5 ms·

Probably a bit of a 'baby with the bathwater' situation here. At almost no point has that institution been a net positive - at times snooping on 'political dis

by pksebben 11mo ago

Probably a bit of a 'baby with the bathwater' situation here. At almost no point has that institution been a net positive - at times snooping on 'political dissidents' (like MLK Jr.), and at others bungling cases so bad they become moments of national shame (Ruby Ridge). You're never going to get a system with a clandestine domestic service running ethically for long, esp. not with qualified immunity. It's simply too attractive to dumb psychopaths with delusions of grandeur and concurrently not of interest to people with a strong sense of community or morals.

JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
> At almost no point has that institution been a net positive The FBI's anticorruption work is good and necessary.
- cgio 11mo ago
  I assume that’s why the original argument is that it’s not been a net positive. I.e. the assumption is that lots of work can be good and necessary, while even more that is evil and excessive can end up with a net negative.
- Hikikomori 11mo ago
  Like that's happening under this administration, see tom Homan.
  - dashundchen 11mo ago
    Or the Trump coin crypto rugpull and money laundering scheme. Or the open insider trading. Or the $400 million jet "gifted" from Qatar. This year has been one grift after another.
- tremon 11mo ago
  Anticorruption work is good and necessary. If the FBI's work was any good, they would be investigating the funding of the destruction of the White House, or AIPAC and Qatari influence in DC, not Comey and Obama. Right now, they are working for Evil.
  - throw0101d 11mo ago
    And before January 2025 they investigated the events of January 2021. And for their troubles many agents have now been gotten rid of.
some_guy_nobel 11mo ago
[flagged]
- tehjoker 11mo ago
  I'm sure police (when they aren't fighting over jurisdictional issues) find it helpful, that doesn't mean that it's helpful for the population, especially when it (and police generally) are used as a tool for domestic influence operations and to basically shunt some people aside in the name of business and landowners.
- AngryData 11mo ago
  Have you ever dealt with US law enforcement? They are a joke. Thinking they are a positive influence is a joke to me.
  - jojobas 11mo ago
    Why don't you then move to a place where law enforcement doesn't exist at all? Surely must be like paradise!
    - jasonvorhe 11mo ago
      well because intelligence agencies and drug lords take over due to more force and money.
    - AngryData 11mo ago
      I already live there because the only enforcement that happens is trying to extract money from poor people to fund the local court and cops. Pulling over every car coming down a particular road and trying to charge them with DUIs for smoking weed 8 hours beforehand does not make me safer, it just makes me late for work and is used to justify tax increases on me to further fund the bogus drug war.
      - jojobas 11mo ago
        US law enforcement "clears" about 1 in 4 robberies and more than 1 in 3 aggravated assaults/batteries, and similar numbers for other crimes. On average, a criminal's career is 3 serious crimes. You can imagine how much awesomer your life would have been if they were able to run uncaught for years and years. But you won't because you have "net negative" bullshit blocking your vision.
teiferer 11mo ago
> At almost no point has that institution been a net positive Hard to measure, isn't it. In the eyes of the millions of americans who have at some point in their life been victims or related to or friends of victims of some kind of serious crime, the FBI has often times been helpful and/or the prospect of being caught has been a deterrent for crimes. You contrast that with all the bad that has come from there, of which there is surely plenty, but how come you claim thay the bad obviously must outweigh the good?
- stavros 11mo ago
  Well, when you hear a knock on the door and someone say "FBI, open up", do you think "thank god, some extra protection", or "oh fuck"?
  - randallsquared 11mo ago
    If you choose to engage law enforcement personnel, it's "thank god, some extra protection" (hopefully!), but if there is a situation where law enforcement personnel engage you, it's either "huh?" or "oh fuck". This isn't different for the FBI than for local or state-level police.
    - AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
      If some law enforcement personnel show up that you didn't invite, they could be there for a large number of reasons. How worried you'll be depends on how likely you think they are to do what they're supposed to do instead of what they're not. If they're canvassing for witnesses, are they going to charge through your yard and shoot your dog? If they're investigating someone else, how likely are they to try to come up with something unreasonable to charge you with for leverage and then make you plead it down to a penalty that still isn't zero in exchange for giving them information you might not even have and would then be forced to choose between fabricating to get the deal and "not cooperating" and getting a serious prison sentence? If someone is attempting to SWAT you, how likely are they to ascertain the situation instead of shooting first and asking questions later? If their investigation has led them to you for some reason even though you're innocent, do you expect them to care about the truth or just railroad you? If you hear the name of a particular law enforcement agency unexpectedly when you don't have any reason to think you've done anything wrong and your instinct still has to be "oh fuck" then they're bad at their jobs.

