7 ms·

Well, it makes sense that she'd say that since she's one of the two that rejected that the program is illegal. I've been reading Tim Weiner's Enemies, a histor

by gareim 13y ago

Well, it makes sense that she'd say that since she's one of the two that rejected that the program is illegal. I've been reading Tim Weiner's Enemies, a history of the FBI and one thing stuck with me. That was that there was a period of time when the FBI was incredibly useless because of a previous Supreme Court ruling that wiretapping was illegal and then FBI agents all began to misunderstand what they could and couldn't do. That lead to a breakdown in communication and procedure between different offices and several terrorists that could have been caught slipped by. I'm not saying that Brand is right, but there is reason to worry that this could happen again. What needs to be done is a clear declaration of our fundamental rights and a watchdog court that won't let the agencies overstep in their pursuit of justice. The agents have to know their boundaries, we have to know their boundaries, and we have to know that they know their boundaries. The whole FISA court stuff is ridiculous.

alexeisadeski3 13y ago
It would be wonderful if all wiretaps were ruled illegal. It would also be wonderful if all law enforcement officers were required to wear uniforms or identify themselves when in the course of their duties.
- meowface 13y ago
  Just for a purely hypothetical scenario: If the FBI identified an organized crime hitman who killed 20+ people and left no evidence other than making incriminating phone calls, is it wrong for them to place a tap on his phone line once they have probable cause that he is a hitman?
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    Your hypothetical makes no sense. If they have "probable cause" before tapping his phone, that means that the "left no evidence other than incriminating phone calls" must be false.
    - gareim 13y ago
      No, probable cause is not the same thing as evidence. His hypothetical is actually how warrants are supposed to work. Law enforcement have probable cause to suspect someone of being guilty. If they can make a strong argument about why the person is probably guilty, they then get a warrant to search for evidence in homes, phone calls, emails, whatever. His hypothetical literally described the standard for getting a warrant.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > No, probable cause is not the same thing as evidence. Probable cause is based on evidence. > His hypothetical is actually how warrants are supposed to work. No, its not. > Law enforcement have probable cause to suspect someone of being guilty. If they can make a strong argument about why the person is probably guilty, they then get a warrant to search for evidence in homes, phone calls, emails, whatever. And that "strong argument" is based on factual evidence that was either received through mechanism other than search and seizure, was the product of prior search and seizure in conditions that do not require a warrant, or was the product of prior warrant-based searches and seizures. If there was no evidence left other than what was sought in the warrant, there would be no basis for probable cause to support the warrant.
        mercurial 13y ago
        >> No, probable cause is not the same thing as evidence. > Probable cause is based on evidence. From wikipedia, "Probable cause" is a stronger standard of evidence than a reasonable suspicion, but weaker than what is required to secure a criminal conviction. In other word, you can get a warrant when you don't have enough evidence to secure a conviction, which in turn may lead to gather sufficient proof of guilt (or exonerate the suspect, I suppose).
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        Yes, and any standard of evidence -- even reasonable suspicion -- can't be met without the existence of evidence. That's why its called a "standard of evidence". Again, if there is no evidence left by the "hitman" except the calls for which the warrant is sought, as specified in the hypothetical, than there can't be probable cause to support the warrant. There can't even be reasonable suspicion. In fact, without some kind of evidence, the only thing that could support the desire to seek the wiretap is arbitrary prejudice.
- mercurial 13y ago
  What's the problem with wiretaps, as long as you have actual independent judicial oversight? I don't have an issue with cops listening to cartel hitmen. Considering everybody as a suspect, that's entirely different. > It would also be wonderful if all law enforcement officers were required to wear uniforms or identify themselves when in the course of their duties. I see that now. "Hello, Don Corleone, I'm an undercover police officer, but please pretend you don't see my uniform".
  - angersock 13y ago
    There wouldn't be cartel hitmen if the thing wasn't illegal and hence profitable. I have an issue with letting them listen--especially if I'm on the other end of the phone, for example, taking their order for pizza or arranging a playdate for my kids or something. It's the few-hops-away rule that is very easily justifiable that creates surveillance states.
    - bostonpete 13y ago
