4 ms·

> Imagine if our justice system worked like this, where you could get convicted without ever seeing the evidence against you because it would reveal the methods

by koolba 5y ago

> Imagine if our justice system worked like this, where you could get convicted without ever seeing the evidence against you because it would reveal the methods the police used. That exists and it’s just as prone to abuse as you think: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intellig...

em3rgent0rdr 5y ago
Also the US No Fly List.
- Tao332 5y ago
  Also the Disposition Matrix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix
  - xvector 5y ago
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - teawrecks 5y ago
      We are in charge of protecting our country. We choose who does it, and should hold those who don't do it appropriately accountable.
      - xvector 5y ago
        And the Disposition Matrix has been hailed as an extremely effective component with regards to protecting our country. It does not target US citizens, so there isn't really any concern here.
        Tao332 5y ago
        > It does not target US citizens, so there isn't really any concern here. Ah, sorry I didn't catch the Socratic Irony you were employing until you served up this meatball. This is the part where the interlocutor points out "but the first time most of us even heard about the Disposition Matrix was when it was used against Anwar al-Alwaki -- a US citizen!"
        xvector 5y ago
        Maybe it's just me, but I'm fine with your citizenship rights being revoked when you plot to kill foreigners and join Al-Qaeda and become a commander of a terrorist organization.
    - nitwit005 5y ago
      Even the people who are directly in charge of protecting the country have raised concerns about this.
      - xvector 5y ago
        Reading the article, the opposite is mentioned - almost every leader that has come across the program has praised its effectiveness and has called it an "easy decision."
    - _dain_ 5y ago
    - icambron 5y ago
      We’re not in an armchair. This is our country; they’re responsible to us.
      - sfe22 5y ago
        That is just in popular culture. In theory and reality, there in no need for your or any other American’s blessing for the feds, congress, president or even judges to exist and have power.
        icambron 5y ago
        This is moving the goalposts: "it's inappropriate for you to have an opinion" vs "you are a powerless peon, so ha". Also, I don't know what you mean by "in theory"; government by the people is very much the basis of government here.
        sfe22 5y ago
        It mentions “by the people” however the roles and the power exists without people’s continued consent, which makes the words worthless.
      - xvector 5y ago
        And they are responsible for protecting us too. They have far more information and understanding regarding our enemies than we could ever have. What makes you think that you could possibly be qualified to comment on the necessity and efficacy of the program when you lack the experience and day-to-day responsibilities that they have? Would you trust grandma with cybersecurity? It's the same principle here. No one here knows anything about national security and defense, so maybe we should stop judging programs that have been deemed to be extraordinarily effective when deployed against (non-citizen) enemies of state. Obviously, the discussion gets a bit thornier when citizens are involved, but that is not the case here.
        raxxorraxor 5y ago
        Better be thorough with that or maybe such things make people want to bomb a high rise or two. Cynical yes, but a realistic consequence of ideas like that. The career as a lawyer didn't seem to influence Obama on this decision very much.
    - Tao332 5y ago
- fortran77 5y ago

by koolba 5y ago

em3rgent0rdr 5y ago

Also the US No Fly List.

Tao332 5y ago
Also the Disposition Matrix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix
- xvector 5y ago
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - teawrecks 5y ago
    We are in charge of protecting our country. We choose who does it, and should hold those who don't do it appropriately accountable.
    - xvector 5y ago
      And the Disposition Matrix has been hailed as an extremely effective component with regards to protecting our country. It does not target US citizens, so there isn't really any concern here.
      - Tao332 5y ago
        > It does not target US citizens, so there isn't really any concern here. Ah, sorry I didn't catch the Socratic Irony you were employing until you served up this meatball. This is the part where the interlocutor points out "but the first time most of us even heard about the Disposition Matrix was when it was used against Anwar al-Alwaki -- a US citizen!"
        xvector 5y ago
        Maybe it's just me, but I'm fine with your citizenship rights being revoked when you plot to kill foreigners and join Al-Qaeda and become a commander of a terrorist organization.
  - nitwit005 5y ago
    Even the people who are directly in charge of protecting the country have raised concerns about this.
    - xvector 5y ago
      Reading the article, the opposite is mentioned - almost every leader that has come across the program has praised its effectiveness and has called it an "easy decision."
  - _dain_ 5y ago
  - icambron 5y ago
    We’re not in an armchair. This is our country; they’re responsible to us.
    - sfe22 5y ago
      That is just in popular culture. In theory and reality, there in no need for your or any other American’s blessing for the feds, congress, president or even judges to exist and have power.
      - icambron 5y ago
        This is moving the goalposts: "it's inappropriate for you to have an opinion" vs "you are a powerless peon, so ha". Also, I don't know what you mean by "in theory"; government by the people is very much the basis of government here.
        sfe22 5y ago
        It mentions “by the people” however the roles and the power exists without people’s continued consent, which makes the words worthless.
    - xvector 5y ago
      And they are responsible for protecting us too. They have far more information and understanding regarding our enemies than we could ever have. What makes you think that you could possibly be qualified to comment on the necessity and efficacy of the program when you lack the experience and day-to-day responsibilities that they have? Would you trust grandma with cybersecurity? It's the same principle here. No one here knows anything about national security and defense, so maybe we should stop judging programs that have been deemed to be extraordinarily effective when deployed against (non-citizen) enemies of state. Obviously, the discussion gets a bit thornier when citizens are involved, but that is not the case here.
      - raxxorraxor 5y ago
        Better be thorough with that or maybe such things make people want to bomb a high rise or two. Cynical yes, but a realistic consequence of ideas like that. The career as a lawyer didn't seem to influence Obama on this decision very much.
  - Tao332 5y ago
fortran77 5y ago