5 ms·

It’s saddening that we as Americans tolerate this kind of abuse from the department of “justice”, FBI, and NSA. I hope any employees of the above that read my

by zionic 4y ago

It’s saddening that we as Americans tolerate this kind of abuse from the department of “justice”, FBI, and NSA. I hope any employees of the above that read my post understand that you’re working for the wrong side. Absolutely none of their justifications hold water, and it doesn’t matter that they catch a few bad guys. Their very existence is antithetical to a free and open society. Edit: To expound upon this further, I believe it’s a fundamentally American viewpoint to prefer freedom over security. We can debate where those lines are all day, but the heuristic should always favor freedom/lack of control over totalitarian surveillance. This unfortunately means that some bad things are effectively “allowed” to happen, because the trade off required to eliminate them is too severe. Edit 2: I can’t reply to any of you anymore due to the rate limit soft ban. I wish you all well. I’ll try and reply later.

My70thaccount 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mistrial9 4y ago
ok but those agencies look for enemies, and you have just made yourself one, and anyone else that agrees with you essentially, by the conflict "us or them" language. Real reform has many avenues, but none of those include becoming like your own enemy, and vilifying the job. I am not a fan and not making excuses, but the wording here is impossible to agree with, except to start some kind of riot?
- zionic 4y ago
  > but the wording here is impossible to agree with Why? You haven’t disagreed with my argument, only argued instead that winning against them is impossible so our only path is to submit and hope for incremental improvements by submitting extra hard. These agencies only exist and operate (in theory) with the consent of the governed. In reality almost no one consents to this, so these agencies rely on mass apathy and ignorance. If we talk about what they’ve done wrong, and how they actively harm America a few things happen: 1) it becomes less socially acceptable to work for them, and they struggle to attract talent 2) it becomes more politically feasible to argue for their removal The us-vs-them language is a feature, not a bug. People in large groups are (mostly) incapable of being both passionate and nuanced on the same subject. So sure, bringing up the children murdered by FBI and ATF at Waco doesn’t directly relate to ending mass illegal surveillance but it does help achieve the goal.
  - mistrial9 4y ago
    > only argued instead that winning against them is impossible so our only path is to submit that is most definitely not what I said at all
  - donthellbanme 4y ago
JKCalhoun 4y ago
> I believe it’s a fundamentally American viewpoint to prefer freedom over security Hmmm, I'm not convinced. I would have had no problem agreeing with that sentiment over two decades ago, but some extremely bad actors have made it clear that "allowing a few bad things to happen" can be orders of magnitude more brutal than I once thought possible.
- zionic 4y ago
  Are you not convinced this is correct, or not convinced it’s an American viewpoint? You could argue you disagree with the concept, but I don’t think you could honestly argue it’s not a traditionally American position.
  - JKCalhoun 4y ago
    I suppose I'm not even sure it is an American position. If it ever was, I don't think it is now, or has been for several generations. We're not farmers or fur traders anymore — we have complex and large societies. Honestly I think trying to suggest anything is "an American viewpoint" dismisses too much nuance. We're neither all cut from the same cloth nor are our origins similar.
- mistrial9 4y ago
  as a many-generation American, I believe that the great compromise here was to find some balance, where strong law-and-order can exist, and free-as-in-freedom can also exist.. There is no scenario, I think, where either side does not fail and suffer from their own excesses over time.. so the trick is to address that as the parade continues.. Yes, we do remember Watergate.
- rzz3 4y ago
  Or perhaps you’re just getting older, and your income level is rising, and you don’t operate near any edges of the bounds of the law. Due to your perspective, freedom may have become less important that security. Of course there is always a balance to be found, and everyone’s perspective is different, but personally I’m a 1 or a 2 in the `freedom |—————| safety` scale.
tastyfreeze 4y ago
The FBI has been an enemy of the people since its creation. Throughout its history it has wholesale spied on the public, collected dirt on political opponents and has been used to discredit dissidents. This agency is used solely to protect power. Their stated mission is ancillary to the true purpose. With a history like that the whole agency should be disbanded. But, power will find another way to legally spy on opponents. Before the FBI it was secret service agents that were loaned out for that kind of work.
- photochemsyn 4y ago
