Guess who the FBI is watching now?

Capital Hill blue ^ | July 1, 2002 | Doug Thompson

[Stand Watch Listen]

Long before California Congressman Gary Condit's affair with intern Chandra Levy became public, agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation knew about the dalliance along with other couplings.

FBI agents monitored Condit's activities in and out of the bedroom because the California Democrat's name appeared on a top secret list of elected officials considered to be "potential security risks."

Capitol Hill Blue has learned the list, maintained by the FBI since the J.Edgar Hoover days, is still being used to monitor the activities of members of Congress and other elected officials who are suspected of marital infidelity, financial difficulty, homosexuality or other activities that might make them a target for enemies of the United States.

The super-secret list is not shared outside the bureau, not even with the White House or the Attorney General of the United States, whose job it is to run the FBI.

Career FBI SACs (special agents in charge) who are privy to the list assign agents to follow members of Congress, monitor their bank accounts, tap their phones and even videotape romantic rendezvous - all in the interest of national security.

"It's been going on for years," says a retired FBI agent, who asked not to be identified. "From what I understand, the activity has increased since September 11."

Besides Condit, FBI agents monitor Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank, the most openly-gay member of Congress, but also keep taps on more than 20 other Democratic and Republican members who are either admittedly gay or suspected of homosexual activity.

Democrat Jim Moran of Virginia is also targeted because of heavy debts from investment losses, loans from influential lobbyists and more than a few barroom brawls.

On the Republican side, Dan Burton of Indiana is monitored because of known womanizing and FBI agents knew about former GOP speaker Newt Gingrich's extra-marital affairs long before they became public record.

"In the real world, members of Congress would be subject to extensive background investigations before they were allowed access to classified material," says security expert James Hargill. "But a member of Congress has an automatic security clearance just because he or she is elected to the office. All the agencies can do is keep an eye on the suspicious ones."

The FBI did not return phone calls seeking comment.

--------------------

Morale at ABC news, already the lowest among the top three network news operations, sank even lower when the network suits named former Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos the sole host for the Sunday "This Week" news talk show.

The long-rumored and long-dreaded move left veteran journalists grumbling over how the network went with a political hack to helm the show started by the legendary David Brinkley.

"The sellout is complete," complained one longtime ABC news staffer. "It's glitz instead of news."

The network suits claim Stephanopoulos was the best choice to go up against NBC's top rated "Meet the Press," which is hosted by non-journalist Tim Russert, a former aide to retired New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

"Face it," says anther ABC staffer, "Partisanship sells."

To make matters worse, Stephanopoulos plans to "broaden" the show beyond news to include entertainment and "lifestyle" subjects.

"Who knows," says one ABC newsie. "Maybe Robin Leach will become a correspondent."

[bvw]

FBI agents monitored Condit's activities in and out of the bedroom because the California Democrat's name appeared on a top secret list of elected officials considered to be "potential security risks."

Obviously an absolute waste of money. In the instant cases of Condit or of Barney Frank, what good did it do?

[discostu]

Nothing new here. Congress get's to deal with secure stuff. All the reasons listed for monitoring are reasons many of us normal people will be denied high clearance. They can't really deny Congressmen clearance, so they watch them instead.

[TADSLOS]

This makes one wonder if the FBI has heard Senator Leahy talk on the phone, spilling secrets about them...

[Inge_CAV]

"It's glitz instead of news."

Nope, it's the same old $hitz from ABC.

[onedoug]

Who was Hansen assigned to?

[bvw]

A "high clearance" is a rotten substitute for high ethics, high purpose, or even high ability. Pffft! on clearances. No clearance made a person responsible. Clearances are "assumptions" as in ass-u-me. By assuming that the people around them or under them or above them are cleared, normally responsible -- needfully responsible -- people are lulled into, and often eough ordered to, ignore otherwsie alarming things that occur. "Hey, he/she was cleared, already!"

Clearances on the basis of background checks sVck!

[KarlInOhio]

Capitol Hill Blue has learned the list, maintained by the FBI since the J.Edgar Hoover days, is still being used to monitor the activities of members of Congress and other elected officials who are suspected of marital infidelity, financial difficulty, homosexuality or other activities that might make them a target for enemies of the United States.

Between 1993 and 2000, the Secret Service dedicated a large portion of its resources to following around an elected official suspected of marital infidelity.

[discostu]

Let me guess, you got denies a job because you failed clearance?

Really it's a good system, people still need to be wise, but the simple concept of the background check for clearance is simple: if it turns out someone is blackmail waiting to happen (say they cheat on their wife with homosexual prostitutes and they spend much on that "hobby" they're on the verge of bankruptcy) you should trust them with super secret documents. Like all human systems it's not full proof, which is why people have to be wise with their top secret stuff. but it's a start.

[bvw]

Bad guess. Even worse as far making a logical response. While I'm sure it was unintened on your part, that is a slander of a type known as an ad-hominem response. In the rules of logical argument, it is a false argument.

If I was now to say "But what are rules to you?" that too, would be an ad-hominem, so I am not going to say that. More likely you do play by the rules, and respect them.

[discostu]

Actually it was the logical fallacy of poisoning the well. But who's counting.

[bvw]

That one you'll have to explain to me, if it pleases you.

