FBI's bullying tactics are growing tiresome

Photographs produced Sunday by former government scientist Steven J. Hatfill, purporting to show his ''girlfriend's'' apartment trashed by FBI agents, evoked an uneasy sense of recognition among law enforcement experts. Applying pressure on loved ones of an investigative target is a favorite method by the bureau, and rough treatment in the execution of a search warrant is a familiar application of that pressure.

The problem with the FBI, however, goes beyond strongarm tactics. Since the FBI has affirmed that Hatfill is not a suspect in last year's anthrax murders, why is he subjected to such treatment? Why have the news media been tipped in advance of repeated searches of his home? These unanswered questions spawn unsubstantiated conspiracy theories that testify to the FBI's deteriorating prestige.

FBI Director Robert Mueller and Attorney General John Ashcroft will say nothing about what they are up to, and congressional investigators generally get no cooperation in seeking answers from this Justice Department. But the handling of the Hatfill affair has aroused the interest of Republican Rep. Dan Burton, whose investigations have uncovered some of the FBI's unsavory past.

Hatfill has had a checkered career, including service among white mercenaries in Rhodesia. Last year, he lost his government clearance and then his job for undisclosed problems that may have been unrelated to the anthrax attacks. That background, however, hardly justified the media feeding frenzy when the FBI search of his living quarters was leaked.

Hatfill has compared himself to Joseph K., doomed by unspecified charges in Franz Kafka's The Trial. Although no official charges are filed, Hatfill reports FBI agents are indicting him to close friends--especially his unnamed girlfriend. ''Her apartment was wrecked,'' he said Sunday, ''while FBI agents screamed at her that I had killed five people and that her life would never be the same again.''

Neither the Justice Department nor the FBI responded to this, either immediately or when I sought a reply from them this week. Indeed, Kafka is recalled in the attorney general's opaque comments about Hatfill.

Ashcroft was asked on ''The Early Show'' on CBS Aug. 6 whether Hatfill was a suspect. The FBI had said he is not, but Ashcroft replied: ''Well, he's a person of interest. . . . I'm not prepared to say any more at this time other than the fact that he is an individual of interest.''

Veteran FBI watchers suggest the bureau, looking at Hatfill off and on for nearly a year, does not have the goods on him. Law enforcement sources confirm that he passed a polygraph test administered by the FBI last fall.

What the Justice Department and the FBI have in mind here is a mystery. Apparent absence of evidence suggests either incompetence at the level of false accusations in the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Park bombing--or something worse. By calling attention to its investigation of the scientist, the FBI invites speculation about an effort to divert attention from the unsolved anthrax case.

It surely bothers Burton, no ACLU zealot but a traditional Indiana conservative. Speaking of the Hatfill case, Burton told me: ''It always worries me when the accusations and investigations are put out in advance of solid evidence.''

The day is long gone when knowledgeable conservatives worship at the FBI's altar. As chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, Burton was stunned when he learned of FBI complicity in the wrongful conviction in 1968 of four men (two of whom died in prison) for murder committed by FBI informants in Boston. To protect these sources, Director J. Edgar Hoover sent innocent men to prison. Before the current congressional recess, Burton introduced a bill to remove Hoover's name from national FBI headquarters.

Ashcroft's Justice Department resisted surrendering FBI files relating to this outrage by claiming executive privilege but gave up after Burton threatened to cite President Bush for contempt of Congress. Ashcroft is even more intractable than his predecessor, Janet Reno, in refusing information to the legislative branch. He is currently stonewalling requests by Rep. James Sensenbrenner, Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, about Justice's administration of the anti-terrorist Patriot Act. Predictably, efforts to get to the bottom of the Hatfill affair will meet the same resistance.

Isn't it about time to dissolve the FBI, and start over again?

The FBI was stacked by Clinton for many years. He has stuffed all kinds of critters in there, from traditional Clintonoids to jihadists. A cleanup seems to be well nigh impossible, given that he stacked the rest of the administration the exact same way.

So how do you propose that a new agency be set up, as long as the ones doing the hiring will likely just hire the old and approved goons from the FBI?

"The FBI was stacked by Clinton for many years. He has stuffed all kinds of critters in there, from traditional Clintonoids to jihadists."

Despite what that man, even his name, does to my temper level, aren't you remarkably over-simplifying the problem??

Exactly how did he influence events in 1968?

FBI complicity in the wrongful conviction in 1968 of four men (two of whom died in prison) for murder committed by FBI informants in Boston.

And who is responsible for the Ashcroft appointment?

Clinton only wishes he were that great.

Exactly how did he influence events in 1968?

No one is saying that there wasn't corruption before Clinton. Of course there was. Clinton however, deliberately made it all-pervasive and put his own cohorts in place.

The question is: how much good do you think it will do to set up a new agency, when the culture that rotted the old one from within is still in place and doing the hiring?

The question is: how much good do you think it will do to set up a new agency, when the culture that rotted the old one from within is still in place and doing the hiring?

My first thought was, "How does Cachelot specify "the culture" in his mind?". Looking back at your previous post I am assuming that this is ...

"he stacked the rest of the administration the exact same way.

