the surveillance state eats its own.

Here’s an excellent Salon.com article on the most worrisome and least-addressed aspect of the Petraeus affair—the fact that the Feds were able to dig up what they did without evidence of a crime, and without any warrants.

Money quote:

“Having the career of the beloved CIA Director and the commanding general in Afghanistan instantly destroyed due to highly invasive and unwarranted electronic surveillance is almost enough to make one believe not only that there is a god, but that he is an ardent civil libertarian.”

One assumes General Petraeus fully supports the current reach of the surveillance state in much the same way post-Reconstruction whites supported gun control—it’s all fine and dandy as long as the Sheriffs remember that it’s just supposed to be used against Those People. But if the director of the CIA can have his emails snooped without a warrant or evidence of a crime, I doubt that looking through mine or yours would give the FBI even a twinge of civil liberties concerns.

6 thoughts on “the surveillance state eats its own.

  1. I’ve assumed my electronic communications have been breached for many these past years. I count on the overwhelming power of boredom and despair to keep the snooping to a minimum. Since my life is only slightly more interesting than paint drying…..

  2. I wonder if the FBI has seen this? :

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

    Did they miss that subtlety?

  3. …used against Those People.

    My very short list of “Those People” would definitely include the D/CIA.

  4. As far as Petraeus and Broadwell are concerned, it’s pretty much expected. To hold a Top Secret clearance and higher involves giving up a certain part of some civil liberties, so yes, they did consent to it. My concern is how the FBI supposedly got involved in the first place. Called in as a personal favor by someone who’s dined at the White House 3 times in the past year or so? Really? Really?