[bvw]

It's a false start, and rarely done well. There are people who would not (one hopes) pass a background check, and yet who with ad-hoc appropriate safeguards -- safeguards well within the normal range of knowledge of a responsible mature adult -- can still be used in the most sensitive of work.

What you get, after background checks and the related proecdeural assumptions that bureaucracies love is a mixture of pablum personalities and irresponsible managemnet. The pablum is wholesome, true, but the management only knows how to, ever learns how to, manage pablum. And managining pablum ain't hard. Apropos the "nanny-state".

[discostu]

An ad-hominem is a straight smear. Posioning the well is constructing an arguement based on presumption of bias for circumstances unrelated to the arguement though possibly related to the arguements subject matter. For instance if A were to assert that profession X is underpaid and B were to point out that A works in that profession, thus building the assumption that of course A thinks the job is underpaid. Just because A is in said profession doesn't mean he doesn't have valid points. Thus B is tainting (poisoning) the information (well of wisdom) A is attempting to distribute. In many ways it's similar to an ad hominem because it's still basing an arguement on a character assault, but it's different in that it's used to twist a possible positive (A having inside information to the business process of profession X which others don't have) into a negative (implying that A has alterior motives).

Which isn't how I meant it, normally one doesn't see such vim on a rather boring thing like clearance unless the person has an axe. We all know the clearance system isn't perfect, but usually it only garners a nod or at worst a finger.

[discostu]

Well it's just like any other part of the candidate review process. The resume might not reveal the truth, neither may the interview or the reference check. Nothing tells the whole story. But what the background check really is looking for, and this tells you a lot about the FBI and the CIA, is whether they think they could "turn" (as the colloquialism goes) the person were they to work on the other side. Overall it seems to work, notice the spies we keep catching generally have greed as their motivatiing factor, not blackmail.

I will definitely contend with the nanny-state assertion. With a few exceptions the places where you'll be getting a background check are working directly for the government or for a government contractor (I've known a couple of companies that pay for background checks on people, largely due to over inflated egos on the part of the CEO of the business). I don't see a problem with the government putting it's own prospective employees through hoops (nor do I have a problem, on the conceptual level, with private enterprises doing this for whatever stupid reason they can come up with, though I wouldn't work for one of those companies).

[bvw]

Vim and vigor are two of the things the clearance system filters out, imnho.

I've worked with a mixed bag of people and some of the more interesting I would hope could not get clearances, yet some did -- obviously major parts of their backgrounds were missed, or hidden. But I also speak to a general difference in the work-force of places that require everybody to have clearances, and those that don't. The clearance-approved places are duller by far.

Thanks for the going into the subtle distinction between "poisoning the well" and ad-hominem, yet it seems to me that a "poisoning the well" argument is a subclass of an ad-hominem.

If you look at the ad-hominem link I provided, the example case they give for ad-honinem seems exactly to match the "poisoning the well" type.

[glc1173@aol.com]

Want to keep a gay politician who wants to take our privacy from us from being blackmailed?

Then "out" him now - and he won't be blackmailable!

[discostu]

Thankfully there's no garauntee a background check will dig up the dirt, but it does fairly often. You also never know how many people are snowing you about their "wild life". Definitely the clearance work places suck, but I think the clearance is more symptomatic than problematic.

Some logicisians do categorize poisoning the well as a sub-category of ad hominem, I think it's seperate because it doesn't always have to take the form of an insult or attack, it can be a lot more subtle than ad hominem. Funny they gave the same example, usually the ad hominem examples I've seen stay in the more classic "scoundrel and cad" type stuff. funny that even in the world of logical analysis (or logical fallacy analysis I guess) the world is still filled with greys. I thought logic was to get rid of those.

[bvw]

Oh, I wan't being snowed ... but do not want to go further on that.

I am set against background checks for many reasons. And exception is spot background checks in response to suspicious activites. But as a prerequisite for any job, I believe they are mean and bear rotten fruit. People change, motivated managers set to a doing specific tasks can really change bad eggs. While the Nazi German "Arbeit Mach Frei" -- "Work sets you free" -- is a despicable motto, a difficult work task and a motivating manager to help direct towards its completion can help engender that sense of honest self-worth in the confused.

Adam was given to make his bread by the "sweat of his brow" --- not his body, but his brow. It is in struggling with all the good and bad pieces we are made of during daily labors that our souls are improved, and we re-find the spirtual links that bring us to see the good in world and what happens in it.

I have come to see background checks -- in theory and pratical experience -- as some vain attempt to shortcut this brow sweating labor. That labor being of working with others, monitoring them, monitoring ourselves, being our brother's keeper, of saying yes to this and no to that, where the practicial effect of or the morality of that yes or no has to be struggled with. Where a manager has to deal with people under him who are not trustworthy, yet manage and lead so that the untrusted can produce, and even -- hopefully -- become trustworthy.

Background checks are a vile prejudice. I despise them.

[philomath]

vain attempt to shortcut this brow sweating labor

Was hoping you would give an alternative to the static initial background check. agree a process of ongoing review is best, but some prior behaviors need to be known, even if you don't feel they should necessarily rule out someone for a position i.e. credit card fraud by someone who applies for bookkeeper.
on your side, i have seen "background checks" which are little more than accumulations of vile gossip which are then substaantiated because they are background checks.