3 ms·

So who's going to prison over these "illegal searches"? Oh, let me guess - nobody, because intelligence agencies seem to always be above the law?

by mtgx 9y ago

type0 9y ago
Intelligence agencies often have judge Dredd mentality- "I never broke the law, I am the Law!"
- Bakary 9y ago
  The law has power only because it can be (potentially) enforced.
josteink 9y ago
Why should the people in power go to prison for doing illegal stuff just because they got caught? If they don't imprison themsleves, who's going to force them? What do they have to lose by not doing so themselves? These are the simple questions (with relatively simple answers) you need to ask. If they have nothing to lose, then why do you expect them to follow the law? Until you give them something to lose, why should you expect them to change their behaviour?
- ff10 9y ago
  You're exactly describing the reason why there is checks and balances. "People in power" is supposed to be a heterogenous group with different interests and formal functions. Your post suggests that it doesn't work properly in your country anymore. I wonder where exactly one could pinpoint the weak spots and systemic issues.
  - ryanlol 9y ago
    >Your post suggests that it doesn't work properly in your country anymore Your post seems to suggest that the default is it working, is that really true? Does it actually work anywhere?
  - SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago
    IMO the weak spot is that there's only one executive branch, and they have discretion over whether to enforce the law in any given case. They can choose not to arrest themselves, or prosecute themselves. If the system were structured with two executive branches, each of which had the power to enforce the law against members of the opposition executive branch, and a sense of opposition / competition could be maintained, then this wouldn't be an issue. There's also the issue that the executive has all the real power. The courts and congress can send strongly worded letters, the executive has all the guns. This hasn't yet become a direct problem in the US, but it has in many other countries.
    - talmand 9y ago
      Except now we'll have two executive branches with even more power that will secretly agree to work together against the other branches.
    - marcosdumay 9y ago
      Every place has only one executive branch. That does not make everybody there share the same goals. You have a structural problem within your country, because the FBI should be clearly working towards arresting the NSA people, for example.
wtf_is_up 9y ago
Government oversight is a joke. You don't even have to obey subpoenas to show up to testify, as we saw with Bryan Pagliano. [1]: http://observer.com/2016/09/not-a-single-democrat-held-clinton-it-aide-in-contempt/ http://observer.com/2016/09/not-a-single-democrat-held-clint...

So who's going to prison over these "illegal searches"? Oh, let me guess - nobody, because intelligence agencies seem to always be above the law?

by mtgx 9y ago

So who's going to prison over these "illegal searches"? Oh, let me guess - nobody, because intelligence agencies seem to always be above the law?

type0 9y ago

Intelligence agencies often have judge Dredd mentality- "I never broke the law, I am the Law!"

Bakary 9y ago
The law has power only because it can be (potentially) enforced.

josteink 9y ago

Why should the people in power go to prison for doing illegal stuff just because they got caught? If they don't imprison themsleves, who's going to force them? What do they have to lose by not doing so themselves? These are the simple questions (with relatively simple answers) you need to ask. If they have nothing to lose, then why do you expect them to follow the law? Until you give them something to lose, why should you expect them to change their behaviour?

ff10 9y ago
You're exactly describing the reason why there is checks and balances. "People in power" is supposed to be a heterogenous group with different interests and formal functions. Your post suggests that it doesn't work properly in your country anymore. I wonder where exactly one could pinpoint the weak spots and systemic issues.
- ryanlol 9y ago
  >Your post suggests that it doesn't work properly in your country anymore Your post seems to suggest that the default is it working, is that really true? Does it actually work anywhere?
- SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago
  IMO the weak spot is that there's only one executive branch, and they have discretion over whether to enforce the law in any given case. They can choose not to arrest themselves, or prosecute themselves. If the system were structured with two executive branches, each of which had the power to enforce the law against members of the opposition executive branch, and a sense of opposition / competition could be maintained, then this wouldn't be an issue. There's also the issue that the executive has all the real power. The courts and congress can send strongly worded letters, the executive has all the guns. This hasn't yet become a direct problem in the US, but it has in many other countries.
  - talmand 9y ago
    Except now we'll have two executive branches with even more power that will secretly agree to work together against the other branches.
  - marcosdumay 9y ago
    Every place has only one executive branch. That does not make everybody there share the same goals. You have a structural problem within your country, because the FBI should be clearly working towards arresting the NSA people, for example.

wtf_is_up 9y ago

Government oversight is a joke. You don't even have to obey subpoenas to show up to testify, as we saw with Bryan Pagliano. [1]: http://observer.com/2016/09/not-a-single-democrat-held-clinton-it-aide-in-contempt/ http://observer.com/2016/09/not-a-single-democrat-held-clint...