Not clear at all. A journalist was raided and has said nothing about his current status except to withdraw from his apartment and work. The only seemingly questionable thing is a lack of charges, but he doesn't seem to be detained so it isn't necessary that he be charged
That was my take. He’s not being detained and he chose not to comment on an ongoing investigation involving himself. There may not be a big deal here. The Rolling Stone has a history of fabrication and exaggeration, not Meek.
Why? This tells me that the FBI is targeting this journalist because they don't like what he has to say. If this pattern of government behavior impacted a journalist in China, there would be little doubt as to why. I worry that the FBI is acting as a political praetorian guard.
You're not helping your case by starting your list with three examples that have strong indications of criminality. Is law enforcement expected to not investigate criminals just because they're in or running for political office? It seems like it would be more straightforward for Republicans to just distance themselves from criminals, rather than closing ranks and adopting some post-reality persecution complex.
Define criminals. It’s not just an opinionated matter, any allegations have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt with presumption of innocence till proven guilty. Law works like that in this country. But also if a person is subject to criminal investigation for extended period of times (over three years), you would expect charges. So far other than some obscure “lying about net worth”, there is no charges.
Vindicating individuals you seem criminal with questionable raids from agencies with sweeping powers that are known for abuse of power have consequences. As in this case, it can very easily come for the other side. FBI is reportedly known for profiling MLK and other activists.
Your vocabulary reveals your opinion more than anything else, but to be clear: how law enforcement works is exactly how it is working. A search warrant was executed as part of a criminal investigation, and while the target of that warrant wants to call it a "raid" and suggest it was somehow improper, all indications are that the investigation is underway and is moving at a pace appropriate to the level of charges.
I mean, complaints in this very thread are that "we have a right to know" after six months, it should surprise nobody that we don't, actually, until charges are filed, and that six months isn't a long time when investigating complicated cases.
The FBI does have a storied history, but in this case there have been many checks along the way, including judges appointed by and requested by the target of the investigation, so it's hard to see how this might line up with previous incidents involving Black activists.
Criminal - someone who commits a crime, by breaking criminal law (as contrasted with civil law). Examples of criminal laws include prohibitions on inciting a riot or human trafficking.
Law enforcement agencies are certainly corrupt with their own incentives, but people with resources to hire many expensive lawyers are best able to protect their own rights. They're also best able to delay the legitimate workings of the system, which is why talk about "extended period of times" is irrelevant. It's called "due process", and we afford it to the accused even though it makes the process slower.
The point about the FBI unjustly persecuting people is not an argument that immediately indicts every action by the system - treating it as such is fundamentally nihilism. As awareness of valid institutional criticism spreads throughout society, it is also taken advantage of by bad faith actors to distract from their misdeeds. A similar dynamic is Russia using valid criticism of the US empire to cover for their own immediate imperial genocide. At best, the argument is an indication to be skeptical of the FBI's narrative and to insist on a high standard of proof - both things that an army of well paid lawyers and publicists are already handling.
As we have seen with Assange or Steele dossier, search warrants don’t matter. FBI abused and misled FISA judges on multiple occasions and rubber stamped warrant by the administration which largely uses FBI as its street cover.
I get that investigations take time, but I can't see any possible justification for the FBI to be silent six months later. Even if there's still an "ongoing investigation" the public has a right to know more than just the fact that the raid happened.
Um... no it doesn't? If the government chooses not to charge a crime, that's the end of the story. You don't have a right to other people's houses, papers and effects just because a warrant was issued for it. Sometimes law enforcement makes mistakes, and when that happens the correct and just result is just to forget the whole thing.
Obviously if Meeks has something to say, he has a first amendment right to do so. But you don't get to know what the FBI took from him.
OK, I see what you're trying to say. This is begging the question. You don't get to cite "the public has a right to know" as evidence that "he's under a gag order" unless you assume that he is. There's no evidence of a gag order or any other enforcement action beyond the raid itself, nor does the linked article provide any.
You're making crazy leaps in logic. Nothing I said was meant to provide evidence that he's under a gag order. You said he has a right to speak up, I said that he may not. That's all.
Uh... no? It's not all. This started with you saying that the public had a right to know what happened at the raid. Then you brought up a hypothetical gag order. Am I really "crazy" to have assumed that you were citing the hypothetical gag order as a reason the public had a right to know about the raid?
Seems like Tatiana thought there was an earth shattering story here, then turned up nothing. Had to make something of all the time wasted, so turned it into a shaggy dog story.
Who cares that neighbors in the apartment building and co-workers are wondering what happened to Meek? I don't notify my neighbors when I leave, or check-in with former employers after quitting.
Sounds like his lawyer is still in contact with Meek:
“Mr. Meek is unaware of what allegations anonymous sources are making about his possession of classified documents,” his lawyer, Eugene Gorokhov, said in a statement.
And he's the one complaining about details getting out:
“It is highly inappropriate, and illegal, for individuals in the government to leak information about an ongoing investigation. We hope that the DOJ [Department of Justice] promptly investigates the source of this leak.”
...so apparently Meek doesn't want any publicity around this incident.
Umm it should concern everyone if FBI, a law enforcement agency with sweeping power, invades a journalist or a private individual’s house. This sort of normalization of FBI raids to individual citizens is bad for individual and civil liberties, the number of such raids have disproportionately grown over last decade. FBI is an agency known for broad abuse of power and the last thing we need is politicization and sweeping normalization of their abusive behaviours. Even as recent as July, a judge questioned their tactic of raiding a defendants hous instead of just asking them to turn themselves https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2022/07/15/judge-questions...
If anything we need more oversight from media, not less. FBI is known to bypass any scrutiny like FISA warrants and rubber stamp things as they wish.
A judge's signature is a necessary but insufficient part of such raids. It is absolutely reasonable to hold an agency with a troubled past accountable, regardless of which judge rubber stamps the raids. Hold judges accountable, sure, but the spotlight should be on the agency.
You've been using HN primarily—in fact exclusively, it seems—for ideological and political battle. We ban accounts that do that, regardless of their politics. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.
Since we already asked you to stop and you haven't, I've banned the account.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
> Dang just banned someone for the wrongthink of questioning the authoritarian police state
Actually I just banned them for using HN exclusively for ideological battle, which is clearly against the rules for what ought to be obvious reasons to anyone who's read them: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Bit of a feat to pull "authoritarian police state" out of that, but the internet can do anything.
Suddenly vanishing like that, with that level of force.. It has to be related to something involving national security, or something where they think he might react in a bad way. However, considering how FBI raids have been conducted in the past, this could be about nothing at all, or it could be everything.
39 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 21.3 ms ] threadWhy? This tells me that the FBI is targeting this journalist because they don't like what he has to say. If this pattern of government behavior impacted a journalist in China, there would be little doubt as to why. I worry that the FBI is acting as a political praetorian guard.
Donald Trump, Ronald DeSantis, Greg Abott all have been under aggressive FBI investigation. Nikki Haley had her tax records leaked to media.
> what is so ruthless
There are multiple cases where even the judges were objecting FBI actions why they had to aggressively raid the peoples home. https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2022/07/15/judge-questions...
You're not helping your case by starting your list with three examples that have strong indications of criminality. Is law enforcement expected to not investigate criminals just because they're in or running for political office? It seems like it would be more straightforward for Republicans to just distance themselves from criminals, rather than closing ranks and adopting some post-reality persecution complex.
Vindicating individuals you seem criminal with questionable raids from agencies with sweeping powers that are known for abuse of power have consequences. As in this case, it can very easily come for the other side. FBI is reportedly known for profiling MLK and other activists.
I mean, complaints in this very thread are that "we have a right to know" after six months, it should surprise nobody that we don't, actually, until charges are filed, and that six months isn't a long time when investigating complicated cases.
The FBI does have a storied history, but in this case there have been many checks along the way, including judges appointed by and requested by the target of the investigation, so it's hard to see how this might line up with previous incidents involving Black activists.
Law enforcement agencies are certainly corrupt with their own incentives, but people with resources to hire many expensive lawyers are best able to protect their own rights. They're also best able to delay the legitimate workings of the system, which is why talk about "extended period of times" is irrelevant. It's called "due process", and we afford it to the accused even though it makes the process slower.
The point about the FBI unjustly persecuting people is not an argument that immediately indicts every action by the system - treating it as such is fundamentally nihilism. As awareness of valid institutional criticism spreads throughout society, it is also taken advantage of by bad faith actors to distract from their misdeeds. A similar dynamic is Russia using valid criticism of the US empire to cover for their own immediate imperial genocide. At best, the argument is an indication to be skeptical of the FBI's narrative and to insist on a high standard of proof - both things that an army of well paid lawyers and publicists are already handling.
> An ABC representative tells Rolling Stone, “He resigned very abruptly and hasn’t worked for us for months.”
Um... no it doesn't? If the government chooses not to charge a crime, that's the end of the story. You don't have a right to other people's houses, papers and effects just because a warrant was issued for it. Sometimes law enforcement makes mistakes, and when that happens the correct and just result is just to forget the whole thing.
Obviously if Meeks has something to say, he has a first amendment right to do so. But you don't get to know what the FBI took from him.
Unless he's under a gag order, which wouldn't be at all surprising in a case like this.
> But you don't get to know what the FBI took from him.
Where did I suggest that?
Maybe you could back out and explain this again?
Who cares that neighbors in the apartment building and co-workers are wondering what happened to Meek? I don't notify my neighbors when I leave, or check-in with former employers after quitting.
Sounds like his lawyer is still in contact with Meek:
“Mr. Meek is unaware of what allegations anonymous sources are making about his possession of classified documents,” his lawyer, Eugene Gorokhov, said in a statement.
And he's the one complaining about details getting out:
“It is highly inappropriate, and illegal, for individuals in the government to leak information about an ongoing investigation. We hope that the DOJ [Department of Justice] promptly investigates the source of this leak.”
...so apparently Meek doesn't want any publicity around this incident.
If anything we need more oversight from media, not less. FBI is known to bypass any scrutiny like FISA warrants and rubber stamp things as they wish.
Since we already asked you to stop and you haven't, I've banned the account.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Actually I just banned them for using HN exclusively for ideological battle, which is clearly against the rules for what ought to be obvious reasons to anyone who's read them: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Bit of a feat to pull "authoritarian police state" out of that, but the internet can do anything.