They…they…hold on. ::deep breath:: they…Kept a file on Einstein?
RUN FOR THE FUCKING HILLS PEOPLE! FORGET YOUR CHILDREN, SAVE YOURSELVES!!!
Do I detect a note of sarcasm?
Just to clarify, the FBI assembled a 1400+ page “file” (file-drawer?) on Einstein.
His phone was tapped, his mail was opened, his trash was searched.
FWIW, the Army in 1940, declined Einstein a security clearance to work on the A-bomb.
Wasn’t it the FBI who tried to get Lennon deported?
Think about it…
pepperlandgirl: Someone did tap Lennon’s phone. He suspected it at the time and everyone thought he was a loon, but a few years ago, the agency who did the surveillance admitted it. But I think it was the CIA. For what that’s worth.
True, but he never described his behavior as “nefarious”. A person can warrant being watched without nefariousness (is that a word?)
Personally, I would hope that the FBI would keep an eye turned towards just about any public figure. If they can’t even monitor a celebrity, what chance in hell would they have in ferreting out the dangerous ones among the Joe Averages of America?
Damn, hit Submit to soon.
That’s all well and good, and I can understand the mindset (especially the part about the designated hitter rule). And while I don’t advocate or support the blatant, intrusive surveillance (as opposed to passive observation), part of me can understand it. But, then, I’m in a “I wanna rule the world” mood at the moment, and I’m just thinking… if I were in charge, I’d want to have as much info on the populace as possible.
And do keep in mind I’m being half-facetious here. Like I said, I’m in a weird mood.
How about not barricading yourself in when a legal warrent is served on you?
Besides, the assumption that FBI agents are gleeful about a tradgic mistake is repulsive. She should have left when her husband decided he wanted to play Fort Apache with the nice FBI men. She didn’t, and what happened was (literaly) on her head. shrug I’m not losing any sleep over it.
There was a farmer, had a dog, and bing-fucking-O was his name-o.
What’s your legal recourse when a sober driver in a semi-truck driving on the correct side of the road impacts the front of your car? How about not climbing into the passenger seat with a drunk behind the wheel?
Well, you can read the contents of Einstein’s FBI file in the link I gave above. (It’s mainly made up of newspaper clippings and letters from people saying, “I hear that Albert Einstein is a communist or a Nazi who invented relativity to destroy America”)
They were interested in him because he had been an outspoken Socialist in Germany, and then, when he was here, was involved in communist front groups, or what the FBI considered to be communist front groups.
J. Edgar is dead-Long Live J. Edgar!
(Sometimes I wonder if the J. stood for “Jackass.”)
His legacy lives on.
Rilchiam
And what did you do to stop the attacks?
Do you have a cite that she was served a warrant?
Uh… leaving would involve going through the door, wouldn’t? You know, the door. The place where she was shot. And the way I hear it, it wasn’t the Weavers that decided to play Fort Apache.
So the punishment for making a bad decision is death?
What?! Don’t you turn this around on me!
elucidator comes in here with all this jazz about
—MLK and Einstein, who have been dead for years
—the Free Speech Movement, which moved two generations ago
—Clark Kerr being denied a White House job seven presidents ago
—An unfocused, generalized charge that the FBI slanders environmental activists (Which activists? When? What did they do, as opposed to what they were accused of doing?)
—A vague account about a gangster/informant; elucidator gives no names or details, but since he mentions a twenty-year sentence, whatever happened didn’t happen recently
—And a knee-jerk comparison of the FBI to the Jesuits.
All I wanted to know was, how does elucidator connect these people with the alleged shrugging off of the Phoenix Memo. How many of those people are still with the FBI? How many are even still alive? I’m not the one who has to prove anything.
“Leaving”, as I said earlier, could have meant removing herself and her child from immediate danger. As in, going into an inside room and staying down. Going out the door would have meant walking into range of the sharpshooters’ rifles. Standing in the doorway also put them in range.
It was a bad decision. I’m not claiming that Mrs. Weaver asked for a direct hit, but she could just as easily have caught a stray bullet. Or been knocked down if agents charged the door. Bad decision.
