What If It Were the Real Muslim Housewives of Tampa Bay Scandal?

In all my coverage of the Petraeus scandal, I haven’t really touched on the aspect that regular readers of this blog were presumably least surprised about: the virtually unchecked authority the FBI has to snoop. As always, Chris Soghoian and Julian Sanchez offer worthwhile discussions of that surveillance. Yesterday, Greg Miller and Ellen Nakashima described how folks in DC are freaking out upon discovery of how intrusive all this surveillance can be.

The FBI started its case in June with a collection of five e-mails, a few hundred kilobytes of data at most.

By the time the probe exploded into public view earlier this month, the FBI was sitting on a mountain of data containing the private communications — and intimate secrets — of a CIA director and a U.S. war commander. What the bureau didn’t have — and apparently still doesn’t — is evidence of a crime.

How that happened and what it means for privacy and national security are questions that have induced shudders in Washington and a queasy new understanding of the FBI’s comprehensive access to the digital trails left by even top officials.

I’ve been saying from the start this whole shit-show would be useful if it made some Members of Congress rethink their permissive attitude towards surveillance and lazy oversight.

All that said, it’s important to note that the Petraeus example–at least what we know of it–isn’t even close to as bad as Big Brother gets in this country, even with questions about the predicate of the investigation.

Which is why I wanted to consider how this might be different if, instead of a bunch of mostly-Anglo connected Republicans, this investigation had focused on Muslims (we’ve discussed Jill Kelley and her sister’s interesting story as indebted Arab-Americans; it will be interesting to see how their access is treated going forward).

After all, while it is unlikely the FBI would have responded to a cyber-stalking complaint from an unconnected Muslim, it’s possible the internet traffic involved, particularly if it spanned international boundaries, might have attracted attention in its own right. Alternately, had the anonymous emails reflecting knowledge of the movement of top Generals involved a Muslim rather than a white Reserve Colonel, we would not now be debating whether the FBI had the predicate to investigate her emails further (though I maintain the FBI may have used a Counter-Intelligence predicate to continue the investigation in the first place).

Probably, from there the FBI would have used additional intrusive investigative methods. The National Security establishment is only now focusing on Kelley and her sister’s debt problems. Which leads me to suspect no one bothered to look at their financial records until the press started doing so. What would the FBI have found had they looked at financial records, showing more details about who paid what for whom when? How would the Kelleys’ bogus cancer charity look, for example, if you had more access to their financial records?

And then there’s one big difference. We know–because we’ve heard numerous individual stories and because Ted Olson admitted it in court–that the FBI uses discoveries like the ones they made here to coerce people to turn informant. Legal trouble, financial trouble, marital trouble? All have made people targets for “recruitment.”  And those informants are sent out, with little training or legal protection, to spy on their fellow citizens, often the leaders of their community. The FBI will send out series of informants, for years on end, to target Imams who never do anything illegal but nevertheless either have connections–possibly familial–or First Amendment protected views that lead the FBI to suspect them. In the Muslim community, some people live for years under this kind of surveillance, sometimes ultimately getting caught in an FBI sting, at other times, just living a law-abiding life under the most intrusive scrutiny.

I do hope the Petraeus example scares the shit out of the often more morally and legally compromised people empowered to approve and oversee such surveillance. But I still think the scandal offers the merest glimpse into what our current state of surveillance really looks like.

Tweet about this on Twitter1Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+1Email to someone

96 Responses to What If It Were the Real Muslim Housewives of Tampa Bay Scandal?

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • 93
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz RT @Pinetree_Girl: @bmaz @OKnox I think lawmakers adept at diversion from real issues. Public likes shiny objects. Has become inured to day…
3mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel If only Mitch McConnell hadn't decided to play chicken two weeks ago the Majority Leader might have Kept the Country Safe™
5mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @ColMorrisDavis And that presumably also permits FBI to use additional authorities against them.
9mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @ColMorrisDavis Once dissidents w/guns are "terrorists" they and friends can be pursued very differently and underlying speech criminalized.
10mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @ColMorrisDavis No. It doesn't create a new offense. It creates a new way to dub dissidents "terrorists," w/all that connotes.
10mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @ColMorrisDavis But my big worry is that this would (if passed) let govt use possession as reason to call dissidents terrorists.
16mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @ColMorrisDavis That's also in Burr's bill. He increases penalties on both 2339B (FTO) and 2339A (terrorist via 2332 and other laws).
16mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @WHarkavy: @bmaz Rest of world has such a bigger impact from FIFA issues, and here we are doing this. Like Iraq, cynical ploy. Global st…
23mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @ColMorrisDavis That's what my post says (3rd ¶). (Though that would mean the 2339 applies to it as well.) Seems horribly ripe for abuse.
25mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @ColMorrisDavis Bottom of page 65 here. https://t.co/L4BA0Xmi98 Section 204.
45mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @ColMorrisDavis It's in his PATRIOT ACt replacement bill. It's in the Material Support extension section.
48mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @WHarkavy ...and make a big splash for Lynch in the process. But there are some foundational questions too that really bug me.
52mreplyretweetfavorite
November 2012
S M T W T F S
« Oct   Dec »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930