5 ms·
Here's the full quote: > "A warrant requirement would amount to a de facto ban, because query applications either would not meet the legal standard to win cour
by koolba 3y ago
Here's the full quote:
> "A warrant requirement would amount to a de facto ban, because query applications either would not meet the legal standard to win court approval; or because, when the standard could be met, it would be so only after the expenditure of scarce resources, the submission and review of a lengthy legal filing, and the passage of significant time — which, in the world of rapidly evolving threats, the government often does not have," Wray said.
That's even worse than the abbreviated statement.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice ... you can't get fooled again.
- ClarityJones 3y ago> would not meet the legal standard to win court approval; That is to say, they're targeting individuals who they have no substantial reason to believe actually did anything wrong.
- ethanbond 3y agoThat isn't true. It means it wouldn't reach probable cause. There are plenty of crimes and suspected crimes for which it's hard to gather enough evidence to reach probable cause. He said it correctly: it wouldn't meet the legal standard. That should mean, correctly, you cannot invade people's privacy, but again it's pretty unrelated to "are they investigating crimes or not." Edit: GP's comment was edited from "That is to say, they're not even investigating a crime." That claim is untrue.
- frumper 3y agoIf they don't have enough evidence it's hard to say that have substantial reasons. It sounds like they have a hunch.
- chatmasta 3y agoThey don't even need to have a hunch. They just need to say they do, and in the cases where it even goes in front of a judge, it gets rubberstamped with a 97%+ approval rate.
- ethanbond 3y agoSure, different claim than "they're not investigating a crime."
- frumper 3y ago> That is to say, they're targeting individuals who they have no substantial reason to believe actually did anything wrong. > That isn't true. It means it wouldn't reach probable cause. So, investigating a crime should lead you to some evidence that you would than have a substantial reason to request a warrant to target an individual. You're letting the tail wag the dog if they can do the targeting before they know who to target. If they don't have any evidence to target a person but they suspect that person of doing something illegal then that's called a hunch. Scooby doo and his gang were great at following hunches, but that shouldn't be how the FBI operates.
- ethanbond 3y agoGP's comment was edited. It originally said: "That is to say, they're not even investigating a crime."
- x86x87 3y agoIf it doesn't meet legal standard nop the fuck out of here. Why even have a legal standard if you can bypass it and do whatever you want?
- ethanbond 3y agoI didn't suggest they should. I'm saying a "doesn't meet the legal standard" != "not investigating a crime."
- x86x87 3y agoi see. when you are investigating a crime and you break or bypass the law I would say that the investigation should not happen in the first place. Everything has to be done within the legal framework that our society is allegedly built on or we descend into anarchy.
- ethanbond 3y agoLegally this is already the case in the US. Obviously not always followed, but investigators do get hit on the point very frequently.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- salamandersss 3y agoFeds got a search warrant for me because an unnamed dog I never met accused me of wrongdoing and told an unnamed officer who told a named detective who told a judge. The bar is low. Sounds like they need an imaginary dog that can't be held to testify so we'll just have to believe it .
- Clubber 3y agoTechnically that unnamed dog accusing you of wrongdoing is all it takes for a search of your car and person.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jtbayly 3y agoBut they aren't investigating a crime! The reason for allowing them to spy on foreigners isn't because foreigners are criminals. It's because we believe surveillance of foreigners might provide some protection for us. They are trying to prevent crimes, not solve them.
- UncleMeat 3y ago"We have to spy on you to know whether you are worth spying on." Remember that you can't even sue for having been warrentlessly wiretapped unless you can prove the government did it ahead of time. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clapper_v._Amnesty_International_USA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clapper_v._Amnesty_Internation...)
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y agoThat quote will never get old.
- candiddevmike 3y ago[flagged]
- plagiarist 3y agoDespite the fraud and lies about net worth it is apparently still large enough to subscribe to US Justice+. Is even the government pretending otherwise at this point?
- mrguyorama 3y agoIt sure doesn't help that he got to hand appoint one of the judges that ended up seeing his case. Gosh, justice sure would "work" better for the individual if everyone got to nominate a judge for themselves once in a while.
- kabouseng 3y agoLack of evidence? Precedent cases which were dismissed?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- indymike 3y ago"applications either would not meet the legal standard to win court approval" Which translates to we will not be able to go around Constitutional protections or ignore laws with impunity. The FBI has it tough (and rightfully so). Their role as law enforcement and domestic counter-espionage agency are almost opposed to one another when it comes to evidence. What passes for actionable intelligence is very different than evidence needed for criminal court. Aside the standards being different, an actor who is a national security threat and a criminal are often very different, even though they both might "break the law."