And the way I heard it, Mr. Weaver speculated that a woman and child would be effective human shields. Another bad decision.
Probably the same thing you did, you blathering waste of sperm.
Daryl Cherney and Judi Barr were injured when a bomb was set off in thier car in 1992. As they were members of Earth First environmental activists, the FBI, with the collusion of members of Oakland Police Dept., tried to frame them. They very nearly succeeded, and last week were awarded $4.4 million. Recent enough for you?
The link:http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/12/national/12FRAM.html
www.boston.com/globe/metro/packages/spotlight_mob/
Essentially, the FBI developed an informant who was a top Boston gangster. In order to protect thier source, they allowed an innocent man to be framed for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Not that they were misinformed, or merely bungled. They suppressed evidence that would conclusively prove that the unfortunate man, and continued to suppress it.
He had already served some twenty years of his sentence when the truth finally came out, a few months ago. Recent enough for your ass?
Beyond issues of malfeasance and malice, there are issues of incompetence aplenty. I trust you will not be asking for a cite on each? I’m not as young as I used to be, time is more precious.
At the absolute minimum, every single agent, at whatever level, that knowingly permitted these things should drummed out.
And thats just for starters.
Rilchiam: Your question is reasonable. Here’s your answer.
-
Note recent abuses.
-
In the 1970s, Congress put in place a set of restraints on the FBI and CIA. Before the restraints were put in place, there were abuses. Afterwards, there were fewer abuses, IMH(butnotsoinformed)O.
Now we are in the process of removing those restraints.
Despite the fact that the massive intelligence failure appears to be mostly connected with managerial failures.
This poses some risks.
I concede that sifting through the massive amounts of information that Big Gov collects, transforming it into intelligence, and figuring out how to act on it is a formidable managerial challenge. Doing the same, while incorporating the necessary checks and balances is even trickier. I am disappointed that I have not heard of the government entering into consultations with assorted management experts.
All right, fair enough. But:
- You (elucidator) could have checked your rage long enough to include those links in your OP.
2a) Ruby Ridge and the Cheney/Barr bombing both took place ten years ago. I’m still not convinced that the agents involved in those incidents are the same people who fumbled the Phoenix Memo, or even that the FBI in general has the same attitudes. In 1992, the director of the FBI was William Sessions. He left in '93, and there have been four other directors between him and Mueller. I’m sure there were many other personnel changes as well during that time.
2b) From your second link:
The truth came out recently, if you call 1997 recent, but the events were not recent. And the fact that the whistle was finally blown on Connolly seems to indicate that he was not backed by the entire Bureau.
From your OP:
I’m with you on that, but…
…what does Jedgar have to do with any of these other incidents? He retired in 1972!
JE died in 1972, not retired.
This gets into sheer guesswork very quickly. Did the FBI abuse its power at any time? Man! My local supermarket abuses their power all the time! Sweetheart deals, unsanitary conditions, mispricing. You’ve got to assume that any human organization will make decisions that somebody disagrees with. That any human agency will make mistakes.
We’ve a basic problem, here, which is that these agencies don’t want to give us enough information to pass judgment on their activities.
I believe, I hope, that our congress, and our intelligence agencies, have the horsesense to recognize that the critical thing at this moment is not to collect more information on Einstein and Lennon, but on radicals who have done a lot more than join a socialist support group.
Back down, eludidator.
The FBI is not a monolith.
Certain members, IMO, currently lack horsesense.
Judi Barr was treated as a terrorist by the FBI, when a bomb blew up under her in her car. Given that she had made public statements urging Earth First! to give up monkey-wrenching, I found official hostility to her to be somewhat peculiar.
The latest court documents reveal that the FBI (and Oakland PD) had their collective heads up their posterior insofar as analysis of the physical evidence was concerned. Ideology overwhelmed common sense.
(Specifically, photos of the car show that investigators had to be complete freaking idiots to claim that the bombs were placed where they said they were.)
Sorry party-warmer, but the boys seem to need some additional oversight.
Carry on, elucidator.