Showing posts with label fbi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fbi. Show all posts

Monday, April 15, 2013

Plain Speaking


It was interesting how long it took authorities to start using a certain word following the Boston Marathon bombings (indeed, I got the impression that “device” was a euphemism for “bomb,” which it took a long time for even the media to use, but that’s another program).

But “terrorism”? It took a really long time for authorities to use that one. It’s almost like I heard them trying to get it out, but not quite able to do it: “T-t-t-t-t-t…”

The FBI agent-in-charge, during a news conference, said the investigation was a criminal investigation, but only a “potential” terrorism investigation, if I heard him right. My question is, if even one person plants bombs that end up killing at least two and injuring well over 100, how is that not terrorism?

The reason, of course, is that the T-word seems to imply foreign, rather than domestic involvement – at least that’s how it has been since 9/11. Authorities don’t want angry mobs running around beating up people named, say, Osama (a not uncommon name in the Arab world). Actually, the use of maiming ball bearings in the explosives seems to imply foreign involvement much more strongly. But of course, home-grown folks can plant bombs, and even use ball bearings. The Internet provides the instruction.

There are other words and phrases that bother me when it comes to this stuff. I think I’d much rather be an honest-to-goodness “suspect” than a “person of interest.” I guess the latter is someone the cops really want to talk to but don’t have to charge. But if CNN tells the world I’m a “person of interest,” everyone’s going to believe I committed the crime anyway.

Terrorism, though,  is what it is. It doesn’t require half a dozen guys from the Middle East to do it. One individual, even with white skin – and a big enough grudge -- is perfectly capable of it.



Monday, November 12, 2012

Falling in Love

OK, so stop me if you haven’t heard any of these stories before: Powerful man in highly sensitive government post has an extramarital affair. A biographer falls in love with the subject of the work. A leak occurs; powerful man quits. These things don’t always happen in the same way or in the same order, but the elements are the same.

When he knew that his affair with Paula Broadwell was no longer a secret, Gen. David Petraeus, probably the most respected military leader of the last decade, quit his post at the CIA. The question for me is, how much of his business is our business?

I am a great admirer of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, but I don’t agree that this is necessarily Congress’ business. That said, I do recognize that these kinds of things can be potential security risks, simply by the nature of the commission of an act the individuals involved want to hide. I’ve always believed that what Bill Clinton did with Monica Lewinsky fell into this category; this is very much the same. The FBI has investigated the Petraeus affair, however, and has found no breach of security, at least so far, which would be the trigger for the agency to inform Congress. I think times have changed a little since J. Edgar days!

It’s true that many of the facts haven’t come out yet. For example, Ms. Broadwell gave a speech in which she said the Benghazi attack may have been in retaliation for the CIA holding two terrorism suspects in Libya. How did she know that, and should that have been dribbled out in a speech?

Some Europeans, of course, think we’re getting worked up about very little. A powerful man having an affair is not a news story to them. But our Puritan roots are always exposed by these cases. You would think we’d be less Puritanical as time goes on, not more. It’s ironic that we’re able to “compartmentalize” the religious beliefs of powerful individuals, but we can’t seem to do it with their sexuality.

There are real tragedies here, as both Gen. Petraeus and Ms. Broadwell have families. But beyond those private issues – which should remain so – there is a public tragedy. The country, at least in the short term, is deprived of the talents of two high-achieving individuals. For the moment, Gen. Petraeus’ career and the wealth of knowledge that he brought to his new job are functionally useless. Biographer Broadwell, for her part, is no fawning girl: she is a West Point graduate with an impressive career of her own. The Europeans have something of a point when they say that our reactions to these things are a little out of proportion. And BTW, don’t we have other things to think about in Washington right now, like fiscal cliffs?

But hey, this is America. I’m an American, and if you’re like me, you may be a little conflicted. We’re poised to lap up every sordid detail of this business so we can pass judgment on it – as we wonder whether it’s really our business at all.