  I generally agree with your statement, but there is an additional function of agencies like the FBI (no, it's not to do with their PR campaigns on catching serial killers and child abuse rings). It's best explained by looking at the behavior of the US pharmaceutical corporations relative to outfits like Mexican and South American drug cartels. Both engage in the same business: selling drugs to consumers, but one is extremely violent, one is not. Most of the violence in the illegal drug trade is cartel-on-cartel violence, with a fair amount of innocent bystanders. Imagine if say, Purdue Pharma or Gilead were conducting armed raids on each other production lines, hijacking each others shipments, etc. Similarly, what if a mid-level manager at Johnson & Johnson were to abscond with millions of dollars in product and set up a rival operation? These corporations are all ultimately owned by Wall Street investors, by and large. This is who the FBI is there to serve and protect, a lot of people misunderstand that. They prevent such shenanigans as the drug cartels get up to (wholesale murder I mean) by investigating internal corporate crimes of that nature. Otherwise, the CEOs would be hiring private security (like cartel enforcers) to crack down on such things, in a extrajudicial process. The FBI also covers for the crimes of the mighty and powerful, too - HSBC laundering $2 billion in Sinaloa cartel drug money comes to mind, and then future FBI Director James Comey went to 'advise' them. No criminal charges were brought. If we look at Wall Street as a kind of white-collar organized crime ring, the FBI is basically their enforcement arm. This is why so many top top-level FBI types 'retire' to lucrative positions in Wall Street firms, as Mueller did. It's a rather telling trend. I suppose the kind of political operations they get up to are also in service of this general agenda, i.e. going after politicians who threaten Wall Street interests, covering up certain outrageous crimes that would reflect badly on the pillars of society, and so on. Overall, rather similar in function to the Soviet NKVD and the German Gestapo (and later, STASI), although not quite as powerful (they still can be embarrassed in legal proceedings, see the Steven Hatfill case, the Leonard Peltier case, etc.). So, they serve a particular function for their Wall Street masters, but it's a pretty sleazy world they live in, and nobody should trust them anymore than you'd trust some STASI operative.
missedthecue 4y ago
What do you mean "tolerate". There was massive societal backlash against the NSA in the Snowden leak fallout but it's not like a bunch of angry people on the internet can unilaterally shut down a government agency.
- the_only_law 4y ago
  > There was massive societal backlash against the NSA in the Snowden leak fallout but it's not like a bunch of angry people on the internet can unilaterally shut down a government agency. Idk part of my is still convinced that the Chauvin decision was in part a way to placate the absolute destruction proceeding it. Particularly as much more cut and dry cases that don’t attract as much of a visocus response end with the cops getting away with gunning people down who we’re even criminals
  - missedthecue 4y ago
    Convicting an unpopular guy is easy. Shutting down a government institution is not. Even Obama failed to shut down Gitmo, despite being the most powerful person in the country for 10 years.
    - Volundr 4y ago
      Did he try? I always counted it among many broken promises never even attempted.
      - snovv_crash 4y ago
        It was the first thing he tried, and he was blocked by Congress who refused to fund the shutdown operation.
        ncmncm 4y ago
        That looked to me like providing cover for not performing. All the evidence suggests Obama was Their Man from the beginning. (E.g. expanding "death from the sky" program -- even against a US citizen and his children, weaponizing Espionage Act against reporters & whistleblowers.) Most interesting to me is how They arranged to get him a Nobel Peace prize for nothing. (They got one for Kissinger, too!)
markovbot 4y ago
> It’s saddening that we as Americans tolerate this kind of abuse from the department of “justice”, FBI, and NSA. what do you suggest we do about it? We have no meaningful recourse against the myriad of government abuses.
- mistermann 4y ago
  I think if a well organized and coordinated initiative began where people talked about it in a skillful manner, and documented the outcomes of those conversations, something could come out of that. Unorganized, uncoordinated complaining on various internet forums, it seems not much comes out of this.
- lern_too_spel 4y ago
  We have the courts, the threat of which forced the government to make the only illegal program in Snowden's leaks legal. We have the ballot box, which elected Obama, who shut down email metadata surveillance even before it leaked.
  - krapp 4y ago
    Also that Second Amendment we all have to pay for with our childrens' blood in perpetuity. That's supposed to be the only thing keeping our government from slipping into tyranny. Despite all the tyranny our government has apparently slipped into.

