7 ms·

Yup. I'm consistently amazed at the law enforcement apologists who vociferously argue about one's legal options in circumstances where law enforcement is alread

Yup. I'm consistently amazed at the law enforcement apologists who vociferously argue about one's legal options in circumstances where law enforcement is already conducting itself illegally. Meta: I understand that HN encompasses far, far more than classical hacker culture, but the pro-authoritarian drift of this community is really becoming apparent.

rayiner 11y ago
A few Bivens lawsuits isn't going to deter one whit an FBI that's already doing things that illegal. All it will do is get the judiciary to burn institutional capital on what is fundamentally a political issue. There is a big difference between saying that the courts are not the right way to fix the problem and saying that what the FBI is doing is not a problem at all. Getting the courts involved in these foreign national security issues undermines the institutional capital of the judiciary. It makes it more likely that the government will get used to ignoring court authority when it comes to core domestic functions.
- fweespeech 11y ago
  The fact the Federal Government is wielding nonacquiescence so brazenly, to the point of clear violations of the rights of US citizens, is pretty much a sign that the institutional capital has run out and they have no fear of repercussions from the court system.
- mindslight 11y ago
  > Getting the courts involved in these foreign national security issues undermines the institutional capital of the judiciary. The courts shirking justice when LEOs transgress undermines their institutional capital with the only group that should actually matter - the people. When "law enforcement" can routinely violate the law yet not be charged and the victims not made whole, equal protection has gone out the window. Why should anyone respect a "court" that simply functions as a rubber stamp for government activities?
  - rayiner 11y ago
    If "the people" cared about LEOs violating the rights of accused criminals and terrorists, they'd stop voting for hard-line authoritarians that promise to be tough on crime/terrorism. Instead, they vote for them at all levels of government. Even Obama gained a lot of popularity in his second campaign for being the guy who put a bullet in the head of Osama bin Laden.
    - jdc 11y ago
      I doubt the pro-Republic view folds quite so easily.
jdc 11y ago
I get a similar feeling, but I think it's more just pro-status quo.
the_watcher 11y ago
I didn't read this thread as law enforcement apologism (though I guess I can see it that way now that it's been pointed out). My read on it was that the cited lawsuits and legal remedies currently being waged aren't actually over the legality of his detention, but over compensation owed to him.
rdtsc 11y ago
I am also a bit perplexed at "only talk with police after you talk to a lawyer". I understand the idea and support it in theory. But it is still surprising that people would have lawyers on speed dial so-to-speak? I don't have one. Should I find a lawyer? Does everyone have one and I am just weird?
spacemanmatt 11y ago
I wouldn't call it a drift.

rayiner 11y ago

A few Bivens lawsuits isn't going to deter one whit an FBI that's already doing things that illegal. All it will do is get the judiciary to burn institutional capital on what is fundamentally a political issue. There is a big difference between saying that the courts are not the right way to fix the problem and saying that what the FBI is doing is not a problem at all. Getting the courts involved in these foreign national security issues undermines the institutional capital of the judiciary. It makes it more likely that the government will get used to ignoring court authority when it comes to core domestic functions.

fweespeech 11y ago
The fact the Federal Government is wielding nonacquiescence so brazenly, to the point of clear violations of the rights of US citizens, is pretty much a sign that the institutional capital has run out and they have no fear of repercussions from the court system.
mindslight 11y ago
> Getting the courts involved in these foreign national security issues undermines the institutional capital of the judiciary. The courts shirking justice when LEOs transgress undermines their institutional capital with the only group that should actually matter - the people. When "law enforcement" can routinely violate the law yet not be charged and the victims not made whole, equal protection has gone out the window. Why should anyone respect a "court" that simply functions as a rubber stamp for government activities?
- rayiner 11y ago
  If "the people" cared about LEOs violating the rights of accused criminals and terrorists, they'd stop voting for hard-line authoritarians that promise to be tough on crime/terrorism. Instead, they vote for them at all levels of government. Even Obama gained a lot of popularity in his second campaign for being the guy who put a bullet in the head of Osama bin Laden.
  - jdc 11y ago
    I doubt the pro-Republic view folds quite so easily.

jdc 11y ago

I get a similar feeling, but I think it's more just pro-status quo.

the_watcher 11y ago

I didn't read this thread as law enforcement apologism (though I guess I can see it that way now that it's been pointed out). My read on it was that the cited lawsuits and legal remedies currently being waged aren't actually over the legality of his detention, but over compensation owed to him.

rdtsc 11y ago

I am also a bit perplexed at "only talk with police after you talk to a lawyer". I understand the idea and support it in theory. But it is still surprising that people would have lawyers on speed dial so-to-speak? I don't have one. Should I find a lawyer? Does everyone have one and I am just weird?

spacemanmatt 11y ago

I wouldn't call it a drift.