3 ms·

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 bas

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.
    - mindslight 4y ago
      > You don't get to demand that we enforce them differently for the laws you don't like. This is a specious appeal to an abstract concept, that in this case justifies autocratic power. The entire run-amok surveillance industrial complex exists precisely due to such selective enforcement. If the FBI were actually interested in achieving justice, they would be going after the highly organized traitors systematically undermining our freedoms rather than small isolated cases of individuals committing a crime while trying to expose those larger crimes. Instead we see this exact "different enforcement", but with the opposite prioritization. And yes, the people deciding en masse to elect different representatives would be one way to fix the problem. But there are many such ways, and general normative condemnation is the way to maintain and build support for any/all of them rather than getting focused on a specific approach which may or may not work.
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      Nice cherry pick of my comment, You need to read the entire section to understand what I was saying, which clearly you have no interest in commenting on. The Charge was the NSA is/was violating the 4th amendment wholesale (and other Laws that prevent them from targeting US Citizens), so in the over all context of this "investigation" the 4th amendment is in fact not "silent" as you claim, it very clearly prohibits what the NSA is doing, you then claiming the FBI is "following" the 4th amendment in pursuit of silencing whistleblower that is attempting to alert the public of 4th amendment violation is ironic to say the least. Using "State Secrets" laws to cover up constitutional violations is also somewhat dubious so then one has to ask what law is more important, a Federal Statute of Secrecy or the Constitution, clearly you think Federal Statute over rides the Constitution, I dont. >>You don't think that police should have the power to seize evidence or arrest people at all? Seize Evidence... Sure Pre-trial confinement should be exclusively reserved for cases where there is clear and convincing evidence of a danger the individual poses to the wider public, i.e a rapist or murder... Innocent until proven guilty right? Or do you reject that fundamental provision of the law as well, I am not sure because you seem to have a very cozy relationship with structures of authority.

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.
  - mindslight 4y ago
    > You don't get to demand that we enforce them differently for the laws you don't like. This is a specious appeal to an abstract concept, that in this case justifies autocratic power. The entire run-amok surveillance industrial complex exists precisely due to such selective enforcement. If the FBI were actually interested in achieving justice, they would be going after the highly organized traitors systematically undermining our freedoms rather than small isolated cases of individuals committing a crime while trying to expose those larger crimes. Instead we see this exact "different enforcement", but with the opposite prioritization. And yes, the people deciding en masse to elect different representatives would be one way to fix the problem. But there are many such ways, and general normative condemnation is the way to maintain and build support for any/all of them rather than getting focused on a specific approach which may or may not work.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    Nice cherry pick of my comment, You need to read the entire section to understand what I was saying, which clearly you have no interest in commenting on. The Charge was the NSA is/was violating the 4th amendment wholesale (and other Laws that prevent them from targeting US Citizens), so in the over all context of this "investigation" the 4th amendment is in fact not "silent" as you claim, it very clearly prohibits what the NSA is doing, you then claiming the FBI is "following" the 4th amendment in pursuit of silencing whistleblower that is attempting to alert the public of 4th amendment violation is ironic to say the least. Using "State Secrets" laws to cover up constitutional violations is also somewhat dubious so then one has to ask what law is more important, a Federal Statute of Secrecy or the Constitution, clearly you think Federal Statute over rides the Constitution, I dont. >>You don't think that police should have the power to seize evidence or arrest people at all? Seize Evidence... Sure Pre-trial confinement should be exclusively reserved for cases where there is clear and convincing evidence of a danger the individual poses to the wider public, i.e a rapist or murder... Innocent until proven guilty right? Or do you reject that fundamental provision of the law as well, I am not sure because you seem to have a very cozy relationship with structures of authority.