by zionic 4y ago

My70thaccount 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

mistrial9 4y ago

ok but those agencies look for enemies, and you have just made yourself one, and anyone else that agrees with you essentially, by the conflict "us or them" language. Real reform has many avenues, but none of those include becoming like your own enemy, and vilifying the job. I am not a fan and not making excuses, but the wording here is impossible to agree with, except to start some kind of riot?

zionic 4y ago
> but the wording here is impossible to agree with Why? You haven’t disagreed with my argument, only argued instead that winning against them is impossible so our only path is to submit and hope for incremental improvements by submitting extra hard. These agencies only exist and operate (in theory) with the consent of the governed. In reality almost no one consents to this, so these agencies rely on mass apathy and ignorance. If we talk about what they’ve done wrong, and how they actively harm America a few things happen: 1) it becomes less socially acceptable to work for them, and they struggle to attract talent 2) it becomes more politically feasible to argue for their removal The us-vs-them language is a feature, not a bug. People in large groups are (mostly) incapable of being both passionate and nuanced on the same subject. So sure, bringing up the children murdered by FBI and ATF at Waco doesn’t directly relate to ending mass illegal surveillance but it does help achieve the goal.
- mistrial9 4y ago
  > only argued instead that winning against them is impossible so our only path is to submit that is most definitely not what I said at all
- donthellbanme 4y ago

JKCalhoun 4y ago

> I believe it’s a fundamentally American viewpoint to prefer freedom over security Hmmm, I'm not convinced. I would have had no problem agreeing with that sentiment over two decades ago, but some extremely bad actors have made it clear that "allowing a few bad things to happen" can be orders of magnitude more brutal than I once thought possible.

zionic 4y ago
Are you not convinced this is correct, or not convinced it’s an American viewpoint? You could argue you disagree with the concept, but I don’t think you could honestly argue it’s not a traditionally American position.
- JKCalhoun 4y ago
  I suppose I'm not even sure it is an American position. If it ever was, I don't think it is now, or has been for several generations. We're not farmers or fur traders anymore — we have complex and large societies. Honestly I think trying to suggest anything is "an American viewpoint" dismisses too much nuance. We're neither all cut from the same cloth nor are our origins similar.
mistrial9 4y ago
as a many-generation American, I believe that the great compromise here was to find some balance, where strong law-and-order can exist, and free-as-in-freedom can also exist.. There is no scenario, I think, where either side does not fail and suffer from their own excesses over time.. so the trick is to address that as the parade continues.. Yes, we do remember Watergate.
rzz3 4y ago
Or perhaps you’re just getting older, and your income level is rising, and you don’t operate near any edges of the bounds of the law. Due to your perspective, freedom may have become less important that security. Of course there is always a balance to be found, and everyone’s perspective is different, but personally I’m a 1 or a 2 in the `freedom |—————| safety` scale.

tastyfreeze 4y ago

The FBI has been an enemy of the people since its creation. Throughout its history it has wholesale spied on the public, collected dirt on political opponents and has been used to discredit dissidents. This agency is used solely to protect power. Their stated mission is ancillary to the true purpose. With a history like that the whole agency should be disbanded. But, power will find another way to legally spy on opponents. Before the FBI it was secret service agents that were loaned out for that kind of work.

