41–50 of 164 posts
> [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]
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?
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…
Hmmm, I'm not convinced. I would have had no problem agreeing with that sentiment over two decades ago, but some extremely bad actors have made it clear that "allowing a few bad things to happen" can be orders of magnitude more brutal than I once thought possible.
FBI tried to ambush a suspected criminal* I don't understand the controversy.
FBI tried to ambush a whistleblower. You can say that whistleblowing is a crime, but what if the whistleblower has evidence of even greater crimes being committed? That makes the ambush a cover-up.
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?
FBI tried to ambush a suspected criminal* I don't understand the controversy.
FBI tried to ambush a whistleblower. You can say that whistleblowing is a crime, but what if the whistleblower has evidence of even greater crimes being committed? That makes the ambush a cover-up.
That's kind of the issue though. We don't in fact know what the source really had. Was it legal or illegal? Who knows?
I'm not really understanding what the newsworthy bits here are. There's an implication that this source had some kind of huge trove of data, but the reporter never got it and that's not what the story is about. Instead, this story alleges: (1) the reporter planned to meet with a source to get a classified leak, (2) the FBI got wind of it, and (3) they planned what amounts to a sting operation (I guess, it's complicat…
I’m not sure this is true, considering the programs in the “leak” might themselves be illegal.
The problem with your position is it allows the following loop:
Government makes it illegal to report government crime, then government commits crime.
You can’t report the crime without breaking the law, so the government effectively is bound by no law. How do you break this cycle?
The only solution is to have it such that reporting a crime cannot itself be a crime, classification or otherwise.
It is crazy to think that such little progress was made after Snowden that it is not even slightly off to think that even Snowden didn’t depict the true vastness of the power of the NSA.
In the end the only people being held responsible for anything seem to be the people who warn us and let us know.
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…
With a history like that the whole agency should be disbanded. But, power will find another way to legally spy on opponents. Before the FBI it was secret service agents that were loaned out for that kind of work.