FBI electoral

September 5, 2021 by archyde

On Wednesday I found, half lost on some inside page of a newspaper, an amazing headline: “The FBI will help monitor the elections.” I first believed that I had misread, then I assumed that it was a news preview for next December 28; I immediately surmised that it was some rehash in Trump’s mouth. Moved by curiosity, when reading the complete information, I found that, indeed, the national registrar appeared announcing the “good news.” I was plop.

It is not a question of criticizing that high-ranking official. On the contrary, it is necessary to delve into the motivations of that determination. The FBI belongs to the sublimated ideology of the most efficient body in the search for great criminals. We all have a picture in mind: circumspect researchers surrounded by microscopes, dyes, and ultraviolet rays. All with glasses and hair, made fashionable by Fajardo and now resurrected by Alejandro Gaviria. Also gentlemen in the streets with felt borsalino hats and inevitable raincoats beige worn out by the hustle and bustle in the never-ending but always successful fight against crime.

For the neatness of the electoral processes, not hounds come to mind, but expert paunchies who travel from remote places to guarantee the cleanliness of the ballot boxes. By cleaning it is understood that they only enter the votes that they are. And that they enter after the polls are open and never after they are closed.

One wonders, then, what prompted the registrar to make such an outlandish announcement? Is the risk that serious? Is the thing that rotten? Are they not apples but the whole crop? To the usual juries and witnesses we must now add the crowd of gringo sniffers trained to the races under a new electoral tune that says: beware of 2022. And 2026? Will Scotland Yard arrive?

The registrar mentions the problems that systematization brings. This is another setback for contemporary culture. We assumed that computers were successors to the magician Merlin, capable of performing the most esoteric operations with algorithmic blindness without the least risk of error. Well no. The registrar understood that a computer without a detective is useless.

I have remembered the sentence of a foreign expert at the time when I was carrying out that same position as a registrar: “Don’t trust it, doctor: computers process what humans put into them. If they feed them with garbage, what comes out is garbage ”.

Registrar: Are there no other alternatives?

Because let’s remember that the FBI was in the hands of Mr. Hoover. His ability to snoop was directly proportional to his perverse talent in blackmail and the politicization of justice. I ask that each FBI detective be put alongside a CIA agent. Well, if the budget is not enough, at least it is from the DAS.

Coda. The life sentence for rapists was dropped. No problem. In fact, as Yesid Reyes showed, it wasn’t that perpetual. Because it had to be evaluated at the age of 25. Which produced the mind-boggling result that he could end up being softer on criminals. It is a simple symbolic fight. The validity of the sentence, perpetual or less, does not depend much on what the law says. It is efficiency that matters. Trivial fight of symbols that is fought in the confused galleries of punitive politics. Good for the Constitutional Court. The comedy is over.

PUT 1xbet
Natasha Kumar

By Natasha Kumar

Natasha Kumar has been a reporter on the news desk since 2018. Before that she wrote about young adolescence and family dynamics for Styles and was the legal affairs correspondent for the Metro desk. Before joining The Times Hub, Natasha Kumar worked as a staff writer at the Village Voice and a freelancer for Newsday, The Wall Street Journal, GQ and Mirabella. To get in touch, contact me through my