Government Case Blurs Line Between National Security Investigation and Ordinary Crime

The Washington Post has run a good story showing how easy it can be to blur the lines between national security and ordinary criminal investigations. It seems the FBI obtained a secret search warrant on national security grounds to search the home of Keith Gartenlaub, a Boeing employee. The FBI suspected him of spying for the Chinese in an effort to get China information on the C-17 military transport plane. In the process of searching for evidence of spying the agents found child pornography on four hard drives. Spying charges were never brought, but the pornography charges were used instead. The net result is that Mr. Gartenlaub has been convicted of a crime without proper due process as afforded by the fourth amendment to the Constitution. He was not allowed to see the warrant against him and challenge its validity. Any other defendant would have had that right. What makes this even more disturbing is the apparent weakness of the government’s case. A forensic expert said there was no credible evidence the pornography was ever viewed by anyone using the computer. Another forensic expert said there was no evidence of the illegal material ever being downloaded to the computer leading to speculation it was copied there – but no one can say for sure by whom. Two of the four drives in question had been at a beach house where numerous people had access to them. Another disturbing aspect of the case is the fact that the FBI obtained the warrant to search his personal email because he was the “nationwide Unix military administrator for Boeing.” Two other Boeing employees said there was no such position. When the case is viewed in its totality it really seems that the FBI was on a fishing expedition looking for any evidence of spying no matter how unlikely they were to find it. It even agreed to drop the pornography charges if he would talk about the C-17. When he denied the espionage charges (and everyone knew there was no evidence of spying) the government went with the next best thing. If they had not found the pornography they would have left the house and the defendant would never and know they were there. The bottom line is that the government went fishing on national security grounds but caught a common criminal. It may be legal, but it is not in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.