PDA

View Full Version : Legal F.B.I. Agents Get Leeway to Push Privacy Bounds


KC native
06-13-2011, 02:05 PM
In light of our recent discussions about police powers and the encroaching police state, I figured this would spark some more discussion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/13/us/13fbi.html?_r=1

By CHARLIE SAVAGE
WASHINGTON — The Federal Bureau of Investigation is giving significant new powers to its roughly 14,000 agents, allowing them more leeway to search databases, go through household trash or use surveillance teams to scrutinize the lives of people who have attracted their attention.

The F.B.I. soon plans to issue a new edition of its manual, called the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide, according to an official who has worked on the draft document and several others who have been briefed on its contents. The new rules add to several measures taken over the past decade to give agents more latitude as they search for signs of criminal or terrorist activity.

The F.B.I. recently briefed several privacy advocates about the coming changes. Among them, Michael German, a former F.B.I. agent who is now a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, argued that it was unwise to further ease restrictions on agents’ power to use potentially intrusive techniques, especially if they lacked a firm reason to suspect someone of wrongdoing.

“Claiming additional authorities to investigate people only further raises the potential for abuse,” Mr. German said, pointing to complaints about the bureau’s surveillance of domestic political advocacy groups and mosques and to an inspector general’s findings in 2007 that the F.B.I. had frequently misused “national security letters,” which allow agents to obtain information like phone records without a court order.

Valerie E. Caproni, the F.B.I. general counsel, said the bureau had fixed the problems with the national security letters and had taken steps to make sure they would not recur. She also said the bureau, which does not need permission to alter its manual so long as the rules fit within broad guidelines issued by the attorney general, had carefully weighed the risks and the benefits of each change.

“Every one of these has been carefully looked at and considered against the backdrop of why do the employees need to be able to do it, what are the possible risks and what are the controls,” she said, portraying the modifications to the rules as “more like fine-tuning than major changes.”

Some of the most notable changes apply to the lowest category of investigations, called an “assessment.” The category, created in December 2008, allows agents to look into people and organizations “proactively” and without firm evidence for suspecting criminal or terrorist activity.

Under current rules, agents must open such an inquiry before they can search for information about a person in a commercial or law enforcement database. Under the new rules, agents will be allowed to search such databases without making a record about their decision.

Mr. German said the change would make it harder to detect and deter inappropriate use of databases for personal purposes. But Ms. Caproni said it was too cumbersome to require agents to open formal inquiries before running quick checks. She also said agents could not put information uncovered from such searches into F.B.I. files unless they later opened an assessment.

The new rules will also relax a restriction on administering lie-detector tests and searching people’s trash. Under current rules, agents cannot use such techniques until they open a “preliminary investigation,” which — unlike an assessment — requires a factual basis for suspecting someone of wrongdoing. But soon agents will be allowed to use those techniques for one kind of assessment, too: when they are evaluating a target as a potential informant.

Agents have asked for that power in part because they want the ability to use information found in a subject’s trash to put pressure on that person to assist the government in the investigation of others. But Ms. Caproni said information gathered that way could also be useful for other reasons, like determining whether the subject might pose a threat to agents.

The new manual will also remove a limitation on the use of surveillance squads, which are trained to surreptitiously follow targets. Under current rules, the squads can be used only once during an assessment, but the new rules will allow agents to use them repeatedly. Ms. Caproni said restrictions on the duration of physical surveillance would still apply, and argued that because of limited resources, supervisors would use the squads only rarely during such a low-level investigation.

The revisions also clarify what constitutes “undisclosed participation” in an organization by an F.B.I. agent or informant, which is subject to special rules — most of which have not been made public. The new manual says an agent or an informant may surreptitiously attend up to five meetings of a group before those rules would apply — unless the goal is to join the group, in which case the rules apply immediately.

At least one change would tighten, rather than relax, the rules. Currently, a special agent in charge of a field office can delegate the authority to approve sending an informant to a religious service. The new manual will require such officials to handle those decisions personally.

In addition, the manual clarifies a description of what qualifies as a “sensitive investigative matter” — investigations, at any level, that require greater oversight from supervisors because they involve public officials, members of the news media or academic scholars.

The new rules make clear, for example, that if the person with such a role is a victim or a witness rather than a target of an investigation, extra supervision is not necessary. Also excluded from extra supervision will be investigations of low- and midlevel officials for activities unrelated to their position — like drug cases as opposed to corruption, for example.

