5 ms·

"In 2008, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the FBI was only entitled to get the name, address, length of service, and toll billin

"In 2008, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the FBI was only entitled to get the name, address, length of service, and toll billing records from companies without a warrant. Opinions issued by the OLC are generally treated as binding and final within the executive branch." "The FBI has said it disagrees with that conclusion, and interprets the opinion differently, according to a 2014 inspector general report. It sees the question as more of an “impasse” than an actual legal barrier." It's madness to me that the FBI can just say "na, we see it differently" and until the Supreme Court tells them to stop (and even then?) they'll do whatever they want.

rayiner 10y ago
It represents a real failure of leadership on the part of the President if parts of the executive are ignoring OLC opinions.
- leereeves 10y ago
  What's the OLC's authority? Is their opinion binding?
  - scintill76 10y ago
    From above, "Opinions issued by the OLC are generally treated as binding and final within the executive branch." So they don't have any legal authority or hierarchy per se since they're two parts of one legally defined branch of the government, but apparently the OLC is supposed to be the authority.
    - kahnpro 10y ago
      But is the president not in charge of the entire executive branch? If he wanted to fix it, could be not issue binding orders?
      - DiabloD3 10y ago
        I'm not an expert on law by any means, but I think Obama can fix this with an executive order.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - rayiner 10y ago
    It's not formally binding. But the executive is a single entity under the President. Constitutionally, the FBI doesn't have any independence. The OLC is like the executive's in-house legal counsel. One part of the executive ignoring its opinions is like having a division in your company ignoring your legal department's opinions and coming to its own conclusions. It represents a failure of leadership at the top.
    - krashnburn200 10y ago
      If by leadership you mean fire the instigator of the asshattery then I agree with you.
      - rayiner 10y ago
        Sure. But failure to fire the people being insubordinate is also a failure of the President's leadership.
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        The people being insubordinate may well not be political appointees that serve at the pleasure of the President and who therefore could be fired by the President (and, procedurally, the President can't directly institute the processes which would lead to firing them, either), and while the President can fire the political appointees above them, the President can't replace those political appointees without the cooperation of the Senate (unless the opportunity for a recess appointment pops up.)
        ryanlol 10y ago
        Failure to fire those political appointees for not firing insubordinates is hardly defensible.
      - Pica_soO 10y ago
        Wenn das der Führer wüsste..
    - 10y ago
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > It represents a real failure of leadership on the part of the President if parts of the executive are ignoring OLC opinions. Whatever it might be executive-branch-wide if non-DOJ agencies were doing that, its a failure of leadership within DOJ if entities within DOJ are ignoring OLC opinions. Which is the issue here; the lowest common level of authority between FBI and OLC isn't the President of the United States.
jklinger410 10y ago
At what point will the public realize the truth of rogue agencies and corruption of power in the military and FBI/CIA?
- 1121redblackgo 10y ago
  The public realizes the truth. But what can we do as individuals? The best we can do is, what, teach our children the value of philosophy and a common humanity and hopefully have them occupy these leadership roles in a capacity that follows the rule of law and the greater goals? How do individuals change a system that rewards loyalty, secrecy, and praise to higher ups who run with the status quo way of thinking? Shit, I even recognize that if I was put into a middling position at the CIA/FBI/ETC that I would probably forgo several of my personal moral/political positions to keep and progress in my job. Changes can come externally through art and civil demonstrations of our power, but really, it may be that our best path is the slow one through education, which is slow, and long, and again, very slow. And very painful.
  - PavlovsCat 10y ago
    I think you also have to organize and get money out of and honest people into politics. Just consider Stav Shaffir, who near the end of this video makes some very good points about idealists and their aversion to power: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eqCprXn_UY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eqCprXn_UY If more people were "more like that", and if more of them would manage the "quantum leap" into serious politics, that would still be slow and painful, but at least more than asking for things or offering facts. Don't get me wrong, that is all very necessary and good, but it's not quite enough IMHO.
    - krashnburn200 10y ago
      >organize If only there were not an agency dedicated to the disruption of organized opposition. It's incredibly simple to disrupt emerging organizations in to chaos when you have access to everyone's metadata. You don't have to assassinate anyone, you don't even have to discredit all of the important nodes, although that's a useful tool. Many of the critical nodes won't recognize themselves as such. Divert them to other interests, personal, professional, philosophical/moral or legal... And a movement sputters and scatters in to emephera instead of transitioning in to an effective force for change. Social judo is vastly more effective than jackboots ever dream of being.
nyolfen 10y ago
US agencies do what they want until they're told otherwise. i realize it's a legal burden to step outside of those bounds, but know that the agent who interviewed you spent ten or twenty times your effort to make sure your input was meaningful. type a serious racial slur along with an offense if you'd like me to reply to this.

