The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) is on your side...as long as
you do not test its powers, according to one journalist
who remains uncertain of the FBI's goals to target certain writers. The FBI did not
come to call, in fact their behind-the-scenes effort may have gone
unnoticed had it not been for his passport checks upon returning to JFK from business trips to Europe.
Considering the FBI's global search to apprehend fugitives, thousands
of highly trained specialists work around the clock in pursuit of
solving crime and bringing justice to victims.
Defining crime, or what might be considered unauthorized actions of
an individual constitutes a gray zone. It simply depends upon the
situation. Should the FBI be targeting journalists who print stories that some accept as unflattering of the FBI or any branch of the Federal Government? Readers say "yes." [Scroll to view Poll Results]
In this four part series, veteran reporter Jeffrey Allen Miller describes living
under the watchful eye of the FBI. No official crime was committed. He
was not served with subpoena, nor was he charged with
a crime. But after publishing content, and hiring his own investigator to
spy on the mighty FBI, it is his conclusion that their mission to silence
him was accomplished if for no other reason than that of defining
In the end however, watch or no watch, it appears the FBI ended its
investigation when he was laid off.
1.) Events leading up to the investigation:
2.) The investigation:
Miller's journalistic investigation into government claims found they reported false public information. The investigation of his actions were now underway.
Had it not been for the difficulty Miller had at JFK customs, he would not have thought to hire his own investigator to confirm his suspicions.
The FBI was investigating.
The job loss:
The private investigator confirmed contact between Miller's employer and the FBI, it remains uncertain whether or not Miller's actions led to his
layoff. Nonetheless the impact of job loss alone created substantial
hardship and inconvenience.
What Readers Thought
For this story, Think & Ask queried 100 citizens through telephone
Was the FBI justified investigating this journalist?
- 48 percent said Yes
- 47 percent said No
- 5 percent did not know
The No.1 reason respondents sided with the FBI was due to perceived
unpatriotic reporting by the journalist. As one said: "At a time our country is at war we
must all stick together and no one should question our government."
If the FBI charged the journalist for unpatriotic reporting should he serve prison time?
- 98 percent said the journalist would not deserved prison time for reporting
- 2 percent said he did deserve prison time
The evidence was not enough to justify prison time according to most
respondents, as one said: "No, we can't simply put people in prison for
speaking their mind, but even that should be monitored because it
could lead to more serious crimes."
Should the FBI have made the investigation "official" and arrested the journalist?
- 63 percent said the FBI should have made an "official arrest"
- 34 percent said the FBI would not be justified to make an "official arrest"
- 3 percent did not know
The main reason respondents felt that an arrest was justified was a perceived threat. As one said:
"Terrorists hide in all corners of our country, so yeah, anyone who
speaks openly against our government should be investigated and serve prison time if he is a sympathizer."
Statistically speaking, the results of question No.3 should have been
similar to the first answers of establishing 'justification.' We can only assume
that respondents may have had second thoughts about the evidence, [and found the journalist had overstepped his mission] as
the interview came to a close.
---This content is copyrighted by
Think & Ask, reproduction of any kind is not permitted without written consent.---