Justin Raimondo has an excellent report today on the FBI’s internal documents on Antiwar.com.
A blogger filed a Freedom of Information Act request and received a trove of FBI documents, some of which detailed official curiosity regarding Antiwar.com.
One of the FBI documents states: ““There are several unanswered questions regarding www.antiwar.com. It describes itself as a nonprofit group that survives on generous contributions from its readers. Who are these contributors and what are the funds utilized for?”
Apparently, the FBI would not believe that the funds were spent for the staff that produced the website.
I saved the best for last: the “action” recommendations contained in the memo. While directing the Washington FBI’s Electronic Communication Analysis Unit (ECAU) to “further monitor the postings of website www.antiwar.com,” the San Francisco office – where both Eric [Garris] and I lived at the time – is tasked with the following:
“It is recommended that a PI be opened to determine if [redacted] are engaging in, or have engaged in, activities which constitute a threat to National Security on behalf of a foreign power.”
The FBI did not specify what foreign power they were thinking of. Maybe Norway?
As for these FBI “intelligence analysts” – Daniel Franklin had an excellent article on this topic – entitled “Freeh’s Reign” – in the January 2002 issue of American Prospect. I quoted that in Terrorism and Tyranny:
Robert Heibel, former FBI deputy chief of counterterrorism, observed that the analyst jobs became “a reward system for people’s secretaries. . . . If you did a good job and you had typing ability and could communicate, you could get promoted to an intelligence analyst. The system became bastardized.” Heibel noted that “when it comes to the correlation of the information and the analysis of the information for intelligence purposes, we have fallen down dismally.”
Since I used to work as a Kelly Girl typist, I wonder if I could have qualified to be an FBI intelligence analyst.
** RawStory also did a piece on this subject.
One thing that caught my eye in their piece: the ref to the FOIA request originally coming from an “obscure blogger.”
Based on my experience, I thought “obscure blogger” was redundant.