3 ms·

I am not quite sure what is happening here. There are two different ways to look at this, the first being that the federal government knew about the illegal tra

by akama 13y ago

I am not quite sure what is happening here. There are two different ways to look at this, the first being that the federal government knew about the illegal transactions happening at LR, and was unable though incompetence to stop them. The second being that the government didn't have the technical or legal ability to stop them. Either way it does not paint the government in a good light.

ims 13y ago
Don't forget that investigators will sometimes let people do things for a while in order to establish a more solid case. Ethical guidelines for this kind of bystanding typically allow crimes like fraud to proceed temporarily but not murder or assault and so forth.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> There are two different ways to look at this, the first being that the federal government knew about the illegal transactions happening at LR, and was unable though incompetence to stop them. The second being that the government didn't have the technical or legal ability to stop them. Either way it does not paint the government in a good light. Due process protections in the US generally mean that there tends to be a gap between "government has a pretty good idea that something illegal is being done and a fairly specific idea of what it is" and "government has its ducks in a row regarding proof that will stand up in court to begin legal action with a reasonable probability of success". I actually think this is the core of one of the best features of our government, so I don't think it paints the government in a bad light at all that it often knows about bad things happening considerably sooner that it has the practical legal ability to stop them (or, at least, before exercising that ability will jeopardize the ability to hold wrongdoers accountable under the law.)

3 ms·

I am not quite sure what is happening here. There are two different ways to look at this, the first being that the federal government knew about the illegal tra

by akama 13y ago

ims 13y ago
Don't forget that investigators will sometimes let people do things for a while in order to establish a more solid case. Ethical guidelines for this kind of bystanding typically allow crimes like fraud to proceed temporarily but not murder or assault and so forth.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> There are two different ways to look at this, the first being that the federal government knew about the illegal transactions happening at LR, and was unable though incompetence to stop them. The second being that the government didn't have the technical or legal ability to stop them. Either way it does not paint the government in a good light. Due process protections in the US generally mean that there tends to be a gap between "government has a pretty good idea that something illegal is being done and a fairly specific idea of what it is" and "government has its ducks in a row regarding proof that will stand up in court to begin legal action with a reasonable probability of success". I actually think this is the core of one of the best features of our government, so I don't think it paints the government in a bad light at all that it often knows about bad things happening considerably sooner that it has the practical legal ability to stop them (or, at least, before exercising that ability will jeopardize the ability to hold wrongdoers accountable under the law.)