Nice article. How about when they threatened Muslims with being added to the no fly list or deportation if they didn't inform on their friends or people at their mosque? I think the fundamental problem is that bringing a big case can make someone's career. This can motivate some law enforcement agents to do all kinds of things that are either illegal or probably should be. On the other hand the prestige/career factor motivates lots of good police work too.
> "About Us - COMMENTARY is America’s premier monthly magazine of opinion and a pivotal voice in American intellectual life. Since its inception in 1945, and increasingly after it emerged as the flagship of neoconservatism in the 1970s, the magazine has been consistently engaged with several large, interrelated questions: the fate of democracy and of democratic ideas in a world threatened by totalitarian ideologies; the state of American and Western security; the future of the Jews, Judaism, and Jewish culture in Israel, the United States, and around the world; and the preservation of high culture in an age of political correctness and the collapse of critical standards."https://www.commentary.org/about/
Which isn't reason to ignore the article, but does seem reason to treat the publisher as explicitly opinionated.
So what is your reason for posting this, then? You don't think us plebes can determine this was an opinion piece based on the title alone? I'm genuinely perplexed.
Background on the author's stated biases is good to have. Besides, while we can tell it's an opinion piece from the title, there are many different groups from all parts of the political spectrum that have issues with the FBI so it's not immediately obvious which perspective this comes from.
I think what needs to happen is that the FBI needs to have its policing powers taken away. It’s supposed to be an investigation and scientific organization, not an arresting organization. The FBI is to provide scientific and technical assistance to police departments.
Like sending a dabbler in the Tibetan Buddhist arts and all-around good lawman and lover of pie and coffee, an acerbic but hyper-competent coroner (and follower of Dr. King's philosophy of non-violence), and a nearly-deaf but very supportive chief, out to help the local named-after-a-President Sheriff solve the murder of a beloved-by-the-community young woman, through application of science and various mystical techniques.
tl;dr version: The FBI has been up to all the same sorts of abuses and incompetence as large, minimally-supervised security/law enforcement agencies have been up to for the past ~5,000 years. Laughably naive and under-resourced reform attempts - "we'll write a great-sounding new rule on this piece of paper, and loudly announce that they have to follow it, and this magical piece of paper will fix all the problems!" had done about as little good as any experienced grown-up would expect.
Bluntly put, don't expect it to get substantially better, no matter what nice new rules are written on magical pieces of paper. Organizations like the FBI default to crudely upholding the social hierarchies which feed them, in ways which appeal emotionally to organizations' members. Most higher-ups in those social hierarchies know how to enjoy the benefits of that behavior - while conveniently overlooking the dirtier details. Further down the social hierarchies, there are plenty of "Santa Claus fans" - really Wanting To Believe that their FBI / CIA / police / etc. are paragons of morality and competence - who react poorly to messengers bearing bad news.
Vs. savvy advocates of real oversight and reform, with the the skills, resources, and attention spans to make that happen & stick? Those are less common than Elvis impersonators in Putin's personal security detail.
> Further down the social hierarchies, there are plenty of "Santa Claus fans" - really Wanting To Believe that their FBI / CIA / police / etc. are paragons of morality and competence - who react poorly to messengers bearing bad news.
I'll take this opportunity to plug the Iron Law of Bureaucracy which states that in any organization there are two kinds of people: those loyal to the goals of the org, and those loyal to the org itself. Organizations tend to get captured by those loyal to the org itself, even though the people loyal to its goals are the ones you actually want running the show. Eventually you end up with a top-heavy organization that's divorced from its stated goals and exists only to further its own influence and existence. You'll find it in schools, cancer charities, government, etc.
Sort-of yes...but looking at (say) the CIA's long indifference to a series of employees who effectively turned traitor against the CIA (by selling its hottest cold-war secrets to the U.S.S.R.), I don't think "loyal to the org itself" is a good description of the rot.
I had never heard this, and I'm immediately adding it to the big list of things that explain more about present reality than I'm necessarily comfortable with.
Nice article. How about when they threatened Muslims with being added to the no fly list or deportation if they didn't inform on their friends or people at their mosque? I think the fundamental problem is that bringing a big case can make someone's career. This can motivate some law enforcement agents to do all kinds of things that are either illegal or probably should be. On the other hand the prestige/career factor motivates lots of good police work too.