6 ms·
Better solution. Just disband the FBI.
by web3-is-a-scam 3y ago
Better solution. Just disband the FBI.
- jacquesm 3y agoNo, improve the FBI and do proper oversight. You need an institution like the FBI but it needs to be kept as sharply focused as possible.
- Aerbil313 3y ago> You need an institution like the FBI You don't need it in a world without modern technology. Not that you can have it. Technology is this enslaving, centralizing force which leads to all this... everything. Abolish it.
- pclmulqdq 3y agoWhy do we need an FBI? There are over 200 other federal law enforcement operations, and certainly one (or ten) of them will step up to fill the gaps in cross-state criminal investigation that would be left by disbanding the FBI.
- j16sdiz 3y agoHow do you make sure the one who step up won't become next FBI?
- willcipriano 3y agoStrong states rights protections. Recover the republic from the ashes of democracy.
- rtkwe 3y agoStates have their own FBI-alikes and they're not much better when it comes to privacy they just have fewer tools but mostly because they're not getting that much in the way of work that would need it. If they get delegated responsibility they're not going to turn out much better than the FBI.
- willcipriano 3y agoEasier to change your state than your country. Also your vote is much more effective at a state level as opposed to a federal one.
- rtkwe 3y agoWith the level of gerrymandering at the state level I'm less sure that's true today, in theory yeah you're individually a larger portion of the vote but the same anti-democratic processes freezing things at the federal level are in part rooted at the state level. On top of all of that the Republican party who's benefitting the most in most states from gerrymandering is more pro-police power than not, they're just mad their guy got got by it.
- JasonFruit 3y agoWell, I'm confident they would become the next FBI. It's a feature of intelligence services. But until they did, we'd have some breathing space.
- jacquesm 3y agoOr much worse...
- paulsutter 3y agoWhere can we see a list of these 200 other groups? That's fascinating. Perhaps a much larger "re-org" is needed
- efitz 3y agoI did a Google search for “list of us federal law enforcement organizations “ and this was the first result: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_law_enforcement_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_law_enforcement_in_t...
- est31 3y agoIn the US, basically every federal agency is responsible for enforcement of federal regulations in the domain assigned to it. Until 2003, there even used to be a dedicated Library of Congress police for example.
- graypegg 3y agoMaybe the only premise for a cop show that I’d ever watch: library force
- DicIfTEx 3y agoNot quite the library, but there was a show about the postal service cops (bankrolled by the USPS): https://yewtu.be/watch?v=OCjG78McFxQ https://yewtu.be/watch?v=OCjG78McFxQ
- galleywest200 3y agoPostal inspectors will ruin your day, do not mess with them. They are a pretty serious group of individuals.
- jonhohle 3y agoI just leaned that the post office has armed officers as well. That’s so ridiculous. Each of these agencies also stockpile ammo, a portion of which is used each year for training. I’d be happy to see the FBI take that role on for federal assignments _if_ that reduced budgets and the current rot was excised in some meaningful way with mechanisms put in place to hold individuals accountable.
- DrThunder 3y agoYeah you don't need the FBI specifically. You do need a group that does what they can do. I think for the most part state agencies could hand what the FBI does. You do not need a national agency. There definitely needs to be cuts in 3 letter federal agencies. They're out of control. In the end though, it doesn't matter because eventually over time all of those agencies with too much power will become corrupt. Massive oversight and constant cleaning out of people that have been entrenched too long is necessary.
- rtkwe 3y agoThe FBI is the generalist of them, the rest are nominally more specialized to their particular parent department's purview. Inefficiency by just having a separate department for every federal crime is a silly way to try to go about limiting overreach when we haven't even really tried proper oversight and enforcement.
- web3-is-a-scam 3y agoIt’s been corrupt since its inception. It’s not possible to fix it.
