4 ms·

No, because they'd be entering my house. If I send an SMS, however, it goes out of my house, you see? Discretion of investigators, prosecutors, and judges mean

No, because they'd be entering my house. If I send an SMS, however, it goes out of my house, you see? Discretion of investigators, prosecutors, and judges means that the "you break federal laws every day" is a no-op argument, and repealing laws takes a lot of work. I'd rather Congress focused on e.g. fixing healthcare. Parallel construction has existed at least as long as the USA, i.e. since there have been non-public data sources. Parents, do it too. If you're upset about it you're a child. "Arbitrary, secret laws"? What a load of nonsense. Congress passes and debates every federal law in public (albeit sometimes a bit quickly). You mean secret interpretations of laws by FISA? Yeah, not exactly news and relatively public and subject to review by elected lawmakers. How, exactly, do you suggest counterintel should work, sans secret courts? It doesn't concern me because this combination stems from ignorance and an overactive imagination that wants to see evil where there is no evidence of evil. I imagine the systems you mention has avenues for abuse and also checks to make sure they are not abused. We should absolutely be vigilant for signs of abuse and talk about them. Given the concrete issues facing our society right now, abuse by lawless investigators colluding with a court appointed by SCOTUS to... do what, exactly?

infogulch 9y ago
I see, so you'd be fine with them scanning and storing a copy of every piece of mail that ever crossed your mailbox in the same fashion. If you're ok with having to rely on their discretion we may already be talking past each other. A bedrock principle of the constitution and amendments are that the government's discretion can't be trusted, so discretion must be limited and controlled and standardized. My point is that discretion to use a power is no different from just having the power outright. Appeal to tradition, a strawman, followed by an ad hominem. I hope you're saving a better counter for later. Parents don't need parallel construction, they already have absolute power and can investigate however they wish. Are you sure you understand what parallel construction is? A simplified example: A prosecutor wants to convict a citizen (for whatever reason) but they don't have any evidence, so they use illegal means to find evidence that they couldn't have practically found otherwise. But this is inadmissible in court, so they fabricate an "investigation" that -- through the prosecutor's superior "intuition" and uncannily accurate "hunches" -- ends up producing some of the same evidence, enough to make a conviction. I don't understand your goal here, are you saying that parallel construction is fine and the source of evidence doesn't matter? It sounds like you're trying to throw out the exclusionary rule altogether. I'm sorry you're not aware about the existence of secret laws. Please read up on it [1], it may be enlightening. If you take issue with my use of the adjective "arbitrary", I'll give you that. (But if they're secret how is that really so different from arbitrary?) If you take issue with my colloquial use of "law" that includes regulations, executive branch pronouncements, and secret interpretations that fundamentally change the plain reading of statutes, I'm not sure what to tell you other than to stop being pedantic and think of the bigger picture. "Couterintel" is an overused excuse employed to dodge accountability, most of the time it doesn't need to be secret. "Subject to review". Yeah, sure [2]. What you see as "overactive imagination" I see as a healthy distrust of the government, because "all men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree" [James Madison, 3]. Yes the checks exist, but the systems I mention are the circumvention of these same checks. What I see from you is sticking your fingers in your ear, burying your head in the sand, and singing LALALA as loud as you can when presented with evidence of the very abuses for which you say we should stay vigilant. [1]: http://www.brennancenter.org/publication/new-era-secret-law http://www.brennancenter.org/publication/new-era-secret-law or https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/18/opinion/the-governments-addiction-to-secret-law.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/18/opinion/the-governments-a... [2]: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/19/fisa-court-oversight-process-secrecy https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/19/fisa-c... [3]: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_711.asp http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_711.asp

infogulch 9y ago

I see, so you'd be fine with them scanning and storing a copy of every piece of mail that ever crossed your mailbox in the same fashion. If you're ok with having to rely on their discretion we may already be talking past each other. A bedrock principle of the constitution and amendments are that the government's discretion can't be trusted, so discretion must be limited and controlled and standardized. My point is that discretion to use a power is no different from just having the power outright. Appeal to tradition, a strawman, followed by an ad hominem. I hope you're saving a better counter for later. Parents don't need parallel construction, they already have absolute power and can investigate however they wish. Are you sure you understand what parallel construction is? A simplified example: A prosecutor wants to convict a citizen (for whatever reason) but they don't have any evidence, so they use illegal means to find evidence that they couldn't have practically found otherwise. But this is inadmissible in court, so they fabricate an "investigation" that -- through the prosecutor's superior "intuition" and uncannily accurate "hunches" -- ends up producing some of the same evidence, enough to make a conviction. I don't understand your goal here, are you saying that parallel construction is fine and the source of evidence doesn't matter? It sounds like you're trying to throw out the exclusionary rule altogether. I'm sorry you're not aware about the existence of secret laws. Please read up on it [1], it may be enlightening. If you take issue with my use of the adjective "arbitrary", I'll give you that. (But if they're secret how is that really so different from arbitrary?) If you take issue with my colloquial use of "law" that includes regulations, executive branch pronouncements, and secret interpretations that fundamentally change the plain reading of statutes, I'm not sure what to tell you other than to stop being pedantic and think of the bigger picture. "Couterintel" is an overused excuse employed to dodge accountability, most of the time it doesn't need to be secret. "Subject to review". Yeah, sure [2]. What you see as "overactive imagination" I see as a healthy distrust of the government, because "all men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree" [James Madison, 3]. Yes the checks exist, but the systems I mention are the circumvention of these same checks. What I see from you is sticking your fingers in your ear, burying your head in the sand, and singing LALALA as loud as you can when presented with evidence of the very abuses for which you say we should stay vigilant. [1]: http://www.brennancenter.org/publication/new-era-secret-law http://www.brennancenter.org/publication/new-era-secret-law or https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/18/opinion/the-governments-addiction-to-secret-law.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/18/opinion/the-governments-a... [2]: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/19/fisa-court-oversight-process-secrecy https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/19/fisa-c... [3]: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_711.asp http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_711.asp