Congress Blocking Search of Mark Foley's Congressional Computer

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mactastic, Aug 31, 2007.

  1. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #1
    I know it's an article of faith among some around here that I never criticize Democrats, but this just pisses me off.
    This is where the Democrats in the HoR draw the privacy rights line? They'll allow Bush to search all of our computers and phones etc., but they won't allow one of their own to be investigated for trolling for little boys online? I understand there is a separation of powers issue, but honestly they can't find a way to make an exception for this? What the hell? :mad:
     
  2. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #2
    I was of the understanding that Mark Foley had chased young men above the age of consent, rather than "little boys". Do I have this wrong?
     
  3. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #3
    What do you expect? Wasn't there a huge bi-partisan outcry when the FBI tried to raid William Jefferson's office in the bribery investigation?

    Sure there's a separation of powers but when the evidence is there why be so obstinate? What are they trying to hide?
     
  4. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #4
    I was waiting for someone to post this. This is so wrong I can't even begin to express how angry it makes me. That computer is government property and should be submitted as evidence. That they're holding onto it has to be illegal.

    Yes- you have it wrong:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/29/AR2006092901574.html
     
  5. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #5
    All right, I'm going to play devil's advocate here.

    First off, I'd like to know just what "case law" prohibits law enforcement from access to Foley's computer.

    Second, I suppose it could be possible that a local law enforcement agency shouldn't have access to a federal computer. I'm thinking, for example, in the case of anyone who sits on an intelligence committee. (I've no idea if this was the case here.)

    But even if such were the case, it should at the very least be possible for someone like the FBI to act as a go-between, and search Foley's computer themselves. They could pass along whatever they find.

    I'm just tossing off ideas. Y'all are probably right, that they're probably just covering up for one of their own.

    Or worse yet, is there something in Foley's files that's incriminating to some Democrat?

    I await with suspicion the House's rationale for denying anyone access. I want to know in detail their explanation for such behavior, not just some nebulous excuse like "case law". :mad:
     
  6. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #6
  7. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #7
    To the best of my knowledge, it's 18- 16 can still be considered statutory rape AFAIK.
     
  8. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
  9. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #9
    I am also going to play devil's advocate, up to a point.

    If there is a federal statute against releasing the computer, without the approval of a congressman, then it would seem that there is no discussion, except for the wisdom of the statute itself. I can see where it would have merit in a number of different situations, national security at the top of the list. However, when the computer becomes a device used in the commission of a felony, I think investigators should have rights to the evidence on the machine.

    I do not support just handing the machine over to local authorities is a good idea. Their digital forensic specialists, and the investigators, do not have any reason to see things outside their narrow scope of investigation needs. So, like others have suggested, there needs to be an intermediary to protects the interest of the government, and the investigators. I can think of many ways to accomplish this, without even scratching my head.

    This should be an easy problem to solve - just get the job done.
     
  10. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #11
  11. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #12
    Not entirely. There is substantial evidence that a crime has been committed, and they want to get into a Congressman's office/computer to collect more evidence. The crimes themselves may be different but the fact that law enforcement wants into the office/computer to collect evidence is similar in both cases. Congress raised a stink in both cases and in both cases it is not helping their public image.

    I don't see why authorities should be blocked from searching any public officials office (no exclusions) once evidence of criminal wrongdoing has been found. Yes there is an issue of classified documents but there are many people trained in the handling of such issues and could easily oversee/supervise the authroities in their search.
     
  12. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #13
    I think that was my point - investigators should not me prevented from gathering evidence - but in some cases it should be supervised. I would not assume that local law enforcement would be above using information maliciously.
     
  13. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #14
    Yeah, I love that they pick this type of thing to come together over. This is why people think there's no difference between the 2 parties, but luckily it gives us a chance to prove most of us don't like corruption from either side when we criticize such things. We already proved those who said we were the partisan hacks wrong with the Jefferson and Schumer threads, but it doesn't mean they won't keep repeating it. ;) We'll just have to keep proving them wrong.

    Of course it's wrong, and there are federal agencies who could be investigating, but since they apparently aren't (some were even part of those who were helping to cover it up) someone should, especially if they want to have any credibility when they go after the Bush administration for their cover up and claims of executive privilege.
     

Share This Page