5 ms·

>I elected the government in large part to protect...us. Protect you from who? >I want them to spy on our enemies. Who are these enemies, and how did we iden

>I elected the government in large part to protect...us. Protect you from who? >I want them to spy on our enemies. Who are these enemies, and how did we identify them as such? Do we just spy until we found one?

argiopetech 3y ago
All enemies, foreign and domestic, specifically those operating within the federal borders of the United States, it's territories, and any foreign holdings (e.g., embassy grounds). Investigation should begin with crimes that have occurred, suss out those circumstances where there is a bigger picture, and attain warrants for further investigation. Lack of probable cause means no search, a right extended by Amendment IV to all people (at least within US holdings as described above, which is where I think the FBI should be operating). The fault here lies with Congress. FISA is their doing, and it expressly violates all clauses of Amendment IV. The FBI is at fault for swinging this particular bat in a room full of citizens, but they shouldn't have been given the bat to begin with. Why FISA hasn't had a Supreme Court challenge on constitutional grounds is beyond me, but IANAL.
- cmilton 3y ago
  >The fault here lies with Congress. The fault lies with the idea that there always needs to be an enemy.
  - tekknik 3y ago
    What experience, metrics, literally any data are you basing this on? Do you believe Russia is a current enemy of the US? How about North Korea and China?
    - cmilton 3y ago
      The life I've lived would be my experience. I have had zero direct interactions with any of these enemies. Enemies to the US aren't necessarily enemies to me. Should I be forced to inherit these enemies? I agree with self defense. However, I'm not sure this is always the case.
      - rootusrootus 3y ago
        > The life I've lived would be my experience. I have had zero direct interactions with any of these enemies. Is that perhaps a direct result of the USG protecting you from them?
        chmod775 3y ago
        I've been to Russia and China and didn't get lynched. Didn't notice my country providing bodyguards.
        tekknik 3y ago
        And I’ve been in an actual warzone in an enemy country, that doesn’t change that they’re enemies
        cmilton 3y ago
        Possibly. How do you propose we prove otherwise?
        tekknik 3y ago
        Potentially listen to the threats coming from all 3 countries?
      - tekknik 3y ago
        Do you believe nuclear or conventional weapons choose only military targets when they explode? Do you believe standing in any major city that you are safe from any kind of bomb? Or are we going to play the game of “it hasn’t happened yet”? Perhaps the US military should just lay down their weapons cause there’s clearly no threat?
  - argiopetech 3y ago
    There doesn't need to be an enemy, but there is never not an enemy. I mean this on the petty, day to day, citizen level, not the global political scale. Organized crime exists and must be investigated and prosecuted to avoid endangering the everyday life of the citizenry. When this crime crosses state borders, a federal investigatory body can be an asset. I think the FBI has succumbed to scope creep and overstepped what I perceive as their remit; however, that doesn't mean they're an unnecessary body.
- Kim_Bruning 3y ago
  > Why FISA hasn't had a Supreme Court challenge on constitutional grounds is beyond me, but IANAL. Not for lack of trying. Apparently it's very hard to show standing[1]. This is going to need a legislative solution, or none at all. [1] https://www.npr.org/2013/02/26/172998760/supreme-court-makes-it-harder-to-challenge-foreign-intelligence-surveillance-act https://www.npr.org/2013/02/26/172998760/supreme-court-makes...

argiopetech 3y ago

All enemies, foreign and domestic, specifically those operating within the federal borders of the United States, it's territories, and any foreign holdings (e.g., embassy grounds). Investigation should begin with crimes that have occurred, suss out those circumstances where there is a bigger picture, and attain warrants for further investigation. Lack of probable cause means no search, a right extended by Amendment IV to all people (at least within US holdings as described above, which is where I think the FBI should be operating). The fault here lies with Congress. FISA is their doing, and it expressly violates all clauses of Amendment IV. The FBI is at fault for swinging this particular bat in a room full of citizens, but they shouldn't have been given the bat to begin with. Why FISA hasn't had a Supreme Court challenge on constitutional grounds is beyond me, but IANAL.

cmilton 3y ago
>The fault here lies with Congress. The fault lies with the idea that there always needs to be an enemy.
- tekknik 3y ago
  What experience, metrics, literally any data are you basing this on? Do you believe Russia is a current enemy of the US? How about North Korea and China?
  - cmilton 3y ago
    The life I've lived would be my experience. I have had zero direct interactions with any of these enemies. Enemies to the US aren't necessarily enemies to me. Should I be forced to inherit these enemies? I agree with self defense. However, I'm not sure this is always the case.
    - rootusrootus 3y ago
      > The life I've lived would be my experience. I have had zero direct interactions with any of these enemies. Is that perhaps a direct result of the USG protecting you from them?
      - chmod775 3y ago
        I've been to Russia and China and didn't get lynched. Didn't notice my country providing bodyguards.
        tekknik 3y ago
        And I’ve been in an actual warzone in an enemy country, that doesn’t change that they’re enemies
      - cmilton 3y ago
        Possibly. How do you propose we prove otherwise?
        tekknik 3y ago
        Potentially listen to the threats coming from all 3 countries?
    - tekknik 3y ago
      Do you believe nuclear or conventional weapons choose only military targets when they explode? Do you believe standing in any major city that you are safe from any kind of bomb? Or are we going to play the game of “it hasn’t happened yet”? Perhaps the US military should just lay down their weapons cause there’s clearly no threat?
- argiopetech 3y ago
  There doesn't need to be an enemy, but there is never not an enemy. I mean this on the petty, day to day, citizen level, not the global political scale. Organized crime exists and must be investigated and prosecuted to avoid endangering the everyday life of the citizenry. When this crime crosses state borders, a federal investigatory body can be an asset. I think the FBI has succumbed to scope creep and overstepped what I perceive as their remit; however, that doesn't mean they're an unnecessary body.
Kim_Bruning 3y ago
> Why FISA hasn't had a Supreme Court challenge on constitutional grounds is beyond me, but IANAL. Not for lack of trying. Apparently it's very hard to show standing[1]. This is going to need a legislative solution, or none at all. [1] https://www.npr.org/2013/02/26/172998760/supreme-court-makes-it-harder-to-challenge-foreign-intelligence-surveillance-act https://www.npr.org/2013/02/26/172998760/supreme-court-makes...