Give me liberty and give me death!
Here's a clue to those who are wetting themselves over the changes in policy at the FBI. If you have a law enforcement agency, particularly one with "Investigation" in the name, you want it to investigate, If you don't want it to watch people, to ferret out the bad guys, don't have it in the first place. You can't expect people to protect you and then tell them they can't watch you.
We have become so rattled by fear of our own institutions, which we are supposed to control, that we are unable to defend ourselves from terrorists. The New York Times Editorial Page instead of cheering the demise of the stupid rules from the 70s which practically rendered the FBI impotent in the face of terrorism, sees it as an ominous threat to civil liberties. Look at the story arc: 1. We need stronger central government to make us secure from poverty, economic risk, etc. 2. The government is too powerful and intrusive into our lives. 3. We need more restrictions on government activity to enforce laws and detect terrorist plots. 4. Why didn't the FBI prevent this! Heads must roll!
This, apparently, is called "checks and balances." To me it sounds like laying down our weapons.
How stupid can we get? Apparently, we haven't tested the depths yet. Talk about straining at gnats and swallowing camels! (No offense meant to James Lileks)
Bob Mueller shouldn't be fired, but he shouldn't have been given this task. There should have been a special team created by Tom Ridge to access the output of the CIA, NSA, FBI, etc. and act with the kind of speed and responsiveness called for in this situation, bypassing the bureaucracy, but not building a new one.