4 ms·

If the FBI is violating people's rights, all Americans lose those rights. Whereas you at least have some say over where you live and your local police. And, I

If the FBI is violating people's rights, all Americans lose those rights. Whereas you at least have some say over where you live and your local police. And, I admit this statement may be controversial, but you need police for a functioning society. People need someone to call if they get threatened or to deal with the aftermath of a murder. Without police, people would demand something that looks very similar to a cop. You don't need the FBI. It's creation was linked to prohibition which we didn't need either. It's modern form came to be under Edgar Hoover who used it to facilitate Japanese internment, to "purge alleged homosexuals from any position in the federal government" (quote from Wikipedia) and domestic surveillance against civil rights leaders. They were the agency that should've been responsible for stopping 9/11. Stealing again from Wikipedia, "government documents showed that both the CIA and the FBI had missed 23 potential chances to disrupt the terrorist attacks". They do help convict murderers though. "Nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000... the cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death". [0] Either way it shouldn't need to be the only evil left in the world before it's dealt with. [0]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-forensic-hair-matches-in-nearly-all-criminal-trials-for-decades/2015/04/18/39c8d8c6-e515-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-fo...

divided 4y ago
Even in your argument against the FBI you give a reason for having them. Yes, they missed 9/11, but they have also prevented unknown numbers of terrorist attacks. They are also largely the ones called in to investigate serial murderers, child sex rings, drug trafficking, organized crime, etc. I think deferring to state level agencies to handle these crimes would produce worse outcomes. I’m not saying the FBI is great. They’ve done a lot of awful things and had a lot of failures. But the current bad system isn’t automatically improved by getting rid of it if the alternative is worse. [edit] it’s a bit like hitting a local maxima. Is there a better system out there for catching interstate and large scale crime? Most definitely. But it seems foolhardy to not have that plan in place when deciding to “dismantle” the FBI when doing so means more terror attacks happen, more children get trafficked, serial murderers kill more victims, drug lords grow bigger operations, etc.
- hunterb123 4y ago

divided 4y ago

Even in your argument against the FBI you give a reason for having them. Yes, they missed 9/11, but they have also prevented unknown numbers of terrorist attacks. They are also largely the ones called in to investigate serial murderers, child sex rings, drug trafficking, organized crime, etc. I think deferring to state level agencies to handle these crimes would produce worse outcomes. I’m not saying the FBI is great. They’ve done a lot of awful things and had a lot of failures. But the current bad system isn’t automatically improved by getting rid of it if the alternative is worse. [edit] it’s a bit like hitting a local maxima. Is there a better system out there for catching interstate and large scale crime? Most definitely. But it seems foolhardy to not have that plan in place when deciding to “dismantle” the FBI when doing so means more terror attacks happen, more children get trafficked, serial murderers kill more victims, drug lords grow bigger operations, etc.

hunterb123 4y ago