The manual clarifies the definition of who qualifies for extra protection as a legitimate member of the news media in the Internet era: prominent bloggers would count, but not people who have low-profile blogs. And it will limit academic protections only to scholars who work for institutions based in the United States.

Since the release of the 2008 manual, the assessment category has drawn scrutiny because it sets a low bar to examine a person or a group. The F.B.I. has opened thousands of such low-level investigations each month, and a vast majority has not generated information that justified opening more intensive investigations.

Ms. Caproni said the new manual would adjust the definition of assessments to make clear that they must be based on leads. But she rejected arguments that the F.B.I. should focus only on investigations that begin with a firm reason for suspecting wrongdoing.

KC native
06-14-2011, 12:04 PM
seriously not one comment?

vailpass
06-14-2011, 01:14 PM
DILLIGAF?

Direckshun
06-14-2011, 01:34 PM
It's heartbreaking, but unless the right wing gets riled up about it, nothing's going to change.

At this point, the only people seriously concerned about this are libertarians, who have limited sway AT BEST within their own political wing, and liberals, who have been demagogued out of the issue, and the Democrats they elect are too concerned with being demagogued as well.

The TSA incident with Matt Drudge, sad to say, is the example of how all this is going to have to be curtailed. When the rightwing gets riled up about nanny state shit, the liberals are always ready to join in and there's almost zero opposition to getting this trend reversed.

I'm generalizing, of course, but that's the blueprint.

Right now, the right wing either doesn't mind that the nanny state can do what it wants when it wants, or it actively prefers a nanny state to begin with.

Donger
06-14-2011, 01:50 PM
It's heartbreaking, but unless the right wing gets riled up about it, nothing's going to change.

At this point, the only people seriously concerned about this are libertarians, who have limited sway AT BEST within their own political wing, and liberals, who have been demagogued out of the issue, and the Democrats they elect are too concerned with being demagogued as well.

The TSA incident with Matt Drudge, sad to say, is the example of how all this is going to have to be curtailed. When the rightwing gets riled up about nanny state shit, the liberals are always ready to join in and there's almost zero opposition to getting this trend reversed.

I'm generalizing, of course, but that's the blueprint.

Right now, the right wing either doesn't mind that the nanny state can do what it wants when it wants, or it actively prefers a nanny state to begin with.

LMAO

It's the right wing's fault for not making a stink about this happening under Obama's rule?

Good God.

blaise
06-14-2011, 01:53 PM
LMAO

It's the right wing's fault for not making a stink about this happening under Obama's rule?

Good God.

Democrats want to do something, but they're powerless.

HonestChieffan
06-14-2011, 01:57 PM
Right wing is always pushing for more control and more government.


wait....


Huh?

Direckshun
06-14-2011, 01:59 PM
It's the right wing's fault for not making a stink about this happening under Obama's rule?

Name one nanny state issue that was reversed due to popular revolt since the Patriot Act was passed.

I can only think of one, perhaps there are others. That's the TSA issue that was spearheaded by the right wing.

I'm not saying it's right, but that does seem to be the only template that actually works.

blaise
06-14-2011, 02:00 PM
If only we could get a Democrat in the White House, and maybe a few in the Senate, they could fight back against the right wingers, but right now there's nothing they can do about this stuff.

HonestChieffan
06-14-2011, 02:02 PM
Name one nanny state issue that was reversed due to popular revolt since the Patriot Act was passed.

I can only think of one, perhaps there are others. That's the TSA issue that was spearheaded by the right wing.

I'm not saying it's right, but that does seem to be the only template that actually works.


Seems like the only way to get anything done is to depend on the right. The next election we can try to implement that so we can get government out of our lives. Thats a template we can believe in.

Direckshun
06-14-2011, 02:09 PM
Seems like the only way to get anything done is to depend on the right. The next election we can try to implement that so we can get government out of our lives. Thats a template we can believe in.

Note that I didn't say Republicans spearheaded the TSA issue. The rightwing spearheaded it. Republicans in office weren't saying a thing until it blew up on Drudge.

At this point, this is an issue that the rightwing rules. The political system is unable to overrun it at this point.

HonestChieffan
06-14-2011, 02:11 PM
So, I should feel strongly both ways. Good right is bad and the other stuff then.

Donger
06-14-2011, 02:13 PM
Name one nanny state issue that was reversed due to popular revolt since the Patriot Act was passed.