JumpCrisscross 11mo ago

> At almost no point has that institution been a net positive The FBI's anticorruption work is good and necessary.

cgio 11mo ago
I assume that’s why the original argument is that it’s not been a net positive. I.e. the assumption is that lots of work can be good and necessary, while even more that is evil and excessive can end up with a net negative.
Hikikomori 11mo ago
Like that's happening under this administration, see tom Homan.
- dashundchen 11mo ago
  Or the Trump coin crypto rugpull and money laundering scheme. Or the open insider trading. Or the $400 million jet "gifted" from Qatar. This year has been one grift after another.
tremon 11mo ago
Anticorruption work is good and necessary. If the FBI's work was any good, they would be investigating the funding of the destruction of the White House, or AIPAC and Qatari influence in DC, not Comey and Obama. Right now, they are working for Evil.
- throw0101d 11mo ago
  And before January 2025 they investigated the events of January 2021. And for their troubles many agents have now been gotten rid of.

some_guy_nobel 11mo ago

[flagged]

tehjoker 11mo ago
I'm sure police (when they aren't fighting over jurisdictional issues) find it helpful, that doesn't mean that it's helpful for the population, especially when it (and police generally) are used as a tool for domestic influence operations and to basically shunt some people aside in the name of business and landowners.
AngryData 11mo ago
Have you ever dealt with US law enforcement? They are a joke. Thinking they are a positive influence is a joke to me.
- jojobas 11mo ago
  Why don't you then move to a place where law enforcement doesn't exist at all? Surely must be like paradise!
  - jasonvorhe 11mo ago
    well because intelligence agencies and drug lords take over due to more force and money.
  - AngryData 11mo ago
    I already live there because the only enforcement that happens is trying to extract money from poor people to fund the local court and cops. Pulling over every car coming down a particular road and trying to charge them with DUIs for smoking weed 8 hours beforehand does not make me safer, it just makes me late for work and is used to justify tax increases on me to further fund the bogus drug war.
    - jojobas 11mo ago
      US law enforcement "clears" about 1 in 4 robberies and more than 1 in 3 aggravated assaults/batteries, and similar numbers for other crimes. On average, a criminal's career is 3 serious crimes. You can imagine how much awesomer your life would have been if they were able to run uncaught for years and years. But you won't because you have "net negative" bullshit blocking your vision.

teiferer 11mo ago

> At almost no point has that institution been a net positive Hard to measure, isn't it. In the eyes of the millions of americans who have at some point in their life been victims or related to or friends of victims of some kind of serious crime, the FBI has often times been helpful and/or the prospect of being caught has been a deterrent for crimes. You contrast that with all the bad that has come from there, of which there is surely plenty, but how come you claim thay the bad obviously must outweigh the good?

stavros 11mo ago
Well, when you hear a knock on the door and someone say "FBI, open up", do you think "thank god, some extra protection", or "oh fuck"?
- randallsquared 11mo ago
  If you choose to engage law enforcement personnel, it's "thank god, some extra protection" (hopefully!), but if there is a situation where law enforcement personnel engage you, it's either "huh?" or "oh fuck". This isn't different for the FBI than for local or state-level police.
  - AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
    If some law enforcement personnel show up that you didn't invite, they could be there for a large number of reasons. How worried you'll be depends on how likely you think they are to do what they're supposed to do instead of what they're not. If they're canvassing for witnesses, are they going to charge through your yard and shoot your dog? If they're investigating someone else, how likely are they to try to come up with something unreasonable to charge you with for leverage and then make you plead it down to a penalty that still isn't zero in exchange for giving them information you might not even have and would then be forced to choose between fabricating to get the deal and "not cooperating" and getting a serious prison sentence? If someone is attempting to SWAT you, how likely are they to ascertain the situation instead of shooting first and asking questions later? If their investigation has led them to you for some reason even though you're innocent, do you expect them to care about the truth or just railroad you? If you hear the name of a particular law enforcement agency unexpectedly when you don't have any reason to think you've done anything wrong and your instinct still has to be "oh fuck" then they're bad at their jobs.