Quote from: Bill Peckham on November 13, 2012, 10:43:06 PMIf the details of the case were different it might be a big deal, I'll give you that. The worst part of this whole thing isn't the idea that the FBI would launch an investigation based on a friend's complaint, the worse part is that in the process of finding out who sent the emails they would read all her emails and then seek the identity of an anonymous correspondent - what is the rationale for allowing the FBI the ability to cast this sort of net? Before there is any national political intrigue involved the FBI is nosing around people's email accounts for shits and giggles. Is it now the law of the land that if you are under FBI investigation for any reason or if someone who you email is under FBI investigation, your emails are completely public? If Kent Thiry takes a dislike to your blog and has a well placed friend, is it alright for the FBI to read through your emails? To study your computer habits? Check into the identity of your correspondents?Not sure what you are trying to imply with your comments, but anything you say on the telephone is subject to surveillance as well as emails through computer protocols. In this case, they are using laws on cyber-harassment whatever that is to justify looking into private emails:However, Fox News confirmed Monday from multiple law enforcement sources that the emails came from multiple dummy accounts, which were traced back to Broadwell. The reason the FBI had jurisdiction is because cyber-harassment is a federal crime, and once the FBI got to Broadwell they uncovered the affair. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/13/top-us-commander-in-afghanistan-gen-john-allen-under-investigation-for-alleged/#ixzz2CB4XDsZpApparently, under Obama, this electronic eaves dropping has "surged."Warrantless Electronic Surveillance Surges Under Obama Justice DepartmentNEW YORK -- The Obama administration has overseen a sharp increase in the number of people subjected to warrantless electronic surveillance of their telephone, email and Facebook accounts by federal law enforcement agencies, new documents released by the American Civil Liberties Union on Friday revealed.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/28/warrantless-electronic-surveillance-obama_n_1924508.html
If the details of the case were different it might be a big deal, I'll give you that. The worst part of this whole thing isn't the idea that the FBI would launch an investigation based on a friend's complaint, the worse part is that in the process of finding out who sent the emails they would read all her emails and then seek the identity of an anonymous correspondent - what is the rationale for allowing the FBI the ability to cast this sort of net? Before there is any national political intrigue involved the FBI is nosing around people's email accounts for shits and giggles. Is it now the law of the land that if you are under FBI investigation for any reason or if someone who you email is under FBI investigation, your emails are completely public? If Kent Thiry takes a dislike to your blog and has a well placed friend, is it alright for the FBI to read through your emails? To study your computer habits? Check into the identity of your correspondents?
Quote from: Hemodoc on November 13, 2012, 10:57:49 PMQuote from: Bill Peckham on November 13, 2012, 10:43:06 PMIf the details of the case were different it might be a big deal, I'll give you that. The worst part of this whole thing isn't the idea that the FBI would launch an investigation based on a friend's complaint, the worse part is that in the process of finding out who sent the emails they would read all her emails and then seek the identity of an anonymous correspondent - what is the rationale for allowing the FBI the ability to cast this sort of net? Before there is any national political intrigue involved the FBI is nosing around people's email accounts for shits and giggles. Is it now the law of the land that if you are under FBI investigation for any reason or if someone who you email is under FBI investigation, your emails are completely public? If Kent Thiry takes a dislike to your blog and has a well placed friend, is it alright for the FBI to read through your emails? To study your computer habits? Check into the identity of your correspondents?Not sure what you are trying to imply with your comments, but anything you say on the telephone is subject to surveillance as well as emails through computer protocols. In this case, they are using laws on cyber-harassment whatever that is to justify looking into private emails:However, Fox News confirmed Monday from multiple law enforcement sources that the emails came from multiple dummy accounts, which were traced back to Broadwell. The reason the FBI had jurisdiction is because cyber-harassment is a federal crime, and once the FBI got to Broadwell they uncovered the affair. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/13/top-us-commander-in-afghanistan-gen-john-allen-under-investigation-for-alleged/#ixzz2CB4XDsZpApparently, under Obama, this electronic eaves dropping has "surged."Warrantless Electronic Surveillance Surges Under Obama Justice DepartmentNEW YORK -- The Obama administration has overseen a sharp increase in the number of people subjected to warrantless electronic surveillance of their telephone, email and Facebook accounts by federal law enforcement agencies, new documents released by the American Civil Liberties Union on Friday revealed.