4 ms·

If they had good and justifiable reasons to search all the boxes they'd have told everyone back in 2021 when it happened. They didn't and they went fishing any

If they had good and justifiable reasons to search all the boxes they'd have told everyone back in 2021 when it happened. They didn't and they went fishing anyway because they knew they could get away with it. Nobody will even get a slap on the wrist because the organization intentionally spreads responsibility so thin that it's "nobody's fault". The legislature and the courts permit the continued existence of this structure because some animals are more equal and this is a feature not a bug.

muaytimbo 4y ago
It wouldn't matter if it was "somebody's fault." In a two tier society like the US (the govt class vs the productive class) the government class protects their own with made up legal doctrine like "qualified immunity" which gives them carte blanche to steal, rape, and murder the productive class. If the blame were to lie with one single individual at the FBI who committed multiple crimes effecting this illegal search that person would still not be held accountable by the courts, the FBI, nor any other government agency.
- vkou 4y ago
  QI doesn't protect the government, you can still sue it for violating your rights. QI protects agents of the government, you can't personally sue a cop for violating your rights. (Either because he was following illegal orders, or because he's an idiot who doesn't know/doesn't care about the law.) You are correct that QI was a legal fabrication, and is in its current form an incredibly poor one at that.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > QI doesn't protect the government, you can still sue it for violating your rights. Sure, QI doesn't protect the government, but sovereign immunity does. > QI protects agents of the government, you can't personally sue a cop for violating your rights. Yes, you can. And you can win in some cases. But, if they were within the scope of non-discretionary job duty, even if illegal, though, they are protected by absolute immunity, if their act was an illegal exercise of discretion but not within a pattern unambiguously previously litigated as such, they are protected by qualified immunity. > You are correct that QI was a legal fabrication It is no more or less a “legal fabrication” than, say, the exclusionary rule.

muaytimbo 4y ago

It wouldn't matter if it was "somebody's fault." In a two tier society like the US (the govt class vs the productive class) the government class protects their own with made up legal doctrine like "qualified immunity" which gives them carte blanche to steal, rape, and murder the productive class. If the blame were to lie with one single individual at the FBI who committed multiple crimes effecting this illegal search that person would still not be held accountable by the courts, the FBI, nor any other government agency.

vkou 4y ago
QI doesn't protect the government, you can still sue it for violating your rights. QI protects agents of the government, you can't personally sue a cop for violating your rights. (Either because he was following illegal orders, or because he's an idiot who doesn't know/doesn't care about the law.) You are correct that QI was a legal fabrication, and is in its current form an incredibly poor one at that.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > QI doesn't protect the government, you can still sue it for violating your rights. Sure, QI doesn't protect the government, but sovereign immunity does. > QI protects agents of the government, you can't personally sue a cop for violating your rights. Yes, you can. And you can win in some cases. But, if they were within the scope of non-discretionary job duty, even if illegal, though, they are protected by absolute immunity, if their act was an illegal exercise of discretion but not within a pattern unambiguously previously litigated as such, they are protected by qualified immunity. > You are correct that QI was a legal fabrication It is no more or less a “legal fabrication” than, say, the exclusionary rule.