4 ms·
Is it legal for the CIA to spy on American citizens?
by hammock 4y ago
Is it legal for the CIA to spy on American citizens?
- skyyler 4y agoDoes legality matter to the CIA? What entity could bring meaningful complaints against them?
- yodon 4y agoSee for example [0] [0]https://www.brown.edu/Research/Understanding_the_Iran_Contra_Affair/prosecutions.php https://www.brown.edu/Research/Understanding_the_Iran_Contra...
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- the_optimist 4y agoSumming punishment across all of history would probably total an upscale automobile, zero prison.
- nonethewiser 4y agoThat example is the government prosecuting the government for harming the governments interests. Thats not accountability, its infighting. Accountability would be punishment for crimes against the American people and structural changes that prevent it from happening again.
- qbasic_forever 4y agoCongress could defund them or perhaps even shut the whole org down. But I have to imagine a congressman that starts snooping around what the CIA is up to will almost certainly end up mired in mysterious controversy, accusations of malfeasance, etc.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Natsu 4y agoI mean, the FBI once blackmailed MLK - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93King_suicide_letter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93King_suicide_lette... There was also a lot of uproar about abuses back in the 1970s.
- aliqot 4y agoQuestion was about the CIA. The two are not the same.
- Natsu 4y agoI'm just pointing out that federal agencies have done much worse, so it should not be terribly surprising if they're caught doing bad things.
- the_optimist 4y agoStrong disagree. It should always be surprising, and the people that designed and uphold the systems that allow for this should be held accountable. The world does not lack agency.
- Natsu 4y agoI'd agree with you that it should be surprising. I don't think it is, but it definitely should be.
- nonethewiser 4y agoWell, they're both shit
- raincom 4y agoIndirectly, yes. They can use foreign intel agencies to spy on Americans; they can use third parties (Twitter, Facebook, cellular networks, your cars, and all data brokers) to spy on you, thanks to the third-party doctrine.
- btilly 4y agoThis is one of the astounding loopholes revealed by Snowden's revelations. The US government could not spy on Americans without a warrant. But they convinced themselves that mass surveillance was legal as long as the USA did not search their own database on Americans without a warrant. And making the whole thing available to other https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes was also OK. So analysts in England got all the data. And nothing about UK law says that THEY can't do searches on Americans. So they do. And if they find anything, they can give the USA an affirmation that they know that person X is up to no good and crime Y is likely to turn up if they do a search of A, B and C. That affirmation is sufficient under the 4th amendment to get a search warrant from a judge. Armed with said search warrant, the USA can now search the database, verify what they are told, and then they have probable cause under which they can take further actions. And so they convinced themselves that by simply outsourcing the initial search, they could conduct unlimited surveillance on Americans and still have satisfied the letter of the Constitution.
- 8note 4y agoWas that a Snowden revelation? Isnt it the whole point of the five eyes to skip over local law?
- caycep 4y agoThis wasn't even a Snowden revelation. James Bamford, Dana Priest and William Arkin had a steady stream of articles and books about all the 5 eyes stuff, way before Snowden's case.
- btilly 4y agoThat they could spy on Americans was not a Snowden revelation. The scale of information that we delivered to them for this purpose, was.
- kodyo 4y agoFive Eyes makes the official legality moot. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes
- hammock 4y agoThe pigeons released in the US were Five Eyes, not American?
- seanw444 4y agoSaying yes is the same poor argument as "the 2nd amendment was only intended for weapons from the 18th century" and "the 1st amendment doesn't include communication over telegraph, or radio waves." It would basically be "security from unwarranted search and seizure doesn't extend to cameras and the internet."
- notch656c 4y agoBruh introducing unconstitutional evidence is so 20th century. Parallel construction is the hot new thing and bypasses those pesky issues.
- krapp 4y agoThat is what a strict originalist reading of the Constitution would conclude - the same reading that decided the Constitution doesn't support a right to privacy because the word "privacy" doesn't appear anywhere in the document, and that the Second Amendment can only be interpreted under the rules of 18th century English. Either we believe the Constitution is a living document and that the context of modern society matters in its interpretation, or we don't and that only what was comprehensible to the specific minds of the Founding Fathers in their time, place, idiom and cultural context is legitimate. Since we've clearly decided as a society that originalism wins out, we should stop being hypocrites about it and accept the consequences in totality.
- klyrs 4y agoGeneral relativity was unknown to the founders, so GPS is unconstitutional? I can dig it
- nonethewiser 4y agoWell an originalist reading has not concluded that. Are an originalist? Why purport that they believe something that they do not, when you yourself dont believe in the thing you're purporting either?
- krapp 4y ago
- razzCranberry 4y ago[dead]
- the_optimist 4y agoNo, this is specifically prohibited in the original charter. However, on multiple occasions, they’ve either violated the charter or weaseled around it, including recently: https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-and-heinrich-newly-declassified-documents-reveal-previously-secret-cia-bulk-collection-problems-with-cia-handling-of-americans-information https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-and-h...
- nonethewiser 4y agoIn practice yes. In theory, no way. What is the 4th amendment if not protection against spying without a warrant? > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
- raincom 4y ago"parallel construction" and third-party doctrine are two loopholes wrt 4A.
- fedreserved 4y agoLoopholes ultimately built upon government agents willingness to commit perjury when questioned about the truth.
- raincom 4y agoThe people who sign affidavits don't commit perjury, because the people who sign affidavits and those who lead parallel construction are at least two links apart. The way it happens like this: X tells Y to look out for A's vehicle on I-15. Y calls another agency to check on A's vehicle. Now another agent C from another agency leads the investigation. X is totally out of picture in these prosecutions.
- survirtual 4y agoThey are not loopholes. They are convoluted processes designed to obscure their illegality, providing those who enable such a grotesque violation with plausible deniability and blame dispersion. To what I imagine was everyone’s surprise, no one in the US really cares about 4a anymore. Nothing has changed since Snowden (in fact, the powers have managed to convince vast swaths that Snowden is the bad guy!), and it is pretty common knowledge that 4a is out the window with parallel construction and asset forfeiture…but it all still keeps churning.