(no subject)
May. 26th, 2006 01:45 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
novapsycheI seem to hold a minority opinion in regards to the FBI raid on a Congressman's office. I guess a lot of people believe that, since the search warrant was signed by a judge, then it can't be a separation of powers issue and we should just let this unprecedented action pass.
Certainly, though, one has to concede that this administration has done all it could to enlarge the powers of the executive office. The slippery slope says that this act could be used on other congresspersons, and not just because they happen to be targets of a corruption scandal.
If Mr. Jefferson was not complying with subpoenas, weren't there other possible avenues of getting him to comply instead of an FBI raid on his office? I mean, the FBI took a copy of his entire hard drive. What other information is there? Hmm.
Let's think about this for a moment. What if, in the future, the President (this one or a future one) has a political enemy in Congress who may or may not be under suspicion for one thing or another. He could easily send agents into that person's office, now that this precedent has been set, and simply say, "Well, it's been done before."
The information seized in this particular case has been sealed for 45 days. That broke the firestorm that had come up so furiously. But it doesn't solve the issue, that this is an act that can be used again ostensibly in the name of law enforcement but in actuality in the interest of intimidation.
Certainly, though, one has to concede that this administration has done all it could to enlarge the powers of the executive office. The slippery slope says that this act could be used on other congresspersons, and not just because they happen to be targets of a corruption scandal.
If Mr. Jefferson was not complying with subpoenas, weren't there other possible avenues of getting him to comply instead of an FBI raid on his office? I mean, the FBI took a copy of his entire hard drive. What other information is there? Hmm.
Let's think about this for a moment. What if, in the future, the President (this one or a future one) has a political enemy in Congress who may or may not be under suspicion for one thing or another. He could easily send agents into that person's office, now that this precedent has been set, and simply say, "Well, it's been done before."
The information seized in this particular case has been sealed for 45 days. That broke the firestorm that had come up so furiously. But it doesn't solve the issue, that this is an act that can be used again ostensibly in the name of law enforcement but in actuality in the interest of intimidation.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
some challenging questions
Date: 2006-05-26 06:27 pm (UTC)How often is "law enforcement" within policed states not done with an effect of -- if not necessarily an interest or intention of -- intimidation? Does the notion of laws enforced by an elite minority (e.g., the FBI) or a minority authorised by an elite (e.g., ordinary police) not depend on fear? How else could a system of organisation characterised by gross inequality maintain itself?
love,
jamie
Re: some challenging questions
Date: 2006-05-26 06:44 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-27 02:35 am (UTC)Or does "Congressional immunity" not mean what it used to?