I can only think of one, perhaps there are others. That's the TSA issue that was spearheaded by the right wing.

I'm not saying it's right, but that does seem to be the only template that actually works.

Strange. I still don't see you laying any blame on Obama for this.

blaise
06-14-2011, 02:14 PM
Strange. I still don't see you laying any blame on Obama for this.

"Yes, we can't."

Donger
06-14-2011, 02:15 PM
"Yes, we can't."

"Yes, we can. Until the right wing makes a stink about it. Then, we can't."

Saul Good
06-14-2011, 02:17 PM
It's heartbreaking, but unless the right wing gets riled up about it, nothing's going to change.

At this point, the only people seriously concerned about this are libertarians, who have limited sway AT BEST within their own political wing, and liberals, who have been demagogued out of the issue, and the Democrats they elect are too concerned with being demagogued as well.

The TSA incident with Matt Drudge, sad to say, is the example of how all this is going to have to be curtailed. When the rightwing gets riled up about nanny state shit, the liberals are always ready to join in and there's almost zero opposition to getting this trend reversed.

I'm generalizing, of course, but that's the blueprint.

Right now, the right wing either doesn't mind that the nanny state can do what it wants when it wants, or it actively prefers a nanny state to begin with.

LeBron James understands how you feel. If Mike Bibby would have stepped up and taken over with a dominating performance, the Heat might have won.

blaise
06-14-2011, 02:18 PM
"Yes, we can. Until the right wing makes a stink about it. Then, we can't."

"Yes, I really want to but, you know. There's like public pressure, so I don't want to. Give me credit for wanting to, though. Please. So, anyway, have we received any good information from this stuff yet? Not that I like it, but as long as it's there, we may as well use it. Those damn right wingers."

blaise
06-14-2011, 02:20 PM
I wish I didn't eat any potato chips, but someone brought them home so what could I do?

Direckshun
06-14-2011, 02:23 PM
Strange. I still don't see you laying any blame on Obama for this.

Because I'm not blaming anybody. I'm explaining the mechanics that need to occur for this trend to be reversed. All political fights are not created equal, and the rightwing controls this issue.

Liberals barked for six or seven years about the Patriot Act and absolutely zero shit was done. The TSA issue was resolved in a week.

Them's the cards we're working with when it comes to the nanny state.

Based on the past ten years, the only way any of the nanny state gets curtailed is through an active right wing, which except for one minute occasion, either doesn't seem to mind the nanny state or actually likes it to begin with.

Now, who's to blame for the rightwing being the keyholder for all retracting of the nanny state?

All of us, I'd think. Obama included. Myself included. Etc.

HonestChieffan
06-14-2011, 02:25 PM
why would we blame them? Isnt curtailing the nanny state your goal and KC Numbnuts desire?

Donger
06-14-2011, 02:27 PM
Because I'm not blaming anybody. I'm explaining the mechanics that need to occur for this trend to be reversed. All political fights are not created equal, and the rightwing controls this issue.

Liberals barked for six or seven years about the Patriot Act and absolutely zero shit was done. The TSA issue was resolved in a week.

Them's the cards we're working with when it comes to the nanny state.

Based on the past ten years, the only way any of the nanny state gets curtailed is through an active right wing, which except for one minute occasion, either doesn't seem to mind the nanny state or actually likes it to begin with.

Now, who's to blame for the rightwing being the keyholder for all retracting of the nanny state?

All of us, I'd think. Obama included. Myself included. Etc.

Obama is to blame for these new powers. There, I said it for you.

Saul Good
06-14-2011, 02:28 PM
Because I'm not blaming anybody. I'm explaining the mechanics that need to occur for this trend to be reversed. All political fights are not created equal, and the rightwing controls this issue.

Liberals barked for six or seven years about the Patriot Act and absolutely zero shit was done. The TSA issue was resolved in a week.

Them's the cards we're working with when it comes to the nanny state.

Based on the past ten years, the only way any of the nanny state gets curtailed is through an active right wing, which except for one minute occasion, either doesn't seem to mind the nanny state or actually likes it to begin with.

Now, who's to blame for the rightwing being the keyholder for all retracting of the nanny state?

All of us, I'd think. Obama included. Myself included. Etc.

So the right wing are the ones who want a larger level of government influence in our lives? Is this bizarro world?

blaise
06-14-2011, 02:29 PM
Because I'm not blaming anybody. I'm explaining the mechanics that need to occur for this trend to be reversed. All political fights are not created equal, and the rightwing controls this issue.

