5 ms·

>we don't need to pick a side and declare them the good guys out of tribal loyalty. We do if we want to have some veneer of ideological consistency to our call

>we don't need to pick a side and declare them the good guys out of tribal loyalty. We do if we want to have some veneer of ideological consistency to our calls to send the feds after groups X, Y and Z (values of X, Y and Z vary over time) that aren't very bad in the grand scheme of things but whom we want to be marginalized anyway. Reconciling the evil that goes on under the guise of federal law enforcement with throwing ever increasing resources at them to chase this year's boogeyman is beyond the reach of all but the most skilled mental gymnasts so people just call them the good guys because that's easier and doesn't run the risk of you having to defend a nuanced position. Edit: I do not think the FBI (or most of federal law enforcement for that matter) should exist in their current capacity, but the above is how it appears many people's opinion of the FBI has been formed and that should make a lot of people here uncomfortable.

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
I don't like the way the FBI was used to "infiltrate" the counter-culture of the 1960s and early 1970s. But that doesn't make me write off the FBI as the bad guys. I do like the way the FBI is used to infiltrate extreme right wing groups of the present day. But that doesn't make me think that the FBI are the good guys.
- innocentoldguy 4y ago
  Are you saying that you’re OK with corruption and an abuse of power as long as the target is someone you don’t like?
  - ltbarcly3 4y ago
    That is exactly what they are saying, they want the police to illegally go after the people they disagree with politically, but not the people they agree with, without regard for due process, civil rights, or whether a crime has been committed.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
      Nope. See my followup response above.
      - ltbarcly3 4y ago
        I don't know what is in your heart, but that is what you said? Lots of counter culture groups of the 60's were committing acts of terrorism, including bombings and kidnappings. Lots of right wing groups now are nothing more than political organizing. And vice versa. The way you said it, you didn't differentiate between 60's terrorist groups and modern peaceful right wing political groups.
        PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
        Great job missing the point. The point is that the role of the FBI has to be considered on a case by case basis. They are neither the good/bad guys because they infiltrated the Weather Underground or SDS in the 60s, and they are not the good/bad guys because they are infiltrating right wing groups today. Likewise, just because Hoover used them for his own personal vendettas - incontrovertibly - doesn't make them a priori the good or the bad guys. The same is true in reverse: none of the groups are a priori the good or bad guys because they've been investigated or infiltrated by the FBI. BTW, the vast majority of the organizations the FBI infiltrated between 1963 and 1976 were non-violent and dedicated to peace.
        ltbarcly3 4y ago
        No, I'm not missing the point. You can try to add nuance now, and you can claim you always meant that nuance, but that's what you said.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Everyone basically is, they just disguise it a bit.
    - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
      Speak for yourself. Some of us think that people we vehemently disagree with deserve to have their rights upheld and be subject to due process. The real tragedy is that people like you who don't believe in equality under law poison the well for the rest of us. In a world where you people are happy to enable slimy things to get your way everyone else must behave similarly or be at a disadvantage.
      - bombcar 4y ago
        The fact that you have to use a throwaway tells volumes about how the world is despite how we may want it to be.
      - renewiltord 4y ago
        Anonymous statements mean nothing. You can easily Sybil up multiple contradictory positions. And to be honest, I think you probably do. If your chosen anonymous identity were tied to persistent effort, one could validate, but in the absence of that, you could just use arbitrarily many "throwaway" accounts that all claim ideological consistency on as many issues as desired. Any claims to ideological consistency are therefore of zero value. It's like me claiming that I have given away $10 billion today to charity.
    - innocentoldguy 4y ago
      Not everyone in the world is a consequentialist. A lot of people have morals and believe in equal rights and equal protection under the law.
  - namelessoracle 4y ago
    No bad tactics, just bad targets.
  - goodpoint 4y ago
    That's a very dishonest strawman.
    - innocentoldguy 4y ago
      Asking a clarifying question is not a straw man argument. It isn't an argument at all. It's a question.
      - goodpoint 4y ago
        Asking a leading question like that includes an implied statement. Let's think of an example: "Why do you think people cannot see through your attempt at manipulation?"
- fein 4y ago
  Which right wing groups? The most recent example I can think of is the Whitmer case in which we found out it was feds inciting the calls to violence.
  - acdha 4y ago
    Here’s a little refresher: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capito... That’s also an oversimplification of what’s known about the Whitney plot, too. The state and second federal trial are still pending: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretchen_Whitmer_kidnapping_plot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretchen_Whitmer_kidnapping_pl...
    - fein 4y ago