If the administration=the culture my answer would be :
The *new* administration holds the responsibility and the power to begin with clearing out those untrustworthies that administer in his name,then engage honorable people to "do the hiring".

I certainly agree that the corruption must be cleared from the top down, rather than vice-versa. Question now is, are there men to do it?

What frosts me is the total unwillingness of the congress to provide any check on the FBI. Police agencies *will* go beyond constitutional bounds. It is the unwillingness of congress to discipline gross violations that encourages them to do more and more unconstitutional acts. They know that they will never be held accountable.

When the FBI can murder 80 men, women, and children on national television, the voters change control of both houses of congress, the new Republican leadership agrees to have hearings, and then, then at the last minute, changes the whole agenda into one that blames the victims and clears the FBI of any wrongdoing, it seems pretty hopeless.

Sure, Klintoon was in charge, but if the Republicans had cleaned house and put a few FBI officials in jail, we would never have had a second Clintoon term and the Republicans would have solid majorities in both houses today. Lack of integrity and corruption must run very deep for the Republican leadership to give up that vision so easily.

The *new* administration holds the responsibility and the power to begin with clearing out those untrustworthies that administer in his name,then engage honorable people to "do the hiring".

Yes. But then, what exactly is happening when you change "the administration", as in last election? You change the very top. The layers under the top are untouched, and the top echelon has less power than you'd think to change the underlying structure. Now, what I would like to see happening would be akin to how I've seen some large corporations handle restructuring problems: everyone is basically fired and has to re-apply for their job. Or any other of the jobs.

What HAS been happening, on the other hand, is that there's been some new leaders hired and tasked with making changes happen. I believe that is the case with the FBI, for example. I also believe that they won't be able to accomplish very much, because of rules that protects the rank and file from being fired.

Oh, and your question about "the culture". Yes, I regard that as the administration. And as a cult worshiping at the Clinton altar. So far, I think that the administration hasn't changed very much from Clinton's time, regardless of new figure heads. Making that change will take a lot of time and a lot of ingenuity, I think. May even have to change a few laws and scratch a few EO's, I dunno.

Sure, Klintoon was in charge, but if the Republicans had cleaned house and put a few FBI officials in jail

Very true. And the cleanup should have been way bigger than that: if the military was in on the operation, you'd be dealing with what? A constitutional crisis? And it's even worse, of course, if it's true that British military forces were participating (with a special recon plane).

Bush had his chance on September 12th. The higher echelons of the FBI, INS, customs and CIA bureaucracies could have and should have been shaken.

Lo and behold, the biggest security failing in US history and not a single pink slip passed out. It is clear that incompetence, ignorance and corruption played a role but nothing happened to them except that the same airport security people (many of whom were apparently illiterate and/or foreigners) now get federal pension benefits.

If we aren't careful we'll soon suffer the same fate as the ancient Roman empire. (So much for human social advancement)

Bush had his chance on September 12th. The higher echelons of the FBI, INS, customs and CIA bureaucracies could have and should have been shaken.

The problem is bigger than the "higher echelons".

Lo and behold, the biggest security failing in US history and not a single pink slip passed out. It is clear that incompetence, ignorance and corruption played a role but nothing happened to them

It is clear NOW, or rather, it is becoming clear. On the 12th, I doubt you would (or anyone would) have known who failed. But even knowing, if that had been possible - how do you propose to run the process of firing a large section of the FBI (not to mention the rest of the infestations)?

Look at what is happening in the case of the terrorist professor in Florida. It should be instructive.

I am afraid that Bush is just too much of a nice guy to really wield the broom

Well, that may certainly be the case. But I think it's more of a question of how much he actually, legally, CAN wield the broom. I'm not really in-depth familiar with how federal/state/whatever employees are protected from being let go, but I suspect it's not as simple as saying "I want replacements for all you untrustworthy scallywags".

Well I admit that on the 12th it would have been premature to randomly fire people without ferreting out the exact role they played in the failure.

But now it is almost a year later. We could start with the DC people who ignored requests and inquiries from the agents in Minnisota and Arizona when they caught wind of a plot involving commercial airliners.

Then we can go forward with an independent internal audit of practices of field agents and fire those that violate the rules and the supervisors that let them do so. It all comes down to accountability.

Why is a constitutional democracy successful while monarchies and dictatorships wither and languish in corruption? One word -- ACCOUNTABILITY. Our leaders are accountable to us - the voters. Not only to be ethical, but also competent, practical, transparent and shrewd.

It all comes down to an apathetic and thus ignorant electorate. We cannot hold our leaders accountable if we don't pay attention or if our leadership tries to cloak their activities - either way, we are ignorant and thus unqualified to bear judgement.

Noone is holding up their end of the bargain. Most citizens don't pay attention, the media is uninformative and the government is not forthcoming (even when asked). I'm not optimistic of the ultimate outcome of this.

But now it is almost a year later. We could start with the DC people who ignored requests and inquiries from the agents in Minnisota and Arizona when they caught wind of a plot involving commercial airliners.

Yes, exactly. I think some of that process is underway, but even so it is probably going to take time. As I said, look at the case of the terrorist prof in Florida. The reason he's not been fired isn't that his uni doesn't want him out, it's because he has legal protections that he's making the most of.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.