their way, unannounced into Waco, it was technically legal because 'someone' had said their might be drugs in the compound-- though no evidence of that was actually found later-- so the 'no-knock' attack was legal under 'war on drugs' legislation pushed by Ronald Reagan in the 1980's.) In other words these laws last way beyond any administration and can be used or abused by any future administration.

Or by any future rogue bureacrat, out to create his own empire within Washington.

Willing to say anything to get elected.

Well, I guess if you are behind in the polls, the Big Lie is in order. At least that seems to be the case for our Congressman, Rick Renzi, who was four points down to Ellen Simon in a recent poll.

Renzi is running an ad in which he says that "Simon was the President of the ACLU, an organization which defends the North American Man-Boy Love Association."

Well, at lest the second half of that is right. Sort of. The implication of course is that the ACLU supports the rights of the pedophiles to destroy children, when in fact the ACLU in their press release on the decision of their Massachusetts affiliate to represent members of NAMBLA in court says,

"In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech."

However these kinds of distortions are everywhere in political ads these days. However, the first half of Mr. Renzi's statement, saying that Ellen Simon was the President of the ACLU is flat out and demonstrably wrong. The President of the ACLU since 1991 has been Nadine Strossen (Incidentally, she is the first woman to ever head the organization). Strossen succeeded Norman Dorsen, who served as the President of the ACLU from 1976-1990. So the contention that Ellen Simon was 'the President of the ACLU' is a flat out, bald faced lie, and a very easy one to prove false with a few minutes and a search engine. She was involved with the ACLU in Ohio, being the President of their Cleveland affiliate, but of course an ACLU member in Ohio could not have been responsible for a decision made by a Massachusetts affiliate, so in order to complete his chain of spurious logic trying to paint her as a defender of pedophiles, he had to invent a new resume for her (which is interesting-- if she lied on her resume, it would be a major scandal. But if he lies on her resume, it's just politics as usual.) But if Rick Renzi is so concerned about defending pedophiles, I would only ask him whether he plans to vote for Dennis Hastert as speaker of the house, since the revelation that Congressman Reynolds told the speaker there might be a problem involving Mark Foley but Hastert chose to ignore it instead of dealing with it then.

Not that this is anything new for Renzi, either. In the 2002 campaign he ran ads claiming that George Cordova embezzled money from a business he was a partner in and then wired it out of the country to an uncle in Mexico. Of course if this were true then Cordova would have gone to prison for a long, long time. But he not only did not go to prison or have any charges filed against him, but he sued Renzi after that election for libel and settled out of court for an undisclosed sum of cash. You figure it out.

Heck, it isn't even the first big lie that Renzi has told this year. Earlier this year he claimed that he had been endorsed by former Navajo Nation President Albert Hale. Only it wasn't true. Hale, irked at the fake endorsement, publically asked Renzi for an apology and to retract the endorsement. Far from an apology, Renzi's response was to personally attack Hale and call him a 'convicted felon' (also a big lie). Hale, who had planned to pretty much sit this election out, immediately endorsed Ellen Simon.

One has to wonder why people keep voting for a guy who has now proven over and over and over again that he is willing to outright lie in order to get elected.