4 ms·
Intelligence agencies' very role is to break laws.
by cm2187 3y ago
Intelligence agencies' very role is to break laws.
- konschubert 3y agoI think they are explicitly exempt from certain laws. This doesn’t mean they are above the law. And maybe they break the law and keep getting away with it. But this doesn’t mean that’s how they are meant to work.
- 9dev 3y agoAn intelligence agency’s role is gathering intelligence on malevolent entities that threaten a country in some way. Not more, not less—but their role certainly isn’t breaking laws per se, or amassing data on the general public to engage in pre-policing. No matter how much certain parties may advocate for that, a democracy cannot exist in a surveillance state, and anyone convinced of that has lost democratic legitimacy.
- cm2187 3y agoThey equally gather information on friendly democracies, bribe or blackmail people, hack computers, they are involved in trade negotiations, watch what all the parties are doing in civil wars, etc. It's not a good guys vs bad guys, good vs evil thing. They are a limited exception to democratic governments abiding to the rule of law. They are hired thugs, "our thugs". And I am not disputing that they are necessary. Just that it is a bit naive to think people whose job it is to break laws all day long will abide to another law. That's why they tend to be scandals rich organisations.
- 9dev 3y agoWhat is considered malevolent is obviously dependent on the perspective, but we cannot accept agencies without any oversight or control, that will always lead to a shadow government. Which leads me to my point: we need to be extra vigilant when it comes to the mandate of intelligence agencies.
- OfSanguineFire 3y agoGathering information on friendly democracies, or watching what all the parties are doing in civil wars, is not a violation of US law. Espionage between states is rarely a violation of the law of the state that is doing the espionage. The “friendly democracies” on which the US spies, are in turn gathering information on the states they consider friendly democracies.
- insickness 3y agoThat's not true at all. Intelligence agencies can't just do whatever they want. They are beholden to the people just like every other government agency. They can be granted power to do things that ordinary people can't, but that doesn't mean they are above the law.
- School-Cotton 3y agoYes they can do whatever they want and no they’re not beholden to anyone. When has the NSA ever been held accountable for their illegal spying on US citizens?
- AnimalMuppet 3y agoThey're beholden to Congress funding them, if nothing else.
- insickness 3y agoRight, I'm not saying that they don't break the law. They do. But technically, their role is not to break the law. There ostensibly is oversight but it obviously doesn't work well enough.
- adhesive_wombat 3y agoIndeed. Being granted exclusive powers that would otherwise be illegal must always be given the respect it deserves: use of powers only when and as far absolutely necessary and reporting of and punishment of transgressions, intentional or not. There is nothing more morally corrosive than a law enforcement agency betraying the trust represented by their powers.
- cedws 3y agoThe NSA has literally broken laws, lied about it, and gotten away with it.
- wkat4242 3y agoTechnically not, they just had secret courts rubber stamp for them. In the most technical sense it's legal though of course it subverts the entire idea of the justice system by having a court in your pocket.
- phkahler 3y agoTo the extent that maybe it is, it should be other countries laws. Nobody has the authority to grant such law breaking permission (without a warrant). When you break the rules establishing a system, you no longer have that system, but a free for all. The US constitution in particular aims to protect the people from government overreach. See the original amendments and read them in that light.
- cm2187 3y agoEven from a pure legalistic point of view, US laws have extraordinary extra territorial reach. I believe if a bribe occurs between two foreigners in a foreign country, the mere fact that they used USD for payment brings it within US jurisdiction. And certainly if a US citizen is involved.