      Feds and capitol police opened the gates for the protesters. In regards to Whitmer, without the feds inciting the idiots in the group, none of this happens. A federal jury already failed to convict several members, so the "justice" system is going to keep retrying until they succeed. This is all a sham.
      - epakai 4y ago
        They opened the gates because they didn't have enough forces to hold the gates. The videos where the gates were overrun instead show quite clearly what the alternative was. The gates were pushed over and police assaulted. You won't find any evidence of a superior force opening the gates. One commonly shown video of an officer waving protestors past was actually him signalling for other officers to pull out of the crowd and the officers were clearly outnumbered in that situation. I really have a hard time with comments like these. It's hard to believe it's just ignorance nearly two years later.
        fein 4y ago
        It's a shame that the original live streams and clips, and the accounts that posted them, have been banned or deleted since then, but I know what I watched that day, and I know how police actually respond to a real riot. January 6th was a bunch of people with unbreakable faith (some still even after) to a grifter of a magnitude not seen in this country for as long as I'm aware of. He told them to go to the capitol, and that he would go with them. I watched as a horde of people were practically escorted around, having barriers and gates opened up for them, and police allowing protestors to take selfies with them. After that, the man who told his followers to go to the capitol couldn't even muster any support or pardons for them. If you are going to say that there was no federal collusion here, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
- mythrwy 4y ago
  I read this as saying "In spite of my ideological preferences, I recognize there is a problem". That seems like a fair assessment.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    Not really my point. My point was to reinforce GP's stating that you don't need to pick sides. You need to examine particular situations on a case-by-case basis, rather than coming to some sort of simplistic catch-all description such as "the FBI are the bad guys" or "everyone the FBI investigates are the bad guys".
    - innocentoldguy 4y ago
      The article is about a specific instance of an FBI agent destroying exculpatory evidence and a potentially innocent man sitting in prison because of this corruption. In the comments, we are examining this specific situation and, in this case, the FBI IS indeed the bad guy. This is hardly an isolated incident either, so I don't see anything untoward about discussing a pattern of corrupt behavior coming out of the FBI that dates back decades, and calling them out on this malfeasance. Also, you can try to backpedal all you want. In the original comment of yours that I questioned, you indeed implied that you didn't care about FBI corruption as long as the target is someone you don't like. Your words were pretty clear, so I have a hard time believing that you didn't mean exactly what you said.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
        At no point did I say "I do not care about FBI corruption". I said that regardless of my feelings about specific FBI actions, I do not see a reason based on those actions to automatically make them (or those investigated) the good or bad guys in general. If you have a hard time believing that's what I said and meant, I can't help you.
        innocentoldguy 4y ago
        You gave two examples of FBI corruption and said regarding one of them, “I do like the way the FBI is used to infiltrate extreme right wing groups of the present day.” How is liking corruption against your political foes not being apathetic towards that corruption?
duxup 4y ago
>We do if we want to have some veneer of ideological consistency I would argue the opposite. Ideology generally doesn't mean you should pick a side and stick with it all the time. For example I can disagree with the FBI one day based on my ideology, and agree the next based on my ideology. The FBI is an institution made up of people who make various choices, not an ideology. I get that this could go down a rabbit hole of definitions and so on but that's my approach generally, to a lot of things.
themitigating 4y ago
You can hold everyone accountable. You're basically saying "Side A is worse than side B so therefore side B is excused from the bad things they do" that makes no sense.
- weberer 4y ago
  Its more like "Side A has illegally destroyed evidence that would have helped Side B's case, therefore we can't be certain Side B has actually done the things Side A has accused them of."
  - themitigating 4y ago
    you need a certain amount of evidence to prove a crime. What does destroyed evidence have to do with whether that crime has been committed or if there is sufficient evidence to prove it?
    - salawat 4y ago
      It's exculpatory evidence. I.e. Evidence that could exonerate the defendant and weaken or outright dismantle the State's case. This isn't evidence that makes the defendant guiltier...but could be a factual finding that blows open the case meaning ya got the wrong guy, or the guy is still guilty, but not the end of the story. If it were evaluated and available to the Court, a more nuanced discussion could be had of the ramifications on the case. The State destroyed it, however, introducing adverse inference. This usually comes coupled, when a defendant does it, of causing the Prosecution to become entitled to having the Judge instruct the Jury to see the destroyed evidence in the worst light possible. Seeing as it was the State doing it, that would imply the Court must take that evidence as nothing less than completely undermining the State's original case. If you aren't willing to throw a guilty man on the streets to make damn sure your LE edifice doesn't put the innocent in harm's way, wtf are you doing as a Court System? It sure isn't justice.