photochemsyn 4y ago
I generally agree with your statement, but there is an additional function of agencies like the FBI (no, it's not to do with their PR campaigns on catching serial killers and child abuse rings). It's best explained by looking at the behavior of the US pharmaceutical corporations relative to outfits like Mexican and South American drug cartels. Both engage in the same business: selling drugs to consumers, but one is extremely violent, one is not. Most of the violence in the illegal drug trade is cartel-on-cartel violence, with a fair amount of innocent bystanders. Imagine if say, Purdue Pharma or Gilead were conducting armed raids on each other production lines, hijacking each others shipments, etc. Similarly, what if a mid-level manager at Johnson & Johnson were to abscond with millions of dollars in product and set up a rival operation? These corporations are all ultimately owned by Wall Street investors, by and large. This is who the FBI is there to serve and protect, a lot of people misunderstand that. They prevent such shenanigans as the drug cartels get up to (wholesale murder I mean) by investigating internal corporate crimes of that nature. Otherwise, the CEOs would be hiring private security (like cartel enforcers) to crack down on such things, in a extrajudicial process. The FBI also covers for the crimes of the mighty and powerful, too - HSBC laundering $2 billion in Sinaloa cartel drug money comes to mind, and then future FBI Director James Comey went to 'advise' them. No criminal charges were brought. If we look at Wall Street as a kind of white-collar organized crime ring, the FBI is basically their enforcement arm. This is why so many top top-level FBI types 'retire' to lucrative positions in Wall Street firms, as Mueller did. It's a rather telling trend. I suppose the kind of political operations they get up to are also in service of this general agenda, i.e. going after politicians who threaten Wall Street interests, covering up certain outrageous crimes that would reflect badly on the pillars of society, and so on. Overall, rather similar in function to the Soviet NKVD and the German Gestapo (and later, STASI), although not quite as powerful (they still can be embarrassed in legal proceedings, see the Steven Hatfill case, the Leonard Peltier case, etc.). So, they serve a particular function for their Wall Street masters, but it's a pretty sleazy world they live in, and nobody should trust them anymore than you'd trust some STASI operative.

missedthecue 4y ago

What do you mean "tolerate". There was massive societal backlash against the NSA in the Snowden leak fallout but it's not like a bunch of angry people on the internet can unilaterally shut down a government agency.

the_only_law 4y ago
> There was massive societal backlash against the NSA in the Snowden leak fallout but it's not like a bunch of angry people on the internet can unilaterally shut down a government agency. Idk part of my is still convinced that the Chauvin decision was in part a way to placate the absolute destruction proceeding it. Particularly as much more cut and dry cases that don’t attract as much of a visocus response end with the cops getting away with gunning people down who we’re even criminals
- missedthecue 4y ago
  Convicting an unpopular guy is easy. Shutting down a government institution is not. Even Obama failed to shut down Gitmo, despite being the most powerful person in the country for 10 years.
  - Volundr 4y ago
    Did he try? I always counted it among many broken promises never even attempted.
    - snovv_crash 4y ago
      It was the first thing he tried, and he was blocked by Congress who refused to fund the shutdown operation.
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        That looked to me like providing cover for not performing. All the evidence suggests Obama was Their Man from the beginning. (E.g. expanding "death from the sky" program -- even against a US citizen and his children, weaponizing Espionage Act against reporters & whistleblowers.) Most interesting to me is how They arranged to get him a Nobel Peace prize for nothing. (They got one for Kissinger, too!)

markovbot 4y ago

> It’s saddening that we as Americans tolerate this kind of abuse from the department of “justice”, FBI, and NSA. what do you suggest we do about it? We have no meaningful recourse against the myriad of government abuses.

mistermann 4y ago
I think if a well organized and coordinated initiative began where people talked about it in a skillful manner, and documented the outcomes of those conversations, something could come out of that. Unorganized, uncoordinated complaining on various internet forums, it seems not much comes out of this.
lern_too_spel 4y ago
We have the courts, the threat of which forced the government to make the only illegal program in Snowden's leaks legal. We have the ballot box, which elected Obama, who shut down email metadata surveillance even before it leaked.
- krapp 4y ago
  Also that Second Amendment we all have to pay for with our childrens' blood in perpetuity. That's supposed to be the only thing keeping our government from slipping into tyranny. Despite all the tyranny our government has apparently slipped into.