Dive Agencies Giving Student Records to the FBI - What do you think?

[danceswithoctopus]

Originally posted by Burke
If the FBI had received a tip on Sept. 1 that someone was taking or had taken flight lessons in Florida in order to hijack a plane and run it into something, and they (the FBI) went to the flight school that had unknowingly trained the hijackers and they asked for the flight schools records the flights school could:

(A) Do the right thing and say, "sorry you don't have enough evidence to get a subpoena so we aren't going to let you look at our records.

OR

(B) Do the wrong thing and say "sure go ahead and take a look at our records" this of course would have saved 3000 lives, but, hey that is nothing compared to the fact that it would have been taking a step toward giving in to the government and we would soon be living in a police state.

A) In my scenario (the subpoena route?) It wouldn't have fallen on the backs of the flight schools, but on the courts, where it belongs. The flight schools weren't in a position to determine whether the FBI had enough evidence or not. That's the reason we have courts.

B) On September 1st, if there was enough evidence to predict the loss of life you suggest, the judiciary would have immediately granted the subpoenas.

If you believe today is a metaphorical September 1st and you have evidence that can save the lives of thousands, I believe you have a moral obligation to report it to the authorities. They, in turn, have an obligation to investigate the evidence. They also have an obligation to abide by the laws enacted by the Congress of the United States as authorized by the Consitution of the United States and interpereted by the Supreme Court of the United States.

At least in the United States (those of you who reside elsewhere, please disregard.) (Still, I'm sure we'd appreciate any help we can get.)

 

[kodiak]

Burke, in reading the second amendment it sure sounds to me like it gives the individual the right to bear arm. I dont really see how you or anyone else could interrupt it any other way.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

:sniper:

 

[Burke]

haha, I guess something I said came out WAY wrong, believe me I fully believe that the 2nd amendment gives every individual the right to keep and bear arms, anyone that wants to tell me different is going to have to argue with the business end of my Mossberg 590, just read my sig. line. I did make a comment about there being some people that do not believe the 2nd amendment gives us the right to bear arms, and that is true, no matter how ridicules it is there are always going to be people like sarah brady trying to destroy this country. I am a member of the NRA, always have been always will be.
I guess my only argument here is that I don't see a problem with someone voluntarily giving information to the FBI in order to help prevent terrorism as long as it is information that the FBI should be allowed to have anyway. You start giving information to the BATF on the other hand and I am going to get pissed.

 

[danceswithoctopus]

Originally posted by Burke
I don't see a problem with someone voluntarily giving information to the FBI . . . You start giving information to the BATF on the other hand and I am going to get pissed.

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=hypocrite&r=2
IMHO.

 

[Burke]

danceswithoctopus I guess the smiley face wasn’t big enough, my comment on the BATF was supposed to be a JOKE, I guess I should have been more clear, lest you start thinking me a hypocritical nazi.

 

[danceswithoctopus]

Originally posted by Burke
lest you start thinking me a hypocritical nazi.

I would never use that label. Especially on you, my friend. Once again, I beg your pardon. I left my glasses in the other room and missed the smiley.

 

[Burke]

I am always happy to make new friends.

 

[DivePartner1]

Sorry, friends, the remark about jailhouse lawyering was impolite for this tolerant forum, and I apologize. Too many years practicing law has left me suffering fewer things gladly. I respect the sincere sentiment, but if Dr. Decompression saw an incomplete comment, I understand why he might not let rest.

On the other hand, what he says affects all divers. Speculation of what PADI and NAUI have done only affects their membership and franchises. For at least some of them, this could have consequences. And so what?

If PADI AND NAUI were really this rash--and as a counselor to a business it's hard for me to believe they’d do this--it's not clear to me why they felt they didn't need the protection a subpoena would have given them. This isn't rocket science and I've never found that law enforcement to have difficulty following the rules; heck, their lawyers prefer that approach--it makes it easier to use what they get.

If PADI and NAUI handed over files, what did they share? They might have given away membership lists--including Americans, Canadians, Brits, resident aliens in the US (again, Canadians beware). Or did they open broader files including health information that might be implicated under privacy and insurance laws. Did they hand offer franchisee information? Financial information? Lists of whose qualified to use Trimix and Nitrox?

Back in the bad old days, the FBI constantly sought the NAACP's membership lists (the threat back then was nominally Communism--the implication: that all members were reds). The NAACP never caved, and the court's always backed them up. With a subpoena, at least, the searchers have had to keep the request within the bounds of what is needed, and say why. If it were improper (see, NAACP, above), they could narrow it to acceptable boundaries. Lets keep in mind that without the limit of a subpoena, there is nothing to prevent the FBI from grabbing anything, and using it for any purpose, including unrelated inquiries on any member or franchisee by the IRS, INS, or the rest of that alphabet soup.

I see a prevailing argument here of 'so what, it won't effect me.' Perhaps so, but you'll have to file a FOIA request for your newly opened file to see what the FBI thinks you are up to. As to the less persuasive analogies to imminent danger, how imminent could this be for such an overbroad request, and what could they find? Reports of divers of who refuse to practice safe ascents because they don't plan to ascend? This kind of unfocused fishing expedition for us sinister divers does not inspire confidence that limited resources are being used in a manner caluculated to lead to the probable bad guys. That is, assuming this is anything more than an urban myth.

 

[danceswithoctopus]

assuming this is anything more than an urban myth

Good point. I followed the original post to this site and found the article online there. Sounds legit to me. But judge for yourself: http://www.keynoter.com/archive/index.htm (News Section Story Archive, Select by Headline, scroll down to "Dive agencies giving student records to the FBI.")
If anyone else has any additional links, will you please post them? (I mean links relevant to this thread, smarty pants!)

 

[DivePartner1]

I especially liked the earlier story: "Asking about ‘suspicious’ divers shows the FBI doesn’t know divers very well. Divers overall are a pretty suspicious bunch."

And the good news about the Speigel Grove.

To get back on point, PADI and NAUI rolled at the request of the local dive shops. The dismissive quote from the NAUI flack was instructive. They answer to the shops, not the divers.

According to the story (and others), the FBI is investigating not because they have evidence, but only because someone jailed at Gitmo says he 'thought' it would be a good idea. Based on a tip of this quality, they're willing to waste time going through 3.5 million certification records???? And look for what?