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago

I don't like the way the FBI was used to "infiltrate" the counter-culture of the 1960s and early 1970s. But that doesn't make me write off the FBI as the bad guys. I do like the way the FBI is used to infiltrate extreme right wing groups of the present day. But that doesn't make me think that the FBI are the good guys.

innocentoldguy 4y ago
Are you saying that you’re OK with corruption and an abuse of power as long as the target is someone you don’t like?
- ltbarcly3 4y ago
  That is exactly what they are saying, they want the police to illegally go after the people they disagree with politically, but not the people they agree with, without regard for due process, civil rights, or whether a crime has been committed.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    Nope. See my followup response above.
    - ltbarcly3 4y ago
      I don't know what is in your heart, but that is what you said? Lots of counter culture groups of the 60's were committing acts of terrorism, including bombings and kidnappings. Lots of right wing groups now are nothing more than political organizing. And vice versa. The way you said it, you didn't differentiate between 60's terrorist groups and modern peaceful right wing political groups.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
        Great job missing the point. The point is that the role of the FBI has to be considered on a case by case basis. They are neither the good/bad guys because they infiltrated the Weather Underground or SDS in the 60s, and they are not the good/bad guys because they are infiltrating right wing groups today. Likewise, just because Hoover used them for his own personal vendettas - incontrovertibly - doesn't make them a priori the good or the bad guys. The same is true in reverse: none of the groups are a priori the good or bad guys because they've been investigated or infiltrated by the FBI. BTW, the vast majority of the organizations the FBI infiltrated between 1963 and 1976 were non-violent and dedicated to peace.
        ltbarcly3 4y ago
        No, I'm not missing the point. You can try to add nuance now, and you can claim you always meant that nuance, but that's what you said.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Everyone basically is, they just disguise it a bit.
  - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
    Speak for yourself. Some of us think that people we vehemently disagree with deserve to have their rights upheld and be subject to due process. The real tragedy is that people like you who don't believe in equality under law poison the well for the rest of us. In a world where you people are happy to enable slimy things to get your way everyone else must behave similarly or be at a disadvantage.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      The fact that you have to use a throwaway tells volumes about how the world is despite how we may want it to be.
    - renewiltord 4y ago
      Anonymous statements mean nothing. You can easily Sybil up multiple contradictory positions. And to be honest, I think you probably do. If your chosen anonymous identity were tied to persistent effort, one could validate, but in the absence of that, you could just use arbitrarily many "throwaway" accounts that all claim ideological consistency on as many issues as desired. Any claims to ideological consistency are therefore of zero value. It's like me claiming that I have given away $10 billion today to charity.
  - innocentoldguy 4y ago
    Not everyone in the world is a consequentialist. A lot of people have morals and believe in equal rights and equal protection under the law.
- namelessoracle 4y ago
  No bad tactics, just bad targets.
- goodpoint 4y ago
  That's a very dishonest strawman.
  - innocentoldguy 4y ago
    Asking a clarifying question is not a straw man argument. It isn't an argument at all. It's a question.
    - goodpoint 4y ago
      Asking a leading question like that includes an implied statement. Let's think of an example: "Why do you think people cannot see through your attempt at manipulation?"
fein 4y ago
Which right wing groups? The most recent example I can think of is the Whitmer case in which we found out it was feds inciting the calls to violence.
- acdha 4y ago
  Here’s a little refresher: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capito... That’s also an oversimplification of what’s known about the Whitney plot, too. The state and second federal trial are still pending: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretchen_Whitmer_kidnapping_plot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretchen_Whitmer_kidnapping_pl...
  - fein 4y ago
    Feds and capitol police opened the gates for the protesters. In regards to Whitmer, without the feds inciting the idiots in the group, none of this happens. A federal jury already failed to convict several members, so the "justice" system is going to keep retrying until they succeed. This is all a sham.
    - epakai 4y ago
      They opened the gates because they didn't have enough forces to hold the gates. The videos where the gates were overrun instead show quite clearly what the alternative was. The gates were pushed over and police assaulted. You won't find any evidence of a superior force opening the gates. One commonly shown video of an officer waving protestors past was actually him signalling for other officers to pull out of the crowd and the officers were clearly outnumbered in that situation. I really have a hard time with comments like these. It's hard to believe it's just ignorance nearly two years later.
      - fein 4y ago
        It's a shame that the original live streams and clips, and the accounts that posted them, have been banned or deleted since then, but I know what I watched that day, and I know how police actually respond to a real riot. January 6th was a bunch of people with unbreakable faith (some still even after) to a grifter of a magnitude not seen in this country for as long as I'm aware of. He told them to go to the capitol, and that he would go with them. I watched as a horde of people were practically escorted around, having barriers and gates opened up for them, and police allowing protestors to take selfies with them. After that, the man who told his followers to go to the capitol couldn't even muster any support or pardons for them. If you are going to say that there was no federal collusion here, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
mythrwy 4y ago
I read this as saying "In spite of my ideological preferences, I recognize there is a problem". That seems like a fair assessment.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  Not really my point. My point was to reinforce GP's stating that you don't need to pick sides. You need to examine particular situations on a case-by-case basis, rather than coming to some sort of simplistic catch-all description such as "the FBI are the bad guys" or "everyone the FBI investigates are the bad guys".
  - innocentoldguy 4y ago
    The article is about a specific instance of an FBI agent destroying exculpatory evidence and a potentially innocent man sitting in prison because of this corruption. In the comments, we are examining this specific situation and, in this case, the FBI IS indeed the bad guy. This is hardly an isolated incident either, so I don't see anything untoward about discussing a pattern of corrupt behavior coming out of the FBI that dates back decades, and calling them out on this malfeasance. Also, you can try to backpedal all you want. In the original comment of yours that I questioned, you indeed implied that you didn't care about FBI corruption as long as the target is someone you don't like. Your words were pretty clear, so I have a hard time believing that you didn't mean exactly what you said.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
      At no point did I say "I do not care about FBI corruption". I said that regardless of my feelings about specific FBI actions, I do not see a reason based on those actions to automatically make them (or those investigated) the good or bad guys in general. If you have a hard time believing that's what I said and meant, I can't help you.
      - innocentoldguy 4y ago
        You gave two examples of FBI corruption and said regarding one of them, “I do like the way the FBI is used to infiltrate extreme right wing groups of the present day.” How is liking corruption against your political foes not being apathetic towards that corruption?