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/28/warrantless-electronic-surveillance-obama_n_1924508.htmlThey were harassing emails - I saw you do this, you should stop doing that - to an adult, not threats of rape or violence directed at a minor. And that was enough for the FBI to expend resources on identifying the sender? And then once they identified the sender they have license to read all her emails? And then the FBI has license to identify someone who was stexting the "harasser" anonymously? That's how you want your tax dollars spent?Think about this - the justification can not be that you might discover another crime, the justification can not be that a fishing expedition is a type of police work. An adult woman receives an anonymous email that upsets her and this causes the FBI to expend significant resources chasing down the identities of people who were trying to be anonymous. That's the scandal.It is not true that "anything you say on the telephone is subject to surveillance". The article you link to explains that meta data is subject to collection - phone numbers, who is calling who, that is not the same as "anything you say on the telephone is subject to surveillance". If they had called each other instead of emailed none of this would have come to light. The lesson here is don't come to the FBI's attention unless your shit doesn't stink - the agent is under investigation, the original complainant's life is not holding up to scrutiny, people are reading the biography, General Alan won't get promoted - don't make a complaint, don't be involved in anyway.And now the biographer is being put under an investigative microscope, complete with anonymous sources leaking to websites, and it all fine because we can retroactively claim its a national security issue. That's the scandal.
Actually, the emails involved personal knowledge of the CIA director and a 4 star general. That is where the national security issue came into place. Since we don't yet know what the FBI recently found in the mistress house, we will just have to wait and see what unfolds, but it is an issue that does need to be investigated. It appears the CIA director was compromised and subject to potential black mail. That shows incredibly poor judgement. Does it go any further? Only time will tell. Sad day for America once again and it is far from over.
"When the FBI friend showed the emails to the cyber squad in the Tampa field office, her fellow agents noted that the absence of any overt threats.“No, ‘I’ll kill you’ or ‘I'll burn your house down,’” the source says. “It doesn’t seem really that bad.”The squad was not even sure the case was worth pursuing, the source says.“What does this mean? There’s no threat there. This is against the law?” the agents asked themselves by the source’s account.At most the messages were harassing. The cyber squad had to consult the statute books in its effort to determine whether there was adequate legal cause to open a case.“It was a close call,” the source says.What tipped it may have been Kelley’s friendship with the agent. The squad opened a case, though with no expectation it would turn into anything significant.“They weren’t seeing this as the crime of the century,” the source says.And certainly nobody was looking to do anything that might cause a huge fuss and maybe get them bounced from Tampa. The field office there is a $35 million palace with a second-floor fitness center whose plate-glass windows overlook Tampa Bay, and an eating area that includes an outdoor, screened-in extension for fed al fresco. The closest agents get to that in, say, cold and grimy New York is eating in their cars."
The emails don't mention Petraeus , the CIA or General Allan by name. They're catty (my emphasis) :
Hmph...having worked as an intern for the federal prosecutor, let me say that every piece of paperwork they have ever produced is considered classified - even if it's nothing more than a list of speakers invited to come to a public meeting. So I can't say I'm too impressed with them saying the documents were classified.
Willis, so if you ran across a paper or some pictures of two Generals having an affair would you just ignore that or reprot it.
Manual for Courts MartialSection IV. Paragraph 62. Article 134 (Adultery)a. Text See paragraph 60.b. Elements.(1) That the accused wrongfully had sexual intercourse with a certain person;(2) That, at the time, the accused or the other person was married to someone else; and(3) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
Thanks Willis for the explanation.The military has a code of ethics. IMO God has a code of ethics too. There will be consequences. Ugggh. I'm not trying to start another argument. It just hit me when reading Willlis' post.I'm surprised it is still an offence in the military. I bet it will be thrown out before too long.
Here's an interesting OP-ED in the NY Times about Allen Dulles, Director of Central Intelligence from February 1953 to November 1961. When a C.I.A. Director Had Scores of Affairshttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/opinion/when-a-cia-director-had-scores-of-affairs.html