Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The FBI tried to ambush my source

theintercept.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 164 posts

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#31

Post by ajross »

phpisthebest wrote: post #23
ajross wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are no politicians involved in this story at all. This is just the FBI doing police work (and then getting burned by their own informant). Like it or not, distribution of classified material is a crime, and the FBI's job is to enforce the law. There's no "unchecked" power here. The details are complicated because the meeting was international (so presumably there was some coordination with local police), but th…

The idea that because the courts will rubber stamp a warrant is not a valid rebuttal to unchecked power Just like the saying that a "federal prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich" like wise the FBI could get a warrant for anything they desire at any time The warrant requirement is a not a check on power, and has not been for decades, the courts and our legal system is no longer a protector of rig…

> The idea that because the courts will rubber stamp a warrant is not a valid rebuttal to unchecked power

But the crime is "release of classified material". That's not a rubber stamp, it's a clear allegation of criminal activity. I think your real feeling is that this material "shouldn't" have been classified (based on what you believe it contained -- the reporter never got it). And maybe that's true!

But the facts in this article are just OBVIOUSLY probable cause for a warrant, nonetheless.

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#32

Post by zionic »

mistrial9 wrote: post #9
zionic wrote: post #2

It’s saddening that we as Americans tolerate this kind of abuse from the department of “justice”, FBI, and NSA. I hope any employees of the above that read my post understand that you’re working for the wrong side. Absolutely none of their justifications hold water, and it doesn’t matter that they catch a few bad guys. Their very existence is antithetical to a free and open society. Edit: To expound upon this further…

ok but those agencies look for enemies, and you have just made yourself one, and anyone else that agrees with you essentially, by the conflict "us or them" language. Real reform has many avenues, but none of those include becoming like your own enemy, and vilifying the job. I am not a fan and not making excuses, but the wording here is impossible to agree with, except to start some kind of riot?

> but the wording here is impossible to agree with

Why? You haven’t disagreed with my argument, only argued instead that winning against them is impossible so our only path is to submit and hope for incremental improvements by submitting extra hard.

These agencies only exist and operate (in theory) with the consent of the governed. In reality almost no one consents to this, so these agencies rely on mass apathy and ignorance. If we talk about what they’ve done wrong, and how they actively harm America a few things happen:

1) it becomes less socially acceptable to work for them, and they struggle to attract talent

2) it becomes more politically feasible to argue for their removal

The us-vs-them language is a feature, not a bug. People in large groups are (mostly) incapable of being both passionate and nuanced on the same subject. So sure, bringing up the children murdered by FBI and ATF at Waco doesn’t directly relate to ending mass illegal surveillance but it does help achieve the goal.

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#33

Post by JKCalhoun »

tgv wrote: post #8

The piece is pretty vacuous. It lacks so much information, it reads as a made-up story. Does anybody know what documents he’s talking about?

He admits himself there may have never been documents.

I don't think it reads as made up, but it really does seem like there's not really anything there.

A meeting that did not happen with someone that may or may not have had something....

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#34

Post by salawat »

toma_caliente wrote: post #25
dragonwriter wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Single-winner ranked ballots methods are reform theater; they aren't particularly “more fair and inclusive” that FPTP in general, and the particular method called “Ranked Choice Voting”, “Alternative Vote”, or “Instant Runoff Voting” in particular is only minimally different in structure and effect from majority-runoff. Established elites make a show of opposing IRV/AV/RCV because centering the debate on that focusse…

This statement seems to be in conflict with everything I've read about ranked choice voting. If I can put my preferred independent candidate as rank 1 and a safe choice at rank 2 then this is objectively better than just voting for the safe choice out of fear of stealing votes away and giving it to the opposition. What systems would you prefer?

...That just degenerates to propping up the duopoly! That won't change anything.

I'm straight up against any methodology that blunts the sting of no confidence in the two big parties. They should absolutely have to react to shifting priorities. That means, no safety net. Otherwise, you're handing them the same election advantage they've always enjoyed and just handwaving the entire issue.

It sounds more to me like we need to start tracking negative votes (not this person) as well. It's bollocks that no confidence is treated as "I have no opinion".

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#35

Post by [deleted] »

GiorgioG wrote: post #4

I hope stories like this open the eyes of folks who are die-hard Democrats or die-hard Republicans. They are not on your side. They are on their own side. I don't doubt that most folks at these agencies are hard-working Americans who believe they're doing what's best for our country. Having said that, this kind of unchecked power is dangerous.

[deleted]

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#36

Post by [deleted] »

ratsmack wrote: post #6

The corruption is deep and wide within our government (deep state?) and it doesn't matter which political faction is in power. The attack on the dissemination of information and transparency seems to be accelerating every day. It's almost as if there is something to hide... as if the only way to maintain a position of power is to obfuscate, lie and and deflect at every point a question is asked.

[deleted]

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#38

Post by germinalphrase »

toma_caliente wrote: post #25
dragonwriter wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Single-winner ranked ballots methods are reform theater; they aren't particularly “more fair and inclusive” that FPTP in general, and the particular method called “Ranked Choice Voting”, “Alternative Vote”, or “Instant Runoff Voting” in particular is only minimally different in structure and effect from majority-runoff. Established elites make a show of opposing IRV/AV/RCV because centering the debate on that focusse…

This statement seems to be in conflict with everything I've read about ranked choice voting. If I can put my preferred independent candidate as rank 1 and a safe choice at rank 2 then this is objectively better than just voting for the safe choice out of fear of stealing votes away and giving it to the opposition. What systems would you prefer?

Right, what is considered “real reform” here?

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#39

Post by [deleted] »

robonerd wrote: post #5

> [the lawyer] told me that he was sometimes involved in international arms deals. [...] The lawyer seemed to be an adrenaline junkie, someone who had found a home on the dark side of international intelligence. [...] While the FBI knows who the lawyer is, I will not name him, even though he betrayed me.) Why protect this asshole? Because he got cold feet and gave warning? This guy seems like 'quite a character' and…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN