Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Nixon, Reagan and the Rehnquist File

  1. Jan 6, 2007 #1

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/04/155257
    http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1167818524831
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6722187

    So Nixon and Reagan used the FBI for political purposes. Is that legal?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 6, 2007 #2
    That's the beauty of presidential justice; by the time the crimes are declassified, everyone involved is long dead!
     
  4. Jan 6, 2007 #3

    FredGarvin

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    For background checks and investigations inside our boarders, who should do the investigating? I believe every background check done on me has been done by the FBI.
     
  5. Jan 6, 2007 #4

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    NO! It was known that Nixon was using FBI surveillance and had tried (or was successful) in using IRS to go after his 'enemies'. Basically Nixon (and J. Edgar Hoover) used the FBI to illegal domestic surveillance. I don't remember that being an issue with Reagan, but I am not surprised - same kind of mentality.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon's_Enemies_List

    http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/water.htm

    It would seem that successive republican administrations have actively worked to further undermine the Constitution and American democracy.
     
  6. Jan 6, 2007 #5

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I'm not sure it's always been the same, but I think the Defense Security Service normally does background checks for security clearances. The exception would be for confidential clearances, which some agencies (including the FBI) do on their own.

    Rehnquist was being nominated to be Supreme Court Justice, not to work with classified material, so having folks in the FBI do the investigation wouldn't be unreasonable.
     
  7. Jan 6, 2007 #6

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Does it not depend on the purpose of the investigation?

    Can the President, for instance, use the FBI to dig up slime on his Presidential challenger?
     
  8. Jan 7, 2007 #7

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    It's not really the purpose of the FBI, but let's be real here. Part of the advantage of being an incumbent in any race is that you're able to improperly use whatever resources you have at your disposal. A state senator that raised money for a mayor in a key city in his district can make sure that city services do nothing to help, and everything to annoy, his challenger, including police harassment, if he wants. Just tell them to tow his campaign vehicles for every single possible infraction. It's perfectly lawful. How are you going to stop something like that? It's just the way politics works, stupid as it is.
     
  9. Jan 8, 2007 #8

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Yes, it does depend on the purpose and the extent of the investigation. It would make sense to screen a potential nominee even if the primary motivation is to avoid having embarrassing information coming up during the confirmation hearings. The end result is that the background of the potential nominee is known and any criminal background is taken into consideration when deciding whether to go ahead and nominate the person.

    It probably wouldn't be a bad idea for anyone running for public office, although that would get expensive. Voters would have a better idea of the kind of person they're voting for. Generally, candidates would prefer the voters know as little about them as possible except what they personally release as part of their campaigns. Most candidates from both parties usually even refuse to participate in surveys such as Project Vote Smart, which only wants info on the politicians' positions on public issues they are likely to have influence on; not private background info.

    In Rehnquist's case, interviewing someone that might be a witness at the confirmation hearing would just be a thorough background check of Rehnquist - better to hear bad news from someone likely to testify against him early before committing to the nomination. Doing background checks of the witnesses is going beyond and does look like misuse of the FBI to eliminate troubling witnesses.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Nixon, Reagan and the Rehnquist File
  1. Ronal Reagan Dies (Replies: 59)

  2. Enough Reagan (Replies: 19)

Loading...