The problem with discussing Elgindy is that there are at least four disparate questions that must be addressed before rendering a coherent opinion about his present situation. For example:
1. Was Elgindy fairly or unfairly targeted?
From what I've read, and correct me if I'm wrong, it was a 9-11 related investigation of Elgindy that uncovered the FBI connection, not the other way around. The important distinction here is that one could argue that once the government realized Elgindy wasn’t trading on foreknowledge of 9-11, they figured they’d better find some other reason to justify his arrest. Or, one could make the analogy that cops routinely arrest drivers for crimes unrelated to why they were pulled over, so Elgindy just got unlucky being a high-profile Muslim, not to mention one with a pro-Palestinian activist brother.
2. Is having access to public information from a government database a crime?
Elgindy had access via FBI informants to FBI databases. For sake of argument, let’s assume 100% of the information given to Elgindy was also obtainable using public resources, such as the Internet. Is the principle that we can't allow private citizens access to FBI-housed data more important than the information itself?
3. When going after scam artists, do the ends justify the means?
We’ve heard numerous people speak to how Elgindy was an invaluable asset in exposing and taking down scam companies. We’ve also heard numerous people speak to how Elgindy screwed them over because he only cared about himself. Assuming Elgindy did only care about himself and that scam-busting was egotistic and not altruistic, can one still argue that there was a greater good performed here? If so, would that imply the ends justified the means?
4. Was Elgindy’s crime trivial compared to others?
Assuming we conclude the worst case scenario for the above -- i.e. that Elgindy was unfairly targeted by the government, that he had illicit access to potentially sensitive government-maintained information, and that the ends do not justify the means -- does what he did merit time in prison while so many CEOs guilty of far more heinous crimes against investors remain free?
To answer my own questions…
Yes, I think Elgindy was a victim of post 9-11 fear, but I also think the integrity of sensitive government maintained databases is more important than the data contained therein and thus the government was forced to take action. I do think Elgindy provided a service in exposing scams, but, to make a crude analogy, just because a policeman risked life and limb apprehending a criminal doesn’t excuse him from repercussions from hitting a patron at a bar later that night over the head with a bottle who somehow managed to piss him off. Lastly, while it does severely irk me how the government has chosen to expend precious taxpayer money with regard to securities related crimes, the law is the law, meaning once you start picking and choosing which laws you want to enforce or people you want to prosecute you head down a slippery slope.
- Jeff |