rayiner 10y ago

It represents a real failure of leadership on the part of the President if parts of the executive are ignoring OLC opinions.

leereeves 10y ago
What's the OLC's authority? Is their opinion binding?
- scintill76 10y ago
  From above, "Opinions issued by the OLC are generally treated as binding and final within the executive branch." So they don't have any legal authority or hierarchy per se since they're two parts of one legally defined branch of the government, but apparently the OLC is supposed to be the authority.
  - kahnpro 10y ago
    But is the president not in charge of the entire executive branch? If he wanted to fix it, could be not issue binding orders?
    - DiabloD3 10y ago
      I'm not an expert on law by any means, but I think Obama can fix this with an executive order.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- rayiner 10y ago
  It's not formally binding. But the executive is a single entity under the President. Constitutionally, the FBI doesn't have any independence. The OLC is like the executive's in-house legal counsel. One part of the executive ignoring its opinions is like having a division in your company ignoring your legal department's opinions and coming to its own conclusions. It represents a failure of leadership at the top.
  - krashnburn200 10y ago
    If by leadership you mean fire the instigator of the asshattery then I agree with you.
    - rayiner 10y ago
      Sure. But failure to fire the people being insubordinate is also a failure of the President's leadership.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        The people being insubordinate may well not be political appointees that serve at the pleasure of the President and who therefore could be fired by the President (and, procedurally, the President can't directly institute the processes which would lead to firing them, either), and while the President can fire the political appointees above them, the President can't replace those political appointees without the cooperation of the Senate (unless the opportunity for a recess appointment pops up.)
        ryanlol 10y ago
        Failure to fire those political appointees for not firing insubordinates is hardly defensible.
    - Pica_soO 10y ago
      Wenn das der Führer wüsste..
  - 10y ago
dragonwriter 10y ago
> It represents a real failure of leadership on the part of the President if parts of the executive are ignoring OLC opinions. Whatever it might be executive-branch-wide if non-DOJ agencies were doing that, its a failure of leadership within DOJ if entities within DOJ are ignoring OLC opinions. Which is the issue here; the lowest common level of authority between FBI and OLC isn't the President of the United States.

jklinger410 10y ago

At what point will the public realize the truth of rogue agencies and corruption of power in the military and FBI/CIA?

1121redblackgo 10y ago
The public realizes the truth. But what can we do as individuals? The best we can do is, what, teach our children the value of philosophy and a common humanity and hopefully have them occupy these leadership roles in a capacity that follows the rule of law and the greater goals? How do individuals change a system that rewards loyalty, secrecy, and praise to higher ups who run with the status quo way of thinking? Shit, I even recognize that if I was put into a middling position at the CIA/FBI/ETC that I would probably forgo several of my personal moral/political positions to keep and progress in my job. Changes can come externally through art and civil demonstrations of our power, but really, it may be that our best path is the slow one through education, which is slow, and long, and again, very slow. And very painful.
- PavlovsCat 10y ago
  I think you also have to organize and get money out of and honest people into politics. Just consider Stav Shaffir, who near the end of this video makes some very good points about idealists and their aversion to power: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eqCprXn_UY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eqCprXn_UY If more people were "more like that", and if more of them would manage the "quantum leap" into serious politics, that would still be slow and painful, but at least more than asking for things or offering facts. Don't get me wrong, that is all very necessary and good, but it's not quite enough IMHO.
  - krashnburn200 10y ago
    >organize If only there were not an agency dedicated to the disruption of organized opposition. It's incredibly simple to disrupt emerging organizations in to chaos when you have access to everyone's metadata. You don't have to assassinate anyone, you don't even have to discredit all of the important nodes, although that's a useful tool. Many of the critical nodes won't recognize themselves as such. Divert them to other interests, personal, professional, philosophical/moral or legal... And a movement sputters and scatters in to emephera instead of transitioning in to an effective force for change. Social judo is vastly more effective than jackboots ever dream of being.

nyolfen 10y ago

US agencies do what they want until they're told otherwise. i realize it's a legal burden to step outside of those bounds, but know that the agent who interviewed you spent ten or twenty times your effort to make sure your input was meaningful. type a serious racial slur along with an offense if you'd like me to reply to this.