- jacquesm 3y agoDisbanding it will just cause an alternative force to replace it, and you'll need to wait to see how that will develop, which could well be worse. Think of it as a variation on the 'don't rewrite' mantra, rewriting it causes massive instability and has an unknown deadline, improving what is there is much easier. If you want to envision some kind of Utopian view of law enforcement then there is the simple problem of 'who watches the watchers', a question that has been bugging us since antiquity and which I don't think we'll see an effective solution to in this life (or the next). Every law enforcement body consists of people and people are fallible, and will always be fallible. So you need to accept that and design accordingly, and you also will need to accept that mistakes (small ones and much larger and graver ones) will be made, as well as abuses of power. To re-architect a police force in the United States that transcends the states is an undertaking that in the current political climate is undoable. So advocating for abandoning the FBI effectively advocates for abandoning federal policing in general, and that certainly isn't going to have a net positive effect.
- bilbo0s 3y agoand you'll need to wait to see how that will develop No. We won't. You're going to give the FBI's responsibilities and tools to a new agency? It'll be crystal clear how it will develop the next day. DHS was formed in 2002. By 2003 what we in the public would later know as "extraordinary rendition" became commonplace. I think you guys are all being naive. Or maybe you guys really are just this innocent that you believe in the inability of newly formed agencies to act with capability and resolve. Which would be especially simple in a situation where we get rid of the facility for investigating wrongdoing among law enforcement agencies. Which is, (checks notes), Ah, the FBI. I'd be very careful following anyone telling us that the FBI is not enough. They've done it before, and we ended up with the Patriot Act. Then they told us the problem was not only the FBI, but CIA too! That landed us with a DHS and a FISA court that is illegal for us to even ask information on. Think long and hard guys, about who exactly are the true people behind all these calls for new, more comprehensive agencies. And what their ultimate goals might be. jaquesm is speaking reason here. There is no sane point to disbanding the FBI. They're doing their job. If they have made a mistake you don't like. File a complaint. You can even contact your congressperson. But disbanding them is not a reasonable option.
- SN76477 3y agooversight is the answer. Crime is real, and the FBI and other law informant agencies do good work but not all of the time. They need proper oversight with genuine consequences. Instead they get blank checks and too much authority.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 3y agoThank you for saying this. For better or worse, US is too big of a country for state enforcement only. That said, FBI should not be an intelligence agency turned against its own populace. I saw more calls for disbanding recently along news items discrediting it ( for a good reason, but let me finish this sentence ) and in next breath proposing federal police replacing state enforcement. I personally do not think it is a good idea. I like the idea of oversight ( and one that does not hide behind 'national security' ).
- resuresu 3y agoThe FBI was created during the prohibition era to combat rum runners and gangsters.
- hotpotamus 3y agoDefund the police?
- Etrnl_President 3y ago[dead]
- treeman79 3y agoThey are in charge. They framed many people and spied on a sitting president. Huge number of politicians were involved with Epstein’s island. Which is looking like a huge honey pot. They must have crazy dirt on people sleeping with under age girls. They will do what they are told. CIA met with him multiple times before he was killed in his cell. Of course they could release his client list and put all those people in jail. But they won’t
- NickC25 3y agoCan't upvote this enough. If the CIA was accountable to the public, even in the loosest and most vague sense, that list would have been released on day 1. "Hey citizens, here's a list of the people who have been recorded sleeping with under age girls (and boys). Most of these people are powerful individuals who are C-Suite or higher at multiple Fortune 100 companies, or are currently sitting in the Senate or House". But because the intelligence agencies have their own goals and are unaccountable by nature to the public, that list will never see the light of day, and will be used by the CIA to advance the CIA's desired goals, while funded by the taxpayer. There's a reason Kennedy wanted to disband the organization entirely.
- IYasha 3y agoSame here. I can't forget reading declassified case of testing drugs (probably LSD) on unsuspecting people in a motel and surveying them. One particular detail that stuck in my head was the pleasure some agents were getting out of this "test" (documented by other, more adequate agent).
- NickC25 3y agoThat shit is terrifying. I've done LSD a handful of times, it's wonderful when done in the right set & setting. Being dosed with LSD some 50-60 years ago without warning and without any knowledge of what LSD is or what it does to you....that's dystopian level shit. And it's not like mushrooms where after a few hours, you're back to normal. LSD lasts 12+ hours (and you're wired as hell for another 12 hours to the point where you can't sleep)....plus now you've got random people spying on you throughout the whole trip and you can't really understand why? People in power really are sick assholes to their fellow human.