duxup 4y ago

>We do if we want to have some veneer of ideological consistency I would argue the opposite. Ideology generally doesn't mean you should pick a side and stick with it all the time. For example I can disagree with the FBI one day based on my ideology, and agree the next based on my ideology. The FBI is an institution made up of people who make various choices, not an ideology. I get that this could go down a rabbit hole of definitions and so on but that's my approach generally, to a lot of things.

themitigating 4y ago

You can hold everyone accountable. You're basically saying "Side A is worse than side B so therefore side B is excused from the bad things they do" that makes no sense.

weberer 4y ago
Its more like "Side A has illegally destroyed evidence that would have helped Side B's case, therefore we can't be certain Side B has actually done the things Side A has accused them of."
- themitigating 4y ago
  you need a certain amount of evidence to prove a crime. What does destroyed evidence have to do with whether that crime has been committed or if there is sufficient evidence to prove it?
  - salawat 4y ago
    It's exculpatory evidence. I.e. Evidence that could exonerate the defendant and weaken or outright dismantle the State's case. This isn't evidence that makes the defendant guiltier...but could be a factual finding that blows open the case meaning ya got the wrong guy, or the guy is still guilty, but not the end of the story. If it were evaluated and available to the Court, a more nuanced discussion could be had of the ramifications on the case. The State destroyed it, however, introducing adverse inference. This usually comes coupled, when a defendant does it, of causing the Prosecution to become entitled to having the Judge instruct the Jury to see the destroyed evidence in the worst light possible. Seeing as it was the State doing it, that would imply the Court must take that evidence as nothing less than completely undermining the State's original case. If you aren't willing to throw a guilty man on the streets to make damn sure your LE edifice doesn't put the innocent in harm's way, wtf are you doing as a Court System? It sure isn't justice.