      If you unknowingly were setting up a playdate for your kids with a hitman, I think you'd have a vested interest in having the guy exposed and brought to justice.
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        But if I was setting up a playdate for my kids from someone who ordered pizza from the same place as a hitman...
      - angersock 13y ago
        As long as he hasn't hurt me or mine, what's it matter? That same logic puts the friends of drone operators in a strange place, right? They kill civilians too.
        mercurial 13y ago
        > As long as he hasn't hurt me or mine, what's it matter? You don't see anything wrong with cartel hitmen? The kind who lines up heads on the side of the road and torture people to death for effect? > That same logic puts the friends of drone operators in a strange place, right? They kill civilians too. Not quite. First off, it's much more likely that your cartel acquaintance will catch a bad case of drive-by shooting one of these days, kid or no kid. Secondly, sure, I'd feel weird knowing a drone operator, but AFAIK, they don't torture and kill civilians on purpose, it does make a moral difference.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> Well, it makes sense that she'd say that since she's one of the two that rejected that the program is illegal. Per the article, what the dissenters appeared to have done is reject the inquiry into legality as beyond the proper scope of the board's review. Its a fine distinction, to be sure, but there's a difference between a 3-2 split with three finding the program illegal and 2 finding it legal and a 3-2 split with 3 finding it illegal and 2 finding "we shouldn't be looking at legality at all".
angersock 13y ago
several terrorists that could have been caught slipped by. To what effect? Was it really that big a deal?
- gareim 13y ago
  It really was. At least once, known al-Qaeda terrorists did a trial run prior to 9/11. And for a month up to the day before 9/11, Agent Samit was desperately trying to stop Moussaoui by getting a warrant to search his laptop, but a breakdown in communication at the FBI let Moussaoui pretty much get away with it. Then we all know what happened 9/11. This really presents an interesting problem, I think. Reading the effect of secret government surveillance from the past century, it's hard to not believe that that surveillance won't be abused. It's been abused in so many other countries and so often in this country (where we hold ourselves in such high regard). At the same time, the power to terrify and commit mass murder has become much easier as technology advances. So what to do?
  - DanBC 13y ago
    I think I would prefer to spend some of that security money on making transport safer or on Mental health programmes or on better energy use or etc etc. All of those things cause far more problems than terrorism has.
    - gareim 13y ago
      Yes, I completely agree with you that security spending can be trimmed if we make it more efficient. And yes, that money definitely should go to public programs that improve on our well-being (less attacks then!). However, I just want to state that we can't completely ignore security either. If bombs are going to go off around us (we cannot make 100% of people non-violent), it's not as if we could stand still and take no action either.
malandrew 13y ago
It's not hard to fix this problem without hurting morale. Change the primary thing that they should have morale about from protecting the security of the nation to protecting the values upon which this nation was founded, namely the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Every single agent should know the Constitution back to front, inside and out, and see it as their job to protect it over all other objectives, including catching criminals (imho, we should substitute criminal for terrorist, whenever that person is within the borders of the United States and subject to its laws.). The atmosphere at the agency should be such that any subversion of the Constitution by colleagues and superiors should hurt morale among agency employees. If you catch a criminal, but do so by subverting the Constitution, you should feel shame, not pride. When you have the power the agency has, it is of utmost importance that values be palpable in the air among staff. Power without obligation to something higher like the Constitution and Bill of Rights will always be debased in favor of achieving concrete objectives. If we're worrying about hurting their feelings, we're having the wrong debate.
CamperBob2 13y ago
I'm not saying that Brand is right, but there is reason to worry that this could happen again There is reason to worry that a great many things could happen again. An increase in the number of Zoloft prescriptions in the greater Washington, DC area is pretty far from the top of my list of concerns.
- a3n 13y ago
  Morale in this context is not about being happy or depressed. It's more of a technical term. It's about doing your job diligently and effectively. Low morale then would be shirking, dragging your feet, not following through, etc. "Because why bother, they don't like what we do" and then doing nothing, rather than less or different. But, point taken.

