3 ms·

Nearly everything on the “FBI controversies” page the GP links is dated much more recently than 1976, and it’s hardly comprehensive. For example, it doesn’t me

Nearly everything on the “FBI controversies” page the GP links is dated much more recently than 1976, and it’s hardly comprehensive. For example, it doesn’t mention the continual entrapment of often mentally ill US Muslims, using informants to persuade and lead them into committing crimes, for which they were then arrested and charged. Only recently has the main target (but not only) of such activity changed to right wingers. We could probably easily add a dozen more subsections to that page from the last two decades. Some were mentioned in these comments already. It seems to me that television and movies convinced a lot of modern conservatives that the FBI were good guys, while modern liberals have decided they’re good guys simply because they’ve been overzealously targeting their political enemies. But that’s simply by accident, not because of any actual ideological alignment. You’re also forgetting that the net achievements of the Church committee were basically nil. The government succeeded in destroying lots of records and ultimately was able to continue nearly all the same behavior and worse anyway. Since then we’ve had murders of American citizens, torture scandals, national surveillance beyond anything Hoover could dream. Heck, just a few years ago, the CIA got busted spying on Congress after it began investigating CIA crimes, then lied about it, got caught red-handed, and the perp not only got off scot-free, but is regarded as a Resistance hero.

jmye 3y ago
Which specific parts of their prosecutions/investigations of right wing figures in the last few years has been “overzealous”, in your opinion? An interesting word choice anyways - suggesting that the FBI is prosecuting actual crimes too much.
- helaoban 3y ago
  I don't know why that "word choice" is controversial. The FBI is not in the business of "prosecuting" crimes in the legal sense, they are an investigatory body, it's in the name. The FBI absolutely CAN investigate egregiously, for example by falsifying evidence, or eliding exculpatory evidence, which they have a long history of doing. The mere existence of an FBI investigation can seriously injure the affected party, and so in that regard the FBI has tremendous power to influence people and organizations, and is an obvious organization to co-op if one wanted to wield political influence nefariously. The natural stance towards the FBI should be one of skepticism and apprehension at a minimum, if not outright deep suspicion. I think what many people are pointing out is that left-wing politicians openly supporting the FBI, CIA and NSA in any capacity is a blatant about-face, and just downright distasteful, particularly when the most high profile "investigations" of late are political in nature. Edit: A simpler way of expressing this would be to point out that the FBI serves the same function as the "State Security Service(s)" of countries that we don't like.
  - jmye 3y ago
    You’ve completely side-stepped the question on pedantic word choices - what has the FBI done that could be characterized as “overzealous”? Aside from hypotheticals/slippery slopes that have no basis in reality. Aside, too, of course, from the obvious answer that any investigation of “my team” is inherently bad and unjust. It further seems reasonable that “the left” could applaud an investigation into an attempt to overturn a legal, fair election with a coup, while simultaneously not supporting other acts by the same body. I’m unclear why nuance is suddenly impossible, or why motives of people you don’t like are apparently perpetually impure.
    - Amezarak 3y ago
      The FBI is continuing to entrap hapless petty criminals into "domestic terror" schemes and then arresting them. Here's them doing it for Muslim terrorists:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/28/newburgh-four-released-fbi https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/28/newburgh-fou... And here's them doing it to "right-wingers": https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kenbensinger/michigan-kidnapping-gretchen-whitmer-fbi-informant?utm_source=digg https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kenbensinger/michigan-k... > Instead, they had a hand in nearly every aspect of the alleged plot, starting with its inception. The extent of their involvement raises questions as to whether there would have even been a conspiracy without them. [...] A longtime government informant from Wisconsin, for example, helped organize a series of meetings around the country where many of the alleged plotters first met one another and the earliest notions of a plan took root, some of those people say. The Wisconsin informant even paid for some hotel rooms and food as an incentive to get people to come. What do you call this if not overzealous? It's the same old playbook over and over again: the FBI pays people to go out and recruit terrorists, invents terror plots for them, offers to supply them with weapons and explosives, dares and nags them to commit felonies, then swoops in and arrests them when they make motions in that direction. There are plenty of other examples, if you want to go on. What I don't understand is why anyone defends an institution that has been grossly corrupt continuously from its inception.

jmye 3y ago

Which specific parts of their prosecutions/investigations of right wing figures in the last few years has been “overzealous”, in your opinion? An interesting word choice anyways - suggesting that the FBI is prosecuting actual crimes too much.

helaoban 3y ago
I don't know why that "word choice" is controversial. The FBI is not in the business of "prosecuting" crimes in the legal sense, they are an investigatory body, it's in the name. The FBI absolutely CAN investigate egregiously, for example by falsifying evidence, or eliding exculpatory evidence, which they have a long history of doing. The mere existence of an FBI investigation can seriously injure the affected party, and so in that regard the FBI has tremendous power to influence people and organizations, and is an obvious organization to co-op if one wanted to wield political influence nefariously. The natural stance towards the FBI should be one of skepticism and apprehension at a minimum, if not outright deep suspicion. I think what many people are pointing out is that left-wing politicians openly supporting the FBI, CIA and NSA in any capacity is a blatant about-face, and just downright distasteful, particularly when the most high profile "investigations" of late are political in nature. Edit: A simpler way of expressing this would be to point out that the FBI serves the same function as the "State Security Service(s)" of countries that we don't like.
- jmye 3y ago
  You’ve completely side-stepped the question on pedantic word choices - what has the FBI done that could be characterized as “overzealous”? Aside from hypotheticals/slippery slopes that have no basis in reality. Aside, too, of course, from the obvious answer that any investigation of “my team” is inherently bad and unjust. It further seems reasonable that “the left” could applaud an investigation into an attempt to overturn a legal, fair election with a coup, while simultaneously not supporting other acts by the same body. I’m unclear why nuance is suddenly impossible, or why motives of people you don’t like are apparently perpetually impure.
  - Amezarak 3y ago
    The FBI is continuing to entrap hapless petty criminals into "domestic terror" schemes and then arresting them. Here's them doing it for Muslim terrorists:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/28/newburgh-four-released-fbi https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/28/newburgh-fou... And here's them doing it to "right-wingers": https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kenbensinger/michigan-kidnapping-gretchen-whitmer-fbi-informant?utm_source=digg https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kenbensinger/michigan-k... > Instead, they had a hand in nearly every aspect of the alleged plot, starting with its inception. The extent of their involvement raises questions as to whether there would have even been a conspiracy without them. [...] A longtime government informant from Wisconsin, for example, helped organize a series of meetings around the country where many of the alleged plotters first met one another and the earliest notions of a plan took root, some of those people say. The Wisconsin informant even paid for some hotel rooms and food as an incentive to get people to come. What do you call this if not overzealous? It's the same old playbook over and over again: the FBI pays people to go out and recruit terrorists, invents terror plots for them, offers to supply them with weapons and explosives, dares and nags them to commit felonies, then swoops in and arrests them when they make motions in that direction. There are plenty of other examples, if you want to go on. What I don't understand is why anyone defends an institution that has been grossly corrupt continuously from its inception.