Ron Paul FBI

[Livid]

I know Paul would be for the dismantling of the FBI but I need to know more about the issue here to debate it with some people who are questioning it. I would assume that the states could do just as good of a job as the FBI if given the power to do so. Are there any functions of the FBI that would be tough to move to the state level? I am not very sure about what exactly it is that the FBI does other than prosecute 'federal' crimes.

Mainly, what would be the issues here I would need to know to debate this with an educated opinion?

[theseus51]

Most of the crimes the FBI investigates, should be left to local state governments. I think the only ones they need to investigate are like killing of federal employees, stuff involving mail in the post office, maybe treason, and counterfeiting federal reserve notes . . .

If you have as many federal laws as we have, yeah, you need a big FBI. But the point is that we shouldn't have nearly as many federal laws.

[0zzy]

I don't know if this is his 2008 campaign. I think he's more focused on getting rid of the Fed and CIA >

[pdavis]

Most of the crimes the FBI investigates, should be left to local state governments. I think the only ones they need to investigate are like killing of federal employees, stuff involving mail in the post office, maybe treason, and counterfeiting federal reserve notes . . .

If you have as many federal laws as we have, yeah, you need a big FBI. But the point is that we shouldn't have nearly as many federal laws.

The Secret Service investigates counterfeiting federal reserve notes, not the FBI.

[Trassin]

To the best of my knowledge he has never said he wants to get rid of the CIA or FBI. Feel free to prove me wrong by supplying reference that says otherwise.

Here is what he has said about the FBI and CIA:
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2001/tst030501.htm

"...we have every right in the world to know something about intelligence gathering." - 2007 GOP debate at UNH, sponsored by Fox News Sep 5, 2007

[VoteRonPaul2008]

It's not about abolishing intelligence gathering, but cutting out waste and inefficiency. Most departments are hugely bloated and wasteful. He will make one effective stronger intelligence bueacracy.. instead of having so many seprerate ones.. you can search it here someone already explained it..

[pcosmar]

As I understand the Constitution there should be NO federal police force.
Except for Treason,and counterfeiting all other laws should be enforced and prosecuted at the state level.

[0zzy]

I think he should abolish them, and replace it with intelligence gathering departments, but keep the name. If he keeps the name, or says "reform", then people won't be freaked out. People think FBI+CIA=only intelligence agencies.

[Livid]

I will post the questions I have been asked on this subject below as I am sure there are people here who know more about this than me.




I'll admit that I don't have much knowledge pertaining to the option of cutting back on the FBI and giving the power to the states, so I do have a few questions.

- How would a state be able to fund employees (that would basically move from the FBI to be employed by the state, I assume)? Currently, federal employees get paid very well, and considerably better than those of state employees. So it seems that the federal government would have to grant funds to each state to pay it's employees that handle cases traditionally belonging to the FBI. So is there no monetary savings there?

- Pertaining to the first question, how would the federal government dictate fairly which state gets more funding or how much?

- Would this create interstate feuds?

- How do the states interact with each other pertaining to interstate crimes?

- If the states were to have to pay their employees to track these cases traditionally belonging to the FBI and they pay them less that they were paid by the federal government, where is the incentive for these highly trained individuals to do this work?

- A major part of what the FBI tracks is fraud/embezzlement/money laundering. How does a state employee track all of this when this often pertains to other states and sometimes internationally?

- How do the states handle international crimes? Or would they? If not, then who?

- How do the states handle crimes committed against the federal government alone?

[pcosmar]

- How would a state be able to fund employees (that would basically move from the FBI to be employed by the state, I assume)? Currently, federal employees get paid very well, and considerably better than those of state employees. So it seems that the federal government would have to grant funds to each state to pay it's employees that handle cases traditionally belonging to the FBI. So is there no monetary savings there?

- Pertaining to the first question, how would the federal government dictate fairly which state gets more funding or how much?

In any departmental funding cuts, some people would be let go. They would have to find jobs in the private job market. The fact is most Govt. employees are over paid. They would be employed at the fair market wage for their skills.
As to the other question, why should states get federal funding?
Why should the FBI exist in the first place. The Federal Government has no business in law enforcement, and most federal crimes should not exist.
Conflicts between states is one of the few times that the Fed would step in. Congress and the Supreme Court would decide these cases.

[Livid]

In any departmental funding cuts, some people would be let go. They would have to find jobs in the private job market. The fact is most Govt. employees are over paid. They would be employed at the fair market wage for their skills.
As to the other question, why should states get federal funding?
Why should the FBI exist in the first place. The Federal Government has no business in law enforcement, and most federal crimes should not exist.
Conflicts between states is one of the few times that the Fed would step in. Congress and the Supreme Court would decide these cases.

I don't think they should get federal funding. I was just copying questions that have been asked of me from another forum.

[seapilot]

This is an interesting topic. I know there is no federal police force allowed in the constitution but there needs to be some agency to share information on kidnap victims, murderers, thieves that run across U.S. and state borders.

