I wouldn’t call myself a Libertarian (mainly because socialized health care doesn’t seem like such a bad idea to me), but when we start hearing about certain powers being granted to Federal agencies that directly opposes an individuals personal rights…. I get a little worried:

The Justice Department is finalizing rules that would allow FBI agents to solicit informants and use other new techniques to bolster the agency’s intelligence-gathering operation in the United States, officials said Friday.

The changes would expand rules the department enacted after the Sept. 11 attacks that permitted the FBI to conduct “assessments” of threats of terrorism and espionage even in instances where little or no proof existed of criminal activity.

Such assessments are separate from formal investigations, which can involve more invasive investigative methods but which require harder evidence.

Justice officials said the FBI had been hamstrung in carrying out the earlier mandate because the agency had been limited to “overt” intelligence-gathering techniques, such as permitting agents to conduct interviews only when they identified themselves.

But the proposed revisions have raised concerns among civil liberties groups that the FBI would have too much latitude to collect information on U.S. residents and would be allowed to track people based on their race or ethnicity.

But the most concerning change is this:

In assessing possible terrorist threats, agents now are limited to conducting interviews and gathering data through public sources, such as the Internet. The changes would allow them to conduct physical surveillance in a public location, recruit and deploy informants, and conduct interviews without identifying themselves.

Here’s an example:

The official cited a hypothetical example in which the FBI receives a tip about illegal activity in a bar.

If a tipster claims that a patron is dealing drugs, the guidelines for criminal investigations allow agents to conduct more intrusive preliminary interviews and take other action.

If the tipster claims the patron is raising money for a suspected terrorist group, an obvious national security concern, the alternative guidelines limit investigators to the more public methods, absent more evidence.

In the second example, the FBI could conduct interviews (uhh.. interrogations?) without identifying themselves.

See also, the Bush Doctrine.

Popularity: 3% [?]

The Libertarian Party announced their Presidential nominee on Sunday, and it’s not the suspected Ron Paul that much of the public had thought it would be- he held that title 20 years ago.  No, this time around it’s Bob Barr, a former congressman from Georgia, and one time Republican. 

The Libertarians have said that this could make for the strongest ticket they’ve had in the history of the party (37 years) but that’s not really saying much, as they tend to make up only 3% of the entire voting landscape.

That said- there are some grumblings that with  a race that could be close between McCain on the Republican side, and (let’s just go ahead with saying it) Obama on the Democrat side, Barr could have the position that Green Party Candidate Ralph Nader had in the 2000 elections.  The common view being that had Nader not run, the votes that went to him could’ve gone to Al Gore instead, and put him into the White House as opposed to current President George W. Bush.

Only this time, it wouldn’t be votes taken from the Dems, but from the Reps.  Will Barr make a difference in the coming Presidential Election?  Conventional wisdom would have to say it’s less than likely, but then again… who knows?

Popularity: 3% [?]