Why in the Hell should I trust the FBI?

And now they want more power.

After decades of functioning as the enforcement branch of the Establishment, Wall Streets very own KGB, we should trust them with more power. More authority. To protect us.

Jesus fuck a shit souffle!

Item: FBI protects Boston gangster/informant and knowingly abets a plot to put an innocent man in prison for life. And leaves him there for twenty years. Until forced, forced to admit the truth.

Item: FBI agents attempt to frame environmental activists as bomb chucking terrorists.

Item: Martin Luther King

Item: Albert Einstein

The FBI, from its conception, has functioned for the Right as the Jesuits function for the Catholic Church. They have interfered with political discourse in a manner utterly inconsistent with thier alleged values. The recent scandals regarding Clark Kerr and the Free Speech Movement are merely the most recent in a mind-numbing litany of oppression and deceit.

They gotta be kidding!

Tell you what: break open the files, show us everything. Every instance of political disruption, every reprehensible act. Remove J. Edgar Hoovers name from any honorable mention. Boot every agent who acquiesed, and every superior who signed off on, these puerile and disgusting actions. Open up the relentlessly white-bread and mayonaisse culture of the Feebs.

When thats done, we can turn our attention to the CIA.

Then maybe. Just maybe.

Okay, what about Clark Kerr and the Free Speech Movement? What info suddenly surfaced about an event that took place in the '60s?

I trust the CIA more than the FBI.

The CIA doesn’t try to hide its shadowy nature.

Um, hello? The Jesuits aren’t the shock troops of the Vatican like you’re thinking they are. Yes, they have extra loyalty to the Pope.

But they’re not nearly so sinister as the FBI can be.

At least, the Jesuits can claim credit for educating the masses.

Best pun, this board, this year!

Uh…what did the FBI do to Albert Einstein? Just out of curiousity…

And, no, I don’t trust the FBI. I don’t trust anyone who’d run something like Carnivore, or who’d try to get my PGP password without probable cause (No, my using encryption is NOT probable cause any more than my hiding my diary is probably cause for my roommate to read it). But that’s just me.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, I’m not that paranoid ;).

Clark Kerr ran the University of California for a spell. He noted that there were a number of FBI agents running around the Berkeley campus. “No problem”, thought Mr. Kerr, “They’re probably just doing their job.” You know, working on security clearances for Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories.

No such luck, Chancellor.


Apparently the FBI campaigned to destroy Mr. Kerr’s career. Later, they skewed his security clearance when he applied for a job in Johnson’s White House. Reportedly.

Problem is, what’s the alternative? Somebody has to chase down the terrorists.

I see. Thank you.

But were those the same people who may or may not have dropped the ball pre-9/11?

FTR, a friend of mine is an FBI agent in LA. And he is a decent, ethical guy, despite the drawback of knowing me.

Lucy’s opinions are undeniable fact, of course.

Personally, I wish that the Feds were even more shady and sinister. Things are always cooler that way. And they need to start giving their agents license to kill.

They already do

No, they don’t. Remember, when the FBI show’s up to serve valid warrants, it’s not a good idea to seal up the doors for a stand-off.

Nothing, really…they just had a file on him. The FBI had (and has) files on a lot of people, especially people on the left wing, because they were suspected of being affiliated with the Communist Party. Here’s his file, btw.

Ya know… if you bothered to compair oh I don’t know, the FBI’s record to say the New Orleans PD you’d see how much better the FBI is.

And if I’m not mistaken, most of the problems cited in this post were from when from the 60’s and 70’s if not earlier.

Somehow, I don’t think very many of those agents responsible for opening those cases are alive any more.

Beelzebubba, thanks for the propaganda.
And I’d just like to point out, that when a large group of FBI or other law enforcement shows up at your door to execute a search warrent, let them in. The reason why there is more than 2 of them is because they’re scared about what you may do, and if you have nothing to hide let them in and don’t make any sudden moves.
On the other hand, if you have enough evidence in your house to send you to jail for several lifetimes, bust out the .50 cal machine guns.

Its America folks, if they don’t find anything with the search warrent, YOU CAN SUE!

And the Einstein thing, that’s understandable. He was after all one of the people who built the atomic bomb and tracking where he went and who he talked to was in the interest of national security. And he was quite outspoken.

Most of the FBI agents I’ve met are nice people, over worked and constantly getting yelled at by their superiors to generate arrests, inditements and convictions. That is one thing that causes problems, when your only justification for your actions can be an arrest… But oh well.

So what’s your legal recourse when an FBI sharpshooter takes off your head while you’re standing unarmed in plain sight while holding a toddler?

Wrong. Einstein had no involvement whatsoever with the Manhattan Project. He did write a famous letter to Roosevelt urging him to authorize such a project, mostly due to his fear that the Germans would get there first.

I’ll give you the benefit of a doubt and assume you don’t mean to imply that being “outspoken” is somehow nefarious.

Dunno about recourse, but Mr. Weaver could have said, “Honey, you and the baby go into an inside room and keep low.”.

Man, now I really wish that they had voted to bring in the Tinfoil Hat smiley rather than :smack:

Whoever used the word “nefarious” (aside from yourself, of course). People who are outspoken obviously want, on some level, attention. I say give it to 'em.

Not quite sure I take your point, SPOOFE. CRorex posited two reasons why Einstein might have reasonably been under surviellance: the first being his erroneous belief tht Einstein was privy to Manhattan Project info (he wasn’t), the second being that he was “outspoken” (which, of course, he certainly was). My question was aimed at determining if I had interpreted his comment correctly.

As you no doubt have surmised, I regard outspokenness as a positive virtue, most especially if I am in complete agreement with outspeakee. Further, I regard suveillance by some self-assigned political police to be vile and repulsive, exceeding both Ann Coulter and the designated hitter rule.