Tonight’s question, greetings, and banter here. (More)
As bosoms heave and bodices rip in reporting The Petraeus Affair, the cast has swelled and throbbed to include a shirtless FBI agent and the privates of another general. But as law professor and privacy expert James Grimmelmann tweeted, “The scandal isn’t what’s illegal; the scandal is what’s legal (or what the FBI thinks is legal).” How do you feel about the email invasion?
November 15, 2012 at 6:02 pm
Today on Campus
Morning Feature – The Victory Lab, Part I: Who Votes How, Where?
Midday Matinee Midday Matinee Fursdai Furries
Our Earth – Climate Change Threatens Pandas
November 15, 2012 at 6:06 pm
I am wondering if I have any embarrassing emails in my past. I think I’m safe but I do think this has gotten out of hand. I get having concerns about national security breeches. This is looking a lot more like a general fishing expedition.
Do you suppose they needed a warrant for any of this?
November 15, 2012 at 6:18 pm
I doubt it, which is disturbing in and of itself. Seriously, the FBI – or rather the shirtless agent – took this way beyond what attention it merited based on the original complaint.
November 15, 2012 at 6:20 pm
But, he has a ‘worldview’ that apparently propelled him to action.
November 15, 2012 at 6:11 pm
[M]ilitary law prohibits adultery — which General Allen’s associates say he denies committing — and some kinds of relationships. says the New York Times.
Time to change military law to eliminate these threats to national security.
November 15, 2012 at 8:04 pm
I understand the UCMJ’s law on adultery, and it’s more humane than the media howl would have you believe. The prosecution must prove there were sexual relations, that someone involved was married and not to each other, and – most important – that the conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline and/or would discredit the military. Worth noting: none of the military officers involved in this story has yet been charged under the UCMJ. (Because Gen. Petraeus is retired, he’s still subject to the UCMJ.)
As for the email searches, as a general rule they need a warrant. I’m not sure if there were exceptions here due to the participants’ government positions.
November 15, 2012 at 8:12 pm
Always seemed to me that you lose a lot of rights while you’re defending the rights of others. My uneducated guess is they didn’t need a warrant for a military e-mail search, account national security interests……..