Liberals barked for six or seven years about the Patriot Act and absolutely zero shit was done. The TSA issue was resolved in a week.

Them's the cards we're working with when it comes to the nanny state.

Based on the past ten years, the only way any of the nanny state gets curtailed is through an active right wing, which except for one minute occasion, either doesn't seem to mind the nanny state or actually likes it to begin with.

Now, who's to blame for the rightwing being the keyholder for all retracting of the nanny state?

All of us, I'd think. Obama included. Myself included. Etc.

So, the responsibility to reverse this falls on the right wing. Democrats are obviously powerless.
Saying the right wing are the only people able to reverse this, and then saying they're not reversing it, is blaming the right wing.
What do you mean you're not blaming anyone?

Direckshun
06-14-2011, 02:30 PM
why would we blame them? Isnt curtailing the nanny state your goal and KC Numbnuts desire?

I'm blaming everybody.

I'd blame the rightwing for either appreciating the nanny state or tolerating it.

I'd blame the leftwing for giving up the ghost during the Obama administration, when they knew this was their best chance at getting much of the nanny state curtailed.

I'd blame a shit ton of independent Americans for not caring.

I'd blame activists who have thusfar failed. I'd blame the counter-activists who have made this disaster what it is today.

I'd blame those in power for the past ten years for expanding the nanny state to fend off an issue that, in the grand scheme of things, isn't killing that many Americans.

I'd blame Republicans and Fox News for demagoguing the issue and Democrats for becoming power whores.

And I'd blame all voters who fall for the "cutting the Patriot Act is hating our troops" bullshit that propagated this insanity to begin with back in the early century.

In a democracy, we all take responsibility for the results. We also have the ability to reverse them or change them.

blaise
06-14-2011, 02:30 PM
Obama is to blame for these new powers. There, I said it for you.

Only because he has to, because of demagoguery.

Direckshun
06-14-2011, 02:31 PM
So the right wing are the ones who want a larger level of government influence in our lives? Is this bizarro world?

It boggles my mind, too.

Direckshun
06-14-2011, 02:32 PM
So, the responsibility to reverse this falls on the right wing. Democrats are obviously powerless.
Saying the right wing are the only people able to reverse this, and then saying they're not reversing it, is blaming the right wing.

I'd say the responsibility falls on all of us. But the only way things actually get done on this issue is when they are spearheaded by the rightwing.

What do you mean you're not blaming anyone?

The specific quote that Donger was responding to was not allocating blame. It was allocating cause and effect.

blaise
06-14-2011, 02:33 PM
I'd say the responsibility falls on all of us. But the only way things actually get done on this issue is when they are spearheaded by the rightwing.

Doesn't say much for Obama's leadership, then. Unless, of course, he likes these developments.

HonestChieffan
06-14-2011, 02:35 PM
I'm blaming everybody.

I'd blame the rightwing for either appreciating the nanny state or tolerating it.

I'd blame the leftwing for giving up the ghost during the Obama administration, when they knew this was their best chance at getting much of the nanny state curtailed.

I'd blame a shit ton of independent Americans for not caring.

I'd blame activists who have thusfar failed. I'd blame the counter-activists who have made this disaster what it is today.

I'd blame those in power for the past ten years for expanding the nanny state to fend off an issue that, in the grand scheme of things, isn't killing that many Americans.

I'd blame Republicans and Fox News for demagoguing the issue and Democrats for becoming power whores.

And I'd blame all voters who fall for the "cutting the Patriot Act is hating our troops" bullshit that propagated this insanity to begin with back in the early century.

In a democracy, we all take responsibility for the results. We also have the ability to reverse them or change them.

I blame sunspots, Ozone, Bush, and HAARP. And the Masons.

Direckshun
06-14-2011, 02:36 PM
Doesn't say much for Obama's leadership, then. Unless, of course, he likes these developments.

Or Bush's. Or any Congress of the past decade...

Nobody seems capable of leading on the issue. Even the TSA issue wasn't led by anybody in power.

Those in office aren't going to lead the charge against curtailing government power anyway. I wish it were not the case, but that falls right in line with basic human nature.

It's got to be grassroots led. And if the past ten years are any indication, only one segment of society seems capable of pulling that off, sadly.

Amnorix
06-14-2011, 02:42 PM
Seems like the only way to get anything done is to depend on the right. The next election we can try to implement that so we can get government out of our lives. Thats a template we can believe in.

