19 ms·

The idea that because the courts will rubber stamp a warrant is not a valid rebuttal to unchecked power Just like the saying that a "federal prosecutor could g

The idea that because the courts will rubber stamp a warrant is not a valid rebuttal to unchecked power Just like the saying that a "federal prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich" like wise the FBI could get a warrant for anything they desire at any time The warrant requirement is a not a check on power, and has not been for decades, the courts and our legal system is no longer a protector of rights, or justice and has not been for a long long long time.

ajross 4y ago
> The idea that because the courts will rubber stamp a warrant is not a valid rebuttal to unchecked power But the crime is "release of classified material". That's not a rubber stamp, it's a clear allegation of criminal activity. I think your real feeling is that this material "shouldn't" have been classified (based on what you believe it contained -- the reporter never got it). And maybe that's true! But the facts in this article are just OBVIOUSLY probable cause for a warrant, nonetheless.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  My comment has no bearing on the facts of this case, or my opinions on state secrets The fact of the matter is the warrant system, a non-adversarial system based on flimsy assertions and often out right lies by police and agents is not now, and likely never has been a check on government power
  - ajross 4y ago
    And I disagree, because virtually every successful resistance to police or prosecutorial misconduct (and there are many!) comes right down to a successfully argued fourth amendment violation. The fourth amendment is, quite frankly, the single most powerful check on law enforcement power in our society. And people who claim otherwise really need to spend some time resisting governments that don't have an equivalent. But in this case, as I mentioned, the fourth amendment is silent. This arrest was totally OK (or would have been, had it not been spoiled) and doesn't represent any kind of government overreach at all.
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      And I disagree, because over the last 100+ years the 4th amendment has been hollowed out with exception, after exception so much so that anyone that believes the 4th amendment "single most powerful check on law enforcement power in our society" likely does not really support any checks on power at all. Your belief that we have powerful checks on government power is clear you support a much larger and more intrusive government than I ever would, I see the government today as an unchecked dystopia novel, you think it is perfectly fine and balanced, that is more scary to me than government power. That we as a society have lost the very notion of what freedom actually is, that we has a society have come to accept the gilded cage as "freedom" Beyond that, It comes down to the question of constitution interpretation as well. You believe the 4th amendment is silent here, you believe the FBI is operating under authorization of the 4th amendment because a law was violated, a law that seems to be protecting people that are violating the 4th amendment wholesale (the nsa), and ironic twist if I ever saw one. You believe this because our Supreme Court has been derelict in the duty at uploading the plain and true meaning of the US Constitution for decades, you like many look to the Supreme Court for the meaning of the constitution, you have outsourced your thinking to this body, these people for whom we in society have placed on pedestal, and ironically in practice have given a title of nobility, something forbidden in the constitution. “You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.” ― Thomas Jefferson
      - ajross 4y ago
        > You believe the 4th amendment is silent here, you believe the FBI is operating under authorization of the 4th amendment because a law was violated Uh... yes? If a law was violated, that's probable cause. It's sort of a definitional thing. What legal regime do you desire that manages to pre-decide on which laws are OK to violate before the collection of evidence occurs? This sounds like an argument against the whole idea of law enforcement, I guess? You don't think that police should have the power to seize evidence or arrest people at all? (Because before they do that, we need to decide whether the laws they're trying to enforce are acceptable to the target of the investigation, right?) I mean, that's a position. Libertarians and anarchists occasionally say stuff like that. But it's absolutely not the legal framework we live under, and I doubt you'll find much support for it among the broader electorate. If you don't like the laws we have, then the remedy available to you is to elect a government to change the laws. You don't get to demand that we enforce them differently for the laws you don't like.

ajross 4y ago

> The idea that because the courts will rubber stamp a warrant is not a valid rebuttal to unchecked power But the crime is "release of classified material". That's not a rubber stamp, it's a clear allegation of criminal activity. I think your real feeling is that this material "shouldn't" have been classified (based on what you believe it contained -- the reporter never got it). And maybe that's true! But the facts in this article are just OBVIOUSLY probable cause for a warrant, nonetheless.

phpisthebest 4y ago
My comment has no bearing on the facts of this case, or my opinions on state secrets The fact of the matter is the warrant system, a non-adversarial system based on flimsy assertions and often out right lies by police and agents is not now, and likely never has been a check on government power
- ajross 4y ago
  And I disagree, because virtually every successful resistance to police or prosecutorial misconduct (and there are many!) comes right down to a successfully argued fourth amendment violation. The fourth amendment is, quite frankly, the single most powerful check on law enforcement power in our society. And people who claim otherwise really need to spend some time resisting governments that don't have an equivalent. But in this case, as I mentioned, the fourth amendment is silent. This arrest was totally OK (or would have been, had it not been spoiled) and doesn't represent any kind of government overreach at all.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    And I disagree, because over the last 100+ years the 4th amendment has been hollowed out with exception, after exception so much so that anyone that believes the 4th amendment "single most powerful check on law enforcement power in our society" likely does not really support any checks on power at all. Your belief that we have powerful checks on government power is clear you support a much larger and more intrusive government than I ever would, I see the government today as an unchecked dystopia novel, you think it is perfectly fine and balanced, that is more scary to me than government power. That we as a society have lost the very notion of what freedom actually is, that we has a society have come to accept the gilded cage as "freedom" Beyond that, It comes down to the question of constitution interpretation as well. You believe the 4th amendment is silent here, you believe the FBI is operating under authorization of the 4th amendment because a law was violated, a law that seems to be protecting people that are violating the 4th amendment wholesale (the nsa), and ironic twist if I ever saw one. You believe this because our Supreme Court has been derelict in the duty at uploading the plain and true meaning of the US Constitution for decades, you like many look to the Supreme Court for the meaning of the constitution, you have outsourced your thinking to this body, these people for whom we in society have placed on pedestal, and ironically in practice have given a title of nobility, something forbidden in the constitution. “You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.” ― Thomas Jefferson
    - ajross 4y ago
      > You believe the 4th amendment is silent here, you believe the FBI is operating under authorization of the 4th amendment because a law was violated Uh... yes? If a law was violated, that's probable cause. It's sort of a definitional thing. What legal regime do you desire that manages to pre-decide on which laws are OK to violate before the collection of evidence occurs? This sounds like an argument against the whole idea of law enforcement, I guess? You don't think that police should have the power to seize evidence or arrest people at all? (Because before they do that, we need to decide whether the laws they're trying to enforce are acceptable to the target of the investigation, right?) I mean, that's a position. Libertarians and anarchists occasionally say stuff like that. But it's absolutely not the legal framework we live under, and I doubt you'll find much support for it among the broader electorate. If you don't like the laws we have, then the remedy available to you is to elect a government to change the laws. You don't get to demand that we enforce them differently for the laws you don't like.