Skip to main content

FBI vs.The Public's Need

I'm not defending the FBI for their conduct of the Boston Marathon bombing.  But, you must admit they did a marvelous job of tracking, identifying and harnessing the Boston Marathon bombers.  This is wonderful.   But the pundits are hard at work - what else are they to do?  They want to blame somebody.  For every tragedy there must be blame assigned.  It does not matter that the bombers were rapidly identified; it does not matter they were caught in a matter of days; it does not matter they (the FBI) minimized the subsequent lost of life.  We are at the stage of the classic "blame game"

The FBI is now blamed for everything.   Why was there not a follow-up on the Tamerlan Tsarnaev visit to Russia, including the alert offered by Russia?  Why were we not alerted to this single cell plotting their nefarious deeds? Why was he not watched continuously?  Naturally, this case could have been overlooked or discounted by a ineffectual investigator.  That is an internal matter for the FBI, just as it would be for any humongous organization. 

How about a couple of questions for you?  Do you know just how many Tsarnaev-types require attention?  Do you know now many require very close scrutiny?  Do you know the extent of FBI personnal resources?  Do you know their case-load?  Can they simply watch everyone?  And if so, at what costs?

Already, massive FBI resources have been redirected to this case, meaning countless ongoing investigations sit idle.  Already massive FBI resources are tracing leads to the ends of the earth uncovering anything, anything to feed our rapacious press.  Our security is compromised by the possibility of subsequent attacks. Yes.   It is also compromised by even other and possibly more dangerous situations, of which we will never know, that have been shunted by the requirements of the public's voracious appetite for any new-worthy item.

I do feel for the FBI.  It seems no good deed goes unpunished.  I have heard recently that another government agency was privy to Tsarnaev information and did not reveal it.  This is exactly what the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) was created to avert.  To coordinate; to share; to facilitate.  Oh, well. Some agency needs heat.  

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Behavioral Science and Problem-Solving

I.                                       I.                 Introduction.                Concerning our general behavior, it’s high about time we all had some understanding of how we operate on ourselves, and it is just as important how we are operated on by others. This is the wheelhouse of behavioral sciences. It is a vast subject. It touches our lives constantly. It’s influence is pervasive and can be so subtle we never notice it. Behavioral sciences profoundly affect our ability and success at problem-solving, from the elementary level to highly complex wicked problems. This is discussed in Section IV. We begin with the basics of behavioral sciences, Section II, and then through the lens of multiple categories and examples, Section III. II.     ...

UNCERTAINTY IS CERTAIN

  Uncertainty is Certain G. Donald Allen 12/12/2024 1.       Introduction . This short essay is about uncertainty in people from both secular and nonsecular viewpoints. One point that will emerge is that randomly based uncertainty can be a driver for religious structure. Many groups facing uncertainty about their future are deeply religious or rely on faith as a source of comfort, resilience, and guidance. The intersection of uncertainty and religiosity often stems from the human need to find meaning, hope, and stability in the face of unpredictable or challenging circumstances. We first take up the connections of uncertainty to religion for the first real profession, farming, noting that hunting has many similar uncertainties. Below are groups that commonly lean on religious beliefs amidst uncertainty.   This short essay is a follow-up to a previous piece on certainty (https://used-ideas.blogspot.com/2024/12/certainty-is-also-emotion.html). U...

Robin Hood and Cliven Bundy

  Actor Herbert Mundin, playing Munch in the 1938 film The Adventures of Robin Hood (starring Errol Flynn) is charged by Prince John's troops of slaying a royal deer in the royal Sherwood forest.  The punishment is death.  Though the events of this film are a portrayal of events dating to the 15th century, they became by the 19th century a "robbing from the rich for the poor" theme so often depicted in other film genres. The William Tell legend is another. The plot is simple.  A poor man desperate to survive tastes the forbidden fruits owned by the authority, and is condemned. I would love to hear this event debated on the current TV news shows.  On the one hand, Munch would be a champion in service to his family.  On the other hand, his legal rights are restricted by legal authority. so, the argument would proceed.  Legal scholars cite statutes chapter and verse, while others would root for the common man.  Fast forward to 2014. Parallels ...