When exactly has it worked before in living memory?

Amnorix
06-14-2011, 02:44 PM
So the right wing are the ones who want a larger level of government influence in our lives? Is this bizarro world?

That's always been true as regards law enforcement. Do you not realize that?

Second Amendment aside, the right is always pushing for more and tougher criminal laws, broader investigative powers, etc. The right wing curtails, or wants to curtail, Constitutional rights (other than 2nd amendment) and broaden the police powers of the government. That's not exactly news.

blaise
06-14-2011, 02:44 PM
Or Bush's. Or any Congress of the past decade...

Nobody seems capable of leading on the issue. Even the TSA issue wasn't led by anybody in power.

Those in office aren't going to lead the charge against curtailing government power anyway. I wish it were not the case, but that falls right in line with basic human nature.

It's got to be grassroots led. And if the past ten years are any indication, only one segment of society seems capable of pulling that off, sadly.

Ok, Bush isn't President now. Obama is. Seems like we heard a lot of crying about this stuff from the left when Bush was in office. Now, I guess the theme is, "Oh well. What can we do?"

Direckshun
06-14-2011, 02:51 PM
Ok, Bush isn't President now. Obama is. Seems like we heard a lot of crying about this stuff from the left when Bush was in office. Now, I guess the theme is, "Oh well. What can we do?"

I have already mentioned that dynamic in post #24.

Donger
06-14-2011, 02:59 PM
I'm blaming everybody.

I'd blame the rightwing for either appreciating the nanny state or tolerating it.

I'd blame the leftwing for giving up the ghost during the Obama administration, when they knew this was their best chance at getting much of the nanny state curtailed.

I'd blame a shit ton of independent Americans for not caring.

I'd blame activists who have thusfar failed. I'd blame the counter-activists who have made this disaster what it is today.

I'd blame those in power for the past ten years for expanding the nanny state to fend off an issue that, in the grand scheme of things, isn't killing that many Americans.

I'd blame Republicans and Fox News for demagoguing the issue and Democrats for becoming power whores.

And I'd blame all voters who fall for the "cutting the Patriot Act is hating our troops" bullshit that propagated this insanity to begin with back in the early century.

In a democracy, we all take responsibility for the results. We also have the ability to reverse them or change them.

But still no outright, "I blame Obama." Hilarious.

Amnorix
06-14-2011, 02:59 PM
The head of the FBI reports to the Attorney General, who is appointed by the President, so this falls on laps of Holder and Obama, no question.

That said, if the FBI pushed hard for this and Holder/Obama wouldn't give it to them, I'm sure the Republicans would raise a big stink in Congress, holding hearings etc. To ignore the fact that bureaucrats have a direct pipeline into Congress, who can back them (or not) on major issues is to be ignorant of the basic workings of our politics.

Whether this is one where Holder/Obama are fine with it all, or whether they're not too thrilled but don't want to go to the mat on it, we may never know.

Direckshun
06-14-2011, 03:00 PM
But still no outright, "I blame Obama." Hilarious.

No outright I blame Bush either. Obama's a Democrat, Bush is a Republican, so I thought them adequately covered by the post.

Amnorix
06-14-2011, 03:01 PM
But still no outright, "I blame Obama." Hilarious.

There's no question, in my mind, that this ultimately falls to Obama. The buck does, in fact, stop there.

But again, we have no idea whether this is something Obama/Holder really want, or if they are only tepidly not in favor. If they were rabidly not in favor, of course, then they will presumably block it, and let the political chips fall where they may.

In the absence of data to the contrary, however, one must presume they support the FBI in this matter.

blaise
06-14-2011, 03:02 PM
But still no outright, "I blame Obama." Hilarious.

No, he blamed Obama for letting right wingers do this. You see, Obama is really the victim here.
Right wingers control this. Democrats are victims of voter emotion. There's really nothing they can do except complain about it when it happens under a Republican President. Now that Obama's there they can only throw their hands up and wait.
And gather information received by the investigations, of course.

Really, they're just reluctant participants.

Donger
06-14-2011, 03:02 PM
No outright I blame Bush either. Obama's a Democrat, Bush is a Republican, so I thought them adequately covered by the post.

Bush isn't POTUS right now, Direckshun. Obama is. These new powers are being granted under Obama's leadership, not Bush's.

