5 ms·

No doubt. But, say that the NSA were given the purvue over enforcing sanctions (because they are the national security agency). Should they be able to monitor w

No doubt. But, say that the NSA were given the purvue over enforcing sanctions (because they are the national security agency). Should they be able to monitor who is visiting the country with the sanctions? Sanctions are kind of like the tax agency situation - if you're going to wield them as a national security tool, then you want to be able to enforce them, otherwise they're relatively meaningless. And enforcing them necessarily involves watching to see if your country's citizens are evading them.

Zak 5y ago
I don't want the NSA to perform domestic civilian law enforcement functions any more than I want the army to, for similar reasons. The type of oversight applied to military and foreign intelligence action is fundamentally political. Whether and how to impose sanctions against, spy on, or invade another country are questions for congress and the president in the US and rarely involve the courts. The type of oversight applied to law enforcement is fundamentally legal. Courts apply existing law to the set of facts in a given case. Congress and the president do not get involved directly and any attempt by political officials to influence the outcome is scandalous, if not criminal. So should the NSA hack Iran's immigration database to see who's been going there? Perhaps. Should anything discovered that way be admissible in a criminal trial? Almost certainly not. Should the NSA tip off the FBI about domestic crimes? Mostly no, I think, but perhaps in a very limited fashion when the crimes involve national security or foreign policy. Gathering evidence that can be used in a criminal trial would still be the responsibility of the FBI.
- LogonType10 5y ago
  What about when Russian hackers shut down American hospitals and can't be extradited? Who's going to hack back and enforce the law? The FBI can't do it.
  - Zak 5y ago
    When foreign actors commit such an act from outside the country, and their government isn't cooperative about stopping/punishing them, that's exactly the kind of thing intelligence agencies should be involved with.
    - LogonType10 5y ago
      So you want intelligence agencies to enforce the US criminal code?
      - Zak 5y ago
        Certainly not. I want US intelligence agencies to take action against foreign threat actors to reduce their capacity to cause harm to US citizens and infrastructure.
        LogonType10 5y ago
        So if the FBI can arrest them, they're criminals and we should follow criminal procedure, but if the FBI says they can't arrest them, then we "take action" (what action)?
        gsk22 5y ago
        You're bending over backwards to misunderstand. The original author said: "I don't want the NSA to perform domestic civilian law enforcement functions" In other words, the FBI (and police, etc) perform domestic law enforcement, following criminal procedure. The NSA, CIA, etc handle non-domestic (foreign) threats, in whatever manner they see fit.

Zak 5y ago

I don't want the NSA to perform domestic civilian law enforcement functions any more than I want the army to, for similar reasons. The type of oversight applied to military and foreign intelligence action is fundamentally political. Whether and how to impose sanctions against, spy on, or invade another country are questions for congress and the president in the US and rarely involve the courts. The type of oversight applied to law enforcement is fundamentally legal. Courts apply existing law to the set of facts in a given case. Congress and the president do not get involved directly and any attempt by political officials to influence the outcome is scandalous, if not criminal. So should the NSA hack Iran's immigration database to see who's been going there? Perhaps. Should anything discovered that way be admissible in a criminal trial? Almost certainly not. Should the NSA tip off the FBI about domestic crimes? Mostly no, I think, but perhaps in a very limited fashion when the crimes involve national security or foreign policy. Gathering evidence that can be used in a criminal trial would still be the responsibility of the FBI.

LogonType10 5y ago
What about when Russian hackers shut down American hospitals and can't be extradited? Who's going to hack back and enforce the law? The FBI can't do it.
- Zak 5y ago
  When foreign actors commit such an act from outside the country, and their government isn't cooperative about stopping/punishing them, that's exactly the kind of thing intelligence agencies should be involved with.
  - LogonType10 5y ago
    So you want intelligence agencies to enforce the US criminal code?
    - Zak 5y ago
      Certainly not. I want US intelligence agencies to take action against foreign threat actors to reduce their capacity to cause harm to US citizens and infrastructure.
      - LogonType10 5y ago
        So if the FBI can arrest them, they're criminals and we should follow criminal procedure, but if the FBI says they can't arrest them, then we "take action" (what action)?
        gsk22 5y ago
        You're bending over backwards to misunderstand. The original author said: "I don't want the NSA to perform domestic civilian law enforcement functions" In other words, the FBI (and police, etc) perform domestic law enforcement, following criminal procedure. The NSA, CIA, etc handle non-domestic (foreign) threats, in whatever manner they see fit.