5 ms·

Thanks to the FISA "court" system, I doubt US spy agencies fear any legal reprecussions. No need to follow the law if you have a secret court where no one has

by gsk22 3y ago

Thanks to the FISA "court" system, I doubt US spy agencies fear any legal reprecussions. No need to follow the law if you have a secret court where no one has standing to challenge your actions.

ethbr1 3y ago
Omnipotent and yet completely legally-neutered FISA is a lazy excuse to avoid thinking about things. There are no illuminati. There are powerful institutions, who nonetheless fear other powerful institutions. In this case, intelligence preferring to remain out of the courts and newspapers.
- staplers 3y ago
  There are no illuminati. Interesting psyops to conflate corruption with "illuminati"..
- mardifoufs 3y ago
  Who said anything about illuminatis? Does FISA effectively allow intelligence agencies to hide stuff or not? And can you show me a concrete example of IA actually getting punished from other powerful institutions in any meaningful way?
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    FISA allows them to conduct it legally. It doesn't have anything to do with hiding. Before FISA, they generally just did it, without asking anyone. And press reports on intelligence operations led directly to the Church/Pike Committees, which led to EO 11905/12036.
    - mardifoufs 3y ago
      Who exactly was punished by that EO? You are proving my point, even the most "push back" IAs have seen in terms of concrete actions against them led to... a directive that forbid them from murdering people in foreign countries. No actual consequences for anyone involved, no one got even a slap on the wrist in terms of actual consequences. And that's after the church committee, which revealed some super damning stuff. Oh, and they went back to doing it after a few decades.
      - ethbr1 3y ago
        Are you really asking me to cite classified operations? And the fact that subsequent Executive Orders explicitly loosened the reigns on intelligence collection (and assassination with respect to "terrorists") indicates that yes, the original orders did restrict intelligence operations.
        jtbayly 3y ago
        It sounds like you are claiming that IA’s have been punished for their abuses, but we’ll just have to trust you on it because the punishments were classified operations. Doesn’t make sense at all, unless you’re saying that the punishments were certain spy chiefs secretly murdered or something.
        jrflowers 3y ago
        You make a good point. While people may have an issue with FISA being opaque they do not consider that maybe it being opaque is good for reasons that cannot be explained. With an explanation like that, how could anyone have a problem with such a thing?
- j16sdiz 3y ago
  > There are powerful institutions, who nonetheless fear other powerful institutions. They don't "fear" other powerful institution. Just like chess players, they "game" with each other.
- asveikau 3y ago
  The problem with FISA as I understand it is not illuminati. It's that the court probably approves almost everything the government asks for without scrutiny. In general, most courts probably have issues like this -- when their job might be oversight and scrutiny they end up as a rubber stamp for the powerful, like cops, prosecutors, etc. For FISA it's especially bad because decisions and arguments made aren't public.
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    But it nonetheless exists and could be reformed if there were political will. There was a (much worse) time when FISA didn't exist. There can also be a future time in which something even stronger exists! It's annoying to get low-effort whatabout'isms that are justifications for inaction on the basis that nothing will ever change. It has and it can.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - asveikau 3y ago
      I don't think I'm doing whataboutism by stating common criticisms of US criminal justice and of FISA. Although, having considered these topics over the years, I am skeptical that we will do better. Humans are flawed. Truth and justice are hard to achieve, even with the best intentions. Anyone involved with these topics -- judges, prosecutors, lawmakers -- should have a very high sense of humility in what they are doing. Often they do not.

by gsk22 3y ago

Thanks to the FISA "court" system, I doubt US spy agencies fear any legal reprecussions. No need to follow the law if you have a secret court where no one has standing to challenge your actions.

ethbr1 3y ago

Omnipotent and yet completely legally-neutered FISA is a lazy excuse to avoid thinking about things. There are no illuminati. There are powerful institutions, who nonetheless fear other powerful institutions. In this case, intelligence preferring to remain out of the courts and newspapers.

staplers 3y ago
There are no illuminati. Interesting psyops to conflate corruption with "illuminati"..
mardifoufs 3y ago
Who said anything about illuminatis? Does FISA effectively allow intelligence agencies to hide stuff or not? And can you show me a concrete example of IA actually getting punished from other powerful institutions in any meaningful way?
- ethbr1 3y ago
  FISA allows them to conduct it legally. It doesn't have anything to do with hiding. Before FISA, they generally just did it, without asking anyone. And press reports on intelligence operations led directly to the Church/Pike Committees, which led to EO 11905/12036.
  - mardifoufs 3y ago
    Who exactly was punished by that EO? You are proving my point, even the most "push back" IAs have seen in terms of concrete actions against them led to... a directive that forbid them from murdering people in foreign countries. No actual consequences for anyone involved, no one got even a slap on the wrist in terms of actual consequences. And that's after the church committee, which revealed some super damning stuff. Oh, and they went back to doing it after a few decades.
    - ethbr1 3y ago
      Are you really asking me to cite classified operations? And the fact that subsequent Executive Orders explicitly loosened the reigns on intelligence collection (and assassination with respect to "terrorists") indicates that yes, the original orders did restrict intelligence operations.
      - jtbayly 3y ago
        It sounds like you are claiming that IA’s have been punished for their abuses, but we’ll just have to trust you on it because the punishments were classified operations. Doesn’t make sense at all, unless you’re saying that the punishments were certain spy chiefs secretly murdered or something.
      - jrflowers 3y ago
        You make a good point. While people may have an issue with FISA being opaque they do not consider that maybe it being opaque is good for reasons that cannot be explained. With an explanation like that, how could anyone have a problem with such a thing?
j16sdiz 3y ago
> There are powerful institutions, who nonetheless fear other powerful institutions. They don't "fear" other powerful institution. Just like chess players, they "game" with each other.
asveikau 3y ago
The problem with FISA as I understand it is not illuminati. It's that the court probably approves almost everything the government asks for without scrutiny. In general, most courts probably have issues like this -- when their job might be oversight and scrutiny they end up as a rubber stamp for the powerful, like cops, prosecutors, etc. For FISA it's especially bad because decisions and arguments made aren't public.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  But it nonetheless exists and could be reformed if there were political will. There was a (much worse) time when FISA didn't exist. There can also be a future time in which something even stronger exists! It's annoying to get low-effort whatabout'isms that are justifications for inaction on the basis that nothing will ever change. It has and it can.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - asveikau 3y ago
    I don't think I'm doing whataboutism by stating common criticisms of US criminal justice and of FISA. Although, having considered these topics over the years, I am skeptical that we will do better. Humans are flawed. Truth and justice are hard to achieve, even with the best intentions. Anyone involved with these topics -- judges, prosecutors, lawmakers -- should have a very high sense of humility in what they are doing. Often they do not.