Donger
06-14-2011, 03:02 PM
There's no question, in my mind, that this ultimately falls to Obama. The buck does, in fact, stop there.

There you go, Direckshun.

Brock
06-14-2011, 03:11 PM
At least we're finally approaching the point where everybody has to acknowledge there is absolutely no difference between the two. None.

Amnorix
06-14-2011, 03:34 PM
At least we're finally approaching the point where everybody has to acknowledge there is absolutely no difference between the two. None.

There are definitely differences, but they're in the margins, not in terms of central policies.

Amnorix
06-14-2011, 03:36 PM
At least we're finally approaching the point where everybody has to acknowledge there is absolutely no difference between the two. None.

Actually, if you ask Pat, Bush is the greatest President evah! Well, maybe second to Ronald (blessed be his name) Reagan, but still, almost evah!

And Obama can't do anything right whatsoever...

Backwards Masking
06-14-2011, 08:47 PM
George Carlin's old argument about how voting is a waste of time is getting more and more justified with every passing day. Has anyone seen the somewhat old photo of Bush Jr. Sr., Clinton and Obama all standing next to eachother and giggling like schoolgirls? Why are all these self proclaimed Christians Masons as well (a group that marginalizes Jesus to the same status as Zeus and Hare Chrishna and every other major deity)? Isn't that split loyalites? Why does the a bird's eye view of the White House sit at the bottom of an upside down pentagram with the points coinciding with the location of Masonic Lodges? Why is the Eye of Lucifer on the back of the $1 bill? Am I really safe posting this?

Brock
06-14-2011, 09:20 PM
Why are all these self proclaimed Christians Masons as well (a group that marginalizes Jesus to the same status as Zeus and Hare Chrishna and every other major deity)? Isn't that split loyalites? Why does the a bird's eye view of the White House sit at the bottom of an upside down pentagram with the points coinciding with the location of Masonic Lodges? Why is the Eye of Lucifer on the back of the $1 bill? Am I really safe posting this?

Because Masonry is not a religion and anyone of any religion can be a Mason. So no, it is not split loyalties.

The reason why Washington DC has so much Masonic symbolism is because the guys who designed it were Masons. That's all.

Eye of Lucifer? LOL.

Backwards Masking
06-14-2011, 09:50 PM
If the Masonic Lodge is not a religion why do they get Non Profit tax breaks? What are they then? An after school club?

That's not the Eye of Lucifer Brock? Can you tell me what it is then?

Brock
06-14-2011, 09:57 PM
If the Masonic Lodge is not a religion why do they get Non Profit tax breaks? What are they then? An after school club?

That's not the Eye of Lucifer Brock? Can you tell me what it is then?

Why do the Moose, Elks, and Odd Fellows get non-profit tax breaks? These are also non profit fraternal organizations.

It isn't the eye of Lucifer, although I am sure there are several nutty websites that will tell you it is.

Backwards Masking
06-14-2011, 10:21 PM
Odd Fellows is like the Masonic Lodge and most churches (i.e. religion) : a "pro community" establishment that brings in far more money than it ever gives back (though technically they give back Some of it.) FAIL

"It isn't the Eye of Lucifer, i don't know what it is so I'll just call You a nutty quack instead." FYP. FAIL again.

Moose and Elk? EPIC FAIL

Brock
06-14-2011, 10:25 PM
Odd Fellows is like the Masonic Lodge and most churches (i.e. religion) : a "pro community" establishment that brings in far more money than it ever gives back (though technically they give back Some of it.) FAIL

"It isn't the Eye of Lucifer, i don't know what it is so I'll just call You a nutty quack instead." FYP. FAIL again.

Moose and Elk? EPIC FAIL

That's fine. I'm not here to try to convince you of anything. I'm just telling you for a fact that what you're saying is false. If you want to live in ignorance, be my guest.

Fishpicker
06-14-2011, 11:18 PM
If the Masonic Lodge is not a religion why do they get Non Profit tax breaks? What are they then? An after school club?

That's not the Eye of Lucifer Brock? Can you tell me what it is then?

it is called

The All Seeing Eye (of God)
The All Seeing Eye (of Lucifer)
The Eye of Providence
The Eye of Horus
The Eye of Sauron

and I've heard it called by other names that i cant remember at the moment.

orange
06-15-2011, 02:36 AM
Colorado -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Seal_of_Colorado.svg/200px-Seal_of_Colorado.svg.png

We've got the Eye AND Fasces! Beat that!