by gareim 13y ago

alexeisadeski3 13y ago

It would be wonderful if all wiretaps were ruled illegal. It would also be wonderful if all law enforcement officers were required to wear uniforms or identify themselves when in the course of their duties.

meowface 13y ago
Just for a purely hypothetical scenario: If the FBI identified an organized crime hitman who killed 20+ people and left no evidence other than making incriminating phone calls, is it wrong for them to place a tap on his phone line once they have probable cause that he is a hitman?
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  Your hypothetical makes no sense. If they have "probable cause" before tapping his phone, that means that the "left no evidence other than incriminating phone calls" must be false.
  - gareim 13y ago
    No, probable cause is not the same thing as evidence. His hypothetical is actually how warrants are supposed to work. Law enforcement have probable cause to suspect someone of being guilty. If they can make a strong argument about why the person is probably guilty, they then get a warrant to search for evidence in homes, phone calls, emails, whatever. His hypothetical literally described the standard for getting a warrant.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > No, probable cause is not the same thing as evidence. Probable cause is based on evidence. > His hypothetical is actually how warrants are supposed to work. No, its not. > Law enforcement have probable cause to suspect someone of being guilty. If they can make a strong argument about why the person is probably guilty, they then get a warrant to search for evidence in homes, phone calls, emails, whatever. And that "strong argument" is based on factual evidence that was either received through mechanism other than search and seizure, was the product of prior search and seizure in conditions that do not require a warrant, or was the product of prior warrant-based searches and seizures. If there was no evidence left other than what was sought in the warrant, there would be no basis for probable cause to support the warrant.
      - mercurial 13y ago
        >> No, probable cause is not the same thing as evidence. > Probable cause is based on evidence. From wikipedia, "Probable cause" is a stronger standard of evidence than a reasonable suspicion, but weaker than what is required to secure a criminal conviction. In other word, you can get a warrant when you don't have enough evidence to secure a conviction, which in turn may lead to gather sufficient proof of guilt (or exonerate the suspect, I suppose).
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        Yes, and any standard of evidence -- even reasonable suspicion -- can't be met without the existence of evidence. That's why its called a "standard of evidence". Again, if there is no evidence left by the "hitman" except the calls for which the warrant is sought, as specified in the hypothetical, than there can't be probable cause to support the warrant. There can't even be reasonable suspicion. In fact, without some kind of evidence, the only thing that could support the desire to seek the wiretap is arbitrary prejudice.
mercurial 13y ago
What's the problem with wiretaps, as long as you have actual independent judicial oversight? I don't have an issue with cops listening to cartel hitmen. Considering everybody as a suspect, that's entirely different. > It would also be wonderful if all law enforcement officers were required to wear uniforms or identify themselves when in the course of their duties. I see that now. "Hello, Don Corleone, I'm an undercover police officer, but please pretend you don't see my uniform".
- angersock 13y ago
  There wouldn't be cartel hitmen if the thing wasn't illegal and hence profitable. I have an issue with letting them listen--especially if I'm on the other end of the phone, for example, taking their order for pizza or arranging a playdate for my kids or something. It's the few-hops-away rule that is very easily justifiable that creates surveillance states.
  - bostonpete 13y ago
    If you unknowingly were setting up a playdate for your kids with a hitman, I think you'd have a vested interest in having the guy exposed and brought to justice.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      But if I was setting up a playdate for my kids from someone who ordered pizza from the same place as a hitman...
    - angersock 13y ago
      As long as he hasn't hurt me or mine, what's it matter? That same logic puts the friends of drone operators in a strange place, right? They kill civilians too.
      - mercurial 13y ago
        > As long as he hasn't hurt me or mine, what's it matter? You don't see anything wrong with cartel hitmen? The kind who lines up heads on the side of the road and torture people to death for effect? > That same logic puts the friends of drone operators in a strange place, right? They kill civilians too. Not quite. First off, it's much more likely that your cartel acquaintance will catch a bad case of drive-by shooting one of these days, kid or no kid. Secondly, sure, I'd feel weird knowing a drone operator, but AFAIK, they don't torture and kill civilians on purpose, it does make a moral difference.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> Well, it makes sense that she'd say that since she's one of the two that rejected that the program is illegal. Per the article, what the dissenters appeared to have done is reject the inquiry into legality as beyond the proper scope of the board's review. Its a fine distinction, to be sure, but there's a difference between a 3-2 split with three finding the program illegal and 2 finding it legal and a 3-2 split with 3 finding it illegal and 2 finding "we shouldn't be looking at legality at all".

angersock 13y ago

several terrorists that could have been caught slipped by. To what effect? Was it really that big a deal?

gareim 13y ago
It really was. At least once, known al-Qaeda terrorists did a trial run prior to 9/11. And for a month up to the day before 9/11, Agent Samit was desperately trying to stop Moussaoui by getting a warrant to search his laptop, but a breakdown in communication at the FBI let Moussaoui pretty much get away with it. Then we all know what happened 9/11. This really presents an interesting problem, I think. Reading the effect of secret government surveillance from the past century, it's hard to not believe that that surveillance won't be abused. It's been abused in so many other countries and so often in this country (where we hold ourselves in such high regard). At the same time, the power to terrify and commit mass murder has become much easier as technology advances. So what to do?
- DanBC 13y ago
  I think I would prefer to spend some of that security money on making transport safer or on Mental health programmes or on better energy use or etc etc. All of those things cause far more problems than terrorism has.
  - gareim 13y ago
    Yes, I completely agree with you that security spending can be trimmed if we make it more efficient. And yes, that money definitely should go to public programs that improve on our well-being (less attacks then!). However, I just want to state that we can't completely ignore security either. If bombs are going to go off around us (we cannot make 100% of people non-violent), it's not as if we could stand still and take no action either.

malandrew 13y ago

It's not hard to fix this problem without hurting morale. Change the primary thing that they should have morale about from protecting the security of the nation to protecting the values upon which this nation was founded, namely the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Every single agent should know the Constitution back to front, inside and out, and see it as their job to protect it over all other objectives, including catching criminals (imho, we should substitute criminal for terrorist, whenever that person is within the borders of the United States and subject to its laws.). The atmosphere at the agency should be such that any subversion of the Constitution by colleagues and superiors should hurt morale among agency employees. If you catch a criminal, but do so by subverting the Constitution, you should feel shame, not pride. When you have the power the agency has, it is of utmost importance that values be palpable in the air among staff. Power without obligation to something higher like the Constitution and Bill of Rights will always be debased in favor of achieving concrete objectives. If we're worrying about hurting their feelings, we're having the wrong debate.

CamperBob2 13y ago

I'm not saying that Brand is right, but there is reason to worry that this could happen again There is reason to worry that a great many things could happen again. An increase in the number of Zoloft prescriptions in the greater Washington, DC area is pretty far from the top of my list of concerns.

a3n 13y ago
Morale in this context is not about being happy or depressed. It's more of a technical term. It's about doing your job diligently and effectively. Low morale then would be shirking, dragging your feet, not following through, etc. "Because why bother, they don't like what we do" and then doing nothing, rather than less or different. But, point taken.