Personally, I am not much interested in the FBI’s internal personnel rules. However, I am not happy that President Obama has asked Congress to extend FBI Director Robert Mueller’s statutory ten-year term for two additional years. I understand the administration’s desire to maintain some continuity in their security team, with Panetta leaving the CIA and Gates leaving Defense. But the ten-year term limit on FBI directors was enacted to avoid a repeat of the situation we had with J. Edgar Hoover, who used his position to learn the secrets of politicians’ lives and thereby prevent being replaced. Hoover was the FBI director for 37 years, and he abused his power nearly every single day. Extending Mueller’s term, even for only two years, sets a precedent that ought not be set. What is to prevent a future FBI director from repeating Hoover’s practice to intimidate the president and Congress into continually extending their term?
Even from a crass political point of view I don’t like it because Obama would give up the right to appoint the next director if he loses reelection.
I know this is a relatively minor criticism, but I think it’s important to lodge a protest. There are other people who can do Mueller’s job. They should be given that chance.
From a different and equally crass political point of view, it could just be that he doesn’t want any slip-ups before the next election. The devil you know, etc, etc.
Oliver Willis complained about the same thing. I don’t know, unless you have some sort of actual recommendation as to who should broadly be considered for the post and what kind of associated policy changes they should make, the cynical side of me sees this as a way for pronounced supporters of the admin to get in a bit of uncontroversial criticism on the cheap and easy…
If you’re referring to Booman, I don’t think that’s fair. He’s been quite critical in areas that don’t involve Congress needing to sign off on Obama’s actions (his relentless criticism of the Libyan intervention being a recent example). He gives Obama much more of a pass on some issues than I would, but he has made some difficult and pointed critiques. He’s just clear – as am I – that the real problem is our minority-rule Senate and our entire political & media culture, and that the hatred of Obama in some quarters of the left only serves to strengthen people who are much, much worse.
I support the President too, but it wouldn’t even occur to me that this is something I’m supposed to have any informed opinion about. What is it that I’m supposed to be concerned about with Mueller? Does changing the FBI director carry with it an accompanying change in federal law enforcement policy? Am I supposed to take identity politics into concern? Should I want a minority appointment, or a woman perhaps?
I mean, Booman’s primary concern seems to be a slippery slope argument about J. Edgar Hoover. That doesn’t seem particularly plausible to me.
It’s like when people complained about Jeffrey Immelt being the head of the presidential jobs council. Sure, it’s unseemly, but the problem is the overall policy, not any one specific appointment. Likewise, our national drug war policy is a joke, or our prison system, or civil liberties overreach, but I’d never expect that to be addressed with one change in command.
I had a secondary concern, too. You may not be worried about the slippery slope but you probably would prefer a Democrat use his right to determine who heads the FBI for a decade than to pass up that right and hand it to a Republican. Right?