November 19, 2012

Why the FBI is worse than Petraeus

Washington Post - The FBI started its case in June with a collection of five e-mails, a few hundred kilobytes of data at most.

By the time the probe exploded into public view earlier this month, the FBI was sitting on a mountain of data containing the private communications — and intimate secrets — of a CIA director and a U.S. war commander. What the bureau didn’t have — and apparently still doesn’t — is evidence of a crime...
 
How that happened and what it means for privacy and national security are questions that have induced shudders in Washington and a queasy new understanding of the FBI’s comprehensive access to the digital trails left by even top officials.

FBI and Justice Department officials have vigorously defended their handling of the case. “What we did was conduct the investigation the way we normally conduct a criminal investigation,” Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said Thursday. “We follow the facts.”

But in this case, the trail cut across a seemingly vast territory with no clear indication of the boundaries, if any, that the FBI imposed on itself. The thrust of the investigation changed direction repeatedly and expanded dramatically in scope.

... On Capitol Hill, the case has drawn references to the era of J. Edgar Hoover, the founding director of the FBI, who was notorious for digging up dirt on Washington’s elite long before the invention of e-mail and the Internet.

“The expansive data that is available electronically now means that when you’re looking for one thing, the chances of finding a whole host of other things is exponentially greater,” said Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-­Calif.), a member of the House intelligence committee and a former federal prosecutor.

2 comments:

Capt. America said...

As long as there's a Hoover building, you can't trust the FBI.

Petraeus never saw combat. He apparently did not understand that he was still obliged to follow the rules even after he retired, and that he was subject to being recalled, especially because he is still being paid. For some reason the General thought that it did not apply to him. Perhaps it is still a bad idea to promote Colonels who haven't seen combat. HST used to say that he couldn't understand or trust a man who would betray his wife, because if he would betray the one closest to him...

Do right, and fear no man.
Don't write, and fear no woman.
--Dewar (The whiskey man)

Since WWII, fighting has not contributed one iota to our security. Those who fought useless wars on our behalf deserve honor, not because they did anything to defend us, which they didn't, but because they served with honor. That means that they sacrificed much to fulfill their oath. If a marriage oath means nothing to a man, how much can his warrior's oath mean to him?

I am appalled by the people who make excuses for him.

Anonymous said...

That the FBI is witch-hunting is nothing new. Recall that Richard Jewell's life was made hell--and probably shortened--because the FBI leaked its "interest" in him.

The FBI is our Gestapo, and needs to be replaced root and branch.