I’m an asshole. I plead guilty. I always plead guilty, it gets the irrelevant crapola out of the way.
You misunderstand. I don’t accept that incompetence amerliorates malice. I want both gone. Most importantly, I want the notion of an American political police expunged forever.
Further, who the hell do you think has been recruiting, hiring, and training agents in the intervening years?
Take two feebs: Special Agent Whitebread, and Special Agent Mayo. Special Agent Whitebread marched in lockstep with his superiors, regardless of the nature of thier orders. Special Agent Mayo kept sending nagging memos, questioning the legality and ethics of the actions he was sent to perform.
You tell me: who got promoted?
Yeah, I call 1997 recent. As to the “coming out” of the truth, is it your contention that the Feebs discovered the facts to thier stunned horror, and then rushed to Federal Court to 'fess up?
[yoda]Mmmmmm, the Force is weak in this one, yes[/yoda]
Piggly Wiggly ain’t got guns and badges. And of course people make mistakes. Two plus two is five, thats a mistake. These were mailicious actions, Un-American in the truest sense of the word. Never again.
This is a stunner. No comment is possible. Your faith is touching, if somewhat baffling.
I said nothing of the sort. I said that there have been staff changes.
**
And replaced with what? I’m not mocking you, just asking if you can think of an alternative that won’t plunge us into anarchy. I’m as concerned for this country as you are.
**
I was all set to say that there’s corruption in all bureaucracies, the Los Angeles Public Library system, for instance. But you already mentioned guns and badges.
**
It’s my contention that someone in the Bureau (who did already know about these things) said “Enough is enough” and decided to put a stop to it. It may have been too late for your taste, but someone did, finally, speak up.
At least the prisoner* was freed. Twenty years is too long, I agree, but at least he didn’t die in prison.
*I read that link, but I can’t find the name of your Edmond Dantes. So I’ll call him that.
And I still don’t call 1997 recent. Louis Freeh was still Director at that time, and they got rid of his ass for a reason.
Ok. I have an example that may be recent enough for you.
Review:
In 1992 Judi Barr suffered serious injuries when I bomb placed underneath her car seat exploded. At the time, she was organizing “Redwood Summer”; it is reasonable to believe that certain monied interests wanted her activities curbed.
(In fact, her ex-husband is also a possible suspect, but leave that aside.)
The Feds trumped up some evidence and claimed that she was moving weapons, when the bomb went off by accident. That is:
They claimed that the flat head nails around the bomb matched with nails found around the house, later shown to be round head nails. Trumped. Up. Evidence.
They claim that she was transporting a motion sensitive bomb in her car. Oooooo - Kay.
The Fed claims about bomb placement were whack.
Rilchiam (referring to an entirely different case, I should stress): *It’s my contention that someone in the Bureau (who did already know about these things) said “Enough is enough” and decided to put a stop to it. *
The Feds fought the Barr civil case until, um, May or June 2002. Now, maybe somebody has put a “stop” to “it” since then. But I doubt it. Managerial reform is a challenge that exceeds the skills of the best traffic cop.
Elucidator: Yeah, I use that pleading guilty trick as well. It’s a useful one. The funny thing is that often the accusations amount to less than they seem. eg. “Yes, my pit thread was a tad energetic.” [Um, isn’t that what the pit is for???]
A, elucidator already mentioned that and posted a link. B, it was ten years ago. Not recent. C, unless you can come up with another example, I’m not convinced that the FBI is out to get all environmental activists.
I apologize for not making myself clear. The event occurred 10 years ago. The FBI fought the case until last week.
If the FBI had reformed, they would have come clean and not fought the case for about a decade. To be more specific, there is no evidence that I know of that indicates that the Barr case has spurred managerial reforms.
Last week, the date when the jury handed their decision down, counts as “recent” in my book.
Woah! Elucidator. So you conclusion is which of the following:
If an organization is called the FBI, it must be bad? Entirely bad? Even if many of the people in it weren’t around for the abuses, or didn’t take part?
That all intelligence organizations are bad?
That you can’t figure out any way to control them, and you don’t believe anybody else can, either?
Gee, that kinda puts America into a box. Gives us no options, and leaves potential enemies with all theirs. Great thinking!
You can call it the Administration for Truth Justice and the American Way for all I care. If it is incompetent and/or corrupt, and, most importantly, if it percieves itself as having a mission to function as a political police, it is not to be tolerated.
I have your assurance that this all took place a long time ago and everythings all better now. I trust you will forgive me if I find that inadequate, since you have offered nothing more than your bald assertion that it is so.
Not necessarily, but when that intelligence focuses internally a great temptation is created to enforce a particular political viewpoint. (Cite: see American History, 1900-2000
I’m quite sure I can think of ways to control them. Lets start with a house-cleaning, to assure ourselves that it is just as you say, all of those who knew of and/or approved these kinds of actions shall be transferred to the Federal School Crossing Guard Authority, or spend more time with thier family, whatever.
Oddly enough, handing more power to a group that has amply demonstrated abuse of power doesn’t seem like much of a plan to me. Of course, that’s just my opinion, you may be stupid.
I’m totally with you on this one, elucidator. It’s like handing the flaming molotov straight to the guy who is staring back at the crowd. We know who he’s going to burn first.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Rilchiam *
All I wanted to know was, how does elucidator connect these people with the alleged shrugging off of the Phoenix Memo. [/
I’m sorry; I misunderstood your point. I though that when you said “But were those the same people who may or may not have dropped the ball pre-9/11?”, you were referring to flowbark’s statement “Problem is, what’s the alternative? Somebody has to chase down the terrorists.”
That is, I thought that you were implying that the people currently charged with chasing down the terrorists were the people that failed to prevent the attacks
I was pointing out that chances are that anything that the FBI failed to do, you failed to do, and I failed to do, and everyone else on this message board failed to do.
SPOOFE
Exactly my point, except with a gratuitous insult thrown in.
“how does some one link those who shurgged off the Phoenix memo with other documented cases of abuse/issues w/in the FBI”
Don’t know that it’s necessary to do so.
Possabilities are:
Same folk who shrugged off the memo are also responsible for abuses, problems, cover ups etc. w/in = hmmm, bad idea to give them yet more power and less external controls.
The people who shrugged off the memo are different and distinct from the others who abused, had problems, cover ups etc. = bad idea to give them yet more power and less external controls.
The demands for recent FBI transgressions is quite an illogical argument. Given that most of the stuff talked about in this thread has been hidden for years, to demand evidence of recent tomfoolery by them would mean either you assume that they have chosen to are are unable to keep secrets from the public anymore. There is no evidence I know of to support that assertion. And if you abandon that assertion, then it is illogical to want evidence of recent transgressions, because it will be years before such evidence of those transgressions become available.