I know there is already a national databank for criminals of this nature. Just watched FBI files where you have some powerful criminal organizations (mafia) that stretch across borders. Its harder for states to track down a serial murderer that is driving in a semi across the states without knowing details from each seperate murder in each state. There must be a practical solution to replacing the FBI in its role persuing criminals across borders. Any ideas?

[ClampIt]

I will post the questions I have been asked on this subject below as I am sure there are people here who know more about this than me.




I'll admit that I don't have much knowledge pertaining to the option of cutting back on the FBI and giving the power to the states, so I do have a few questions.

- How would a state be able to fund employees (that would basically move from the FBI to be employed by the state, I assume)? Currently, federal employees get paid very well, and considerably better than those of state employees. So it seems that the federal government would have to grant funds to each state to pay it's employees that handle cases traditionally belonging to the FBI. So is there no monetary savings there?

- Pertaining to the first question, how would the federal government dictate fairly which state gets more funding or how much?

- Would this create interstate feuds?

- How do the states interact with each other pertaining to interstate crimes?

- If the states were to have to pay their employees to track these cases traditionally belonging to the FBI and they pay them less that they were paid by the federal government, where is the incentive for these highly trained individuals to do this work?

- A major part of what the FBI tracks is fraud/embezzlement/money laundering. How does a state employee track all of this when this often pertains to other states and sometimes internationally?

- How do the states handle international crimes? Or would they? If not, then who?

- How do the states handle crimes committed against the federal government alone?

The federal government should not have the state and local money in the first place and the amount of money they do receive should be a fixed ratio of the economy. This was how AT&T and Bell Laboratories was set up and financed years back and it worked quite well (if you must have a monopoly). One percent of the local Bell operating companies revenues paid for the "federal" Bell System (AT&T). AT&T came up with national standards and had to "sell" them to the operating companies, and the latter could opt in or opt out. Most of AT&T's headquarters personnel came from two year rotations from the operating companies, which avoided the turf wars and empire building that we see in the FBI versus local police. We could use the same method for the FBI and state police. This would provide the benefit of constantly acquainting the state and federal police with each others problems and remove the motivation to gain bureaucratic advantage.

I set up this same method in my own company to rotate personnel; it is short term inefficient for sure, but it is long term unbeatable in that it eliminated the communication barriers by motivation. I. e., when you were in the "headquarters" spot, you knew you would have to later live with what you fashioned so you weren't motivated to feather your nest. It's the wisdom of "one divide, the other choose" and didn't make any federal kings. I believe this was the thinking of our founding fathers and it needs to be restored.

The Bell System didn't send all the revenues to AT&T and then have AT&T decide which operating company should get what money. No rational business would do anything that silly. But that is what the public has been brainwashed by bureaucrats to do with our tax dollars now. As you can see, being short term "more efficient" is long term ineffective.

Where the gold goes, the power goes.

We need to limit taxation and control the distribution of federal, state and local revenues, with rational checks and balances.

[Primbs]

I know many Ron Paul supporters who are fighting local and state police corruption.

Who would fight that or investigate that?

[DaronWestbrooke]

Ending the Drug War would take away about 90% of what the FBI does anyway.

[constituent]

In any departmental funding cuts, some people would be let go. They would have to find jobs in the private job market. The fact is most Govt. employees are over paid. They would be employed at the fair market wage for their skills.
As to the other question, why should states get federal funding?
Why should the FBI exist in the first place. The Federal Government has no business in law enforcement, and most federal crimes should not exist.
Conflicts between states is one of the few times that the Fed would step in. Congress and the Supreme Court would decide these cases.

amen. when did that change take place anyway? you know... the one where we changed from a government that seeks to protect rights to one finding new ways to limit them?

[constituent]

I know many Ron Paul supporters who are fighting local and state police corruption.

Who would fight that or investigate that?

the people would when they elect their sherriffs, judges, police chiefs, and prosecutors. also when they served on a jury, at times going so far as to assert their right to "jury nullification."

in america we have a mechanism for fighting public corruption, it is called an election. consider all elections your shot a bloodless coup. you must come to think of government and its functions (particularly perpetuation) in precisely this manner, if "freedom" is to one day become a movement.

that's probably the first major step.

[Pete]

I'm 100% for an FBI that investigates federal and interstate crimes (kidnapping, fugitives, mass murderers, espionage and organized crime). It would also be sensible for them to keep databases (fingerprints, DNA). The emphasis would be on INVESTIGATION, not enforcement. We should take away their helicopters and SWAT units.

In the old days, many federal agencies didn't do much more than gather statistics and maintain libraries. This was a useful function that helped research and legislation at all levels of government.

[drew1503]

What about the US Marshals, they are really old. That is Federal.

[RonPaulIsGood]

The Secret Service investigates counterfeiting federal reserve notes, not the FBI.

How do you conterfeit without the Federal Reserve and the Gold Standard?

[Kregener]

Is the FBI mandated in the Constitution?

There is your answer.

There is NOTHING calling for a "federal" police force. Goodbye FBI & BATFE, see you in the private sector...