[How Barack Obama Weaponized the FBI]


Weaponized Intelligence

For about 80 years since its inception, the fbi was mostly a law enforcement organization. It has had its fair share of controversy and failings. But in all its dealings, it remained largely apolitical as it worked to maintain national security. Until it didn’s Director Christopher Wray. Others believe it’s Attorney General Merr[b]
HOW Cultural Marxism IN WASHINGTON DC Weaponized the FBIrs would be technically correct.

Bodies like the fbi, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency are part of the executive branch of government. They should answer to the sitting president. But during Donald Trump’s presidency, the fbi actively sought to undermine and overthrow his administration. It’s only gotten worse since, with the recent raid of his Mar-a-Lago home.

The fbi’s behavior has followed a specific manifesto over the last decade, but it is a relatively stark change from its operations even as recently as the turn of the century. Its operations today represent a fundamental transformation that points to only one man.


‘Significant Changes’

Necessity has almost always mothered the reinvention of the fbi. In 1908, Teddy Roosevelt formed the Bureau of Investigation to investigate government corruption. In the 1920s, when motor vehicle production gave criminals inter-state mobility, the fbi stepped in where local law enforcement couldn’t. As crimes expanded, so did the fbi’s purview. When the Cold War arrived a few decades later, so came a new emphasis on intelligence acquisition, spying and surveillance capabilities.

It took decades, but eventually the systems that characterize the fbi as we know it were set up. But it wasn’t until 9/11 that they began to resemble what they look like today.

“Since September 11, the fbi has implemented significant changes to integrate our intelligence and operational elements and enhance our ability to counter today’s most critical threats,” then fbi Director Robert Mueller told Congress in 2005. He completely reorganized the fbi.

It’s important to understand how necessary this was at the time. The nation was still reeling from the worst terrorist attack it had ever suffered. Mueller had only been in the job for a week before it happened. The sweeping identity shift was understandable.

Before 9/11, the fbi identified itself as a law enforcement agency. After 9/11, its primary function became “national security” with intelligence its most important currency.

Mueller himself summarized the fbi’s mission as relating to “threat-based, intelligence-led national security.” Intelligence acquisition was the cornerstone of the reorganized fbi. Five new branches were created, three of which were dedicated to counterintelligence. They would purportedly be used to target terrorists and neutralize external threats. But the new system also assumed that every American citizen was a potential threat. So now, the fbi could acquire information on anyone.


The Information Age

Thomas J. Baker, a former agent and instructor at the fbi Academy, believes this reorganization is what initiated the issues of political partisanship that have dogged the bureau. It was the reorganization after 9/11 that truly “opened the door” for a different kind of influence over the fbi, he told the Washington Times.

“The ethics of an intelligence agency is different from a law enforcement agency,” Baker continued. “In a traditional law enforcement agency, agents live every day for the time to come when they get on the witness stand and say nothing but the truth. But an intelligence agency deals with lies and disruption. It’s a whole different mindset between the two.”

Suddenly, the fbi had a new, wide-ranging mandate—and a mentality shift to boot.

Data technology has advanced rapidly since Mueller spoke to Congress in 2005. The nsa is arguably the world’s leading surveillance database. With the rise of private media companies such as Twitter, Facebook and Google, information is more readily available than ever.

Last year, they announced they would be reporting “extremist content” to the Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance, comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. While it sounds good, this move actually represented a worrying development. First, it gave Big Tech the mandate to define what qualifies as extremist content. Secondly, they were given access to the information Five Eyes had on file. Why?

Investigative journalist Mark Bradman explained: “The government cannot conduct electronic searches (Fourth Amendment issue) without a warrant; however, private individuals can search and report back as long as they have access.” Big Tech was given access to the database and created a secondary database that is open for bodies like the fbi to exploit. But now it is with added efficiency of seeing those things that they and these media companies have defined as being extremist.

The fbi should use these powers to identify and curtail external threats. After all, it was 9/11 that necessitated these changes. Instead, it has turned into something completely different.

MORE....

[/b]