Live data from Hacker News

The FBI tried to ambush my source

theintercept.com

91–100 of 164 posts

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#91
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but what if 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?

Well, the reporter claims to have audio recordings of plans for the ambush (presumably, recordings reviewed by the reporter's editors at least), and the FBI apparently considered it important enough to send a whole big team to Belgium. Who knows if the source had anything, but it seems the FBI was very worried.

I agree with that – that it seemed to motivate the FBI. At the same time, we all know the FBI has been wrong before though, so I remain unconvinced that their urgency reflects the truthfulness of the claim.

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#92
post #58
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's... I mean that's the FBI's job. That leak is clearly illegal, it's a crime. Their job is to enforce the law. 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…

There are legal avenues for whistleblowing through IGs and/or Congress. You can't write a law that gives journalists special access to classified information and giving them arbitrary information is ok, how would that even work? (That's without getting in to the complications of defining 'journalist'). If you wanted to argue that leaking information of illegal government activity in certain circumstances is an affirm…

if those legal avenues are implemented/neutered by the same people who implement the illegal programs for the purpose of mitigatingthe actions of whistleblowers can you really say that theyre legal avenues?

what would you do in this situation?

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#93
Whistleblower POV : Reporter chose a strange meeting place in a strange town in a strange country in europe. When I got there it was full of FBI agents, so I walked away. Reporter set me up and then made up a story about a lawyer.

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#94
post #93

Whistleblower POV : Reporter chose a strange meeting place in a strange town in a strange country in europe. When I got there it was full of FBI agents, so I walked away. Reporter set me up and then made up a story about a lawyer.

The Intercept has burned sources before (Reality Winner and maybe others), so I don't see why any actual whistleblower would trust them at this point.

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#95
post #93

Whistleblower POV : Reporter chose a strange meeting place in a strange town in a strange country in europe. When I got there it was full of FBI agents, so I walked away. Reporter set me up and then made up a story about a lawyer.

The Intercept has burned sources before (Reality Winner and maybe others), so I don't see why any actual whistleblower would trust them at this point.

Reporter was working for New York Times a the time. I suppose New York Times also burned sources, so your argument is still valid.

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#96

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…

Yes, we also need multi-member, proportional legislative districts. https://www.fairvote.org/prcv . Single member districts are a disgusting thing for a society that claims to be a representative democracy. As a very simple example, rural liberals and urban conservatives effectively never get represented in our government, and that's still within the context of the false dichotomy of left/right. But single winner ran…

> But single winner ranked choice voting is still important for elected positions that necessarily must be one person, like executive seats.

Executives are neither necessarily single seat nor necessarily directly elected. When indirectly elected, the electoral body that is itself directly elected need not be elected with single-winner methods. The US, in fact, uses multiwinner elections for electing the electoral college now, though mostly using the specific method (multiseat plurality winner-take-all) whose manifest unfairness and utility in excluding minority voices is the specific reason for the existing statutory ban on multiwinner elections for Congress.

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#97
post #14

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…

[deleted]

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#98
post #48
post #14

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…

> That's... I mean that's the FBI's job. That leak is clearly illegal, it's a crime. Their job is to enforce the law. 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…

My understanding is that the legal system figured out a compromise for this type of issue during the Nixon trials. A leaker who signed NDAs and clearance forms and doesn't go through the proper whistleblowing channels (possibly for good reasons) is still legally on the hook. However, the compromise is that the people they leak to are legally in the clear, which would (theoretically) prevent the government using security to silence the free press.

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#99
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…

What do you mean "tolerate". There was massive societal backlash against the NSA in the Snowden leak fallout but it's not like a bunch of angry people on the internet can unilaterally shut down a government agency.

Tolerate: allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#100
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…

The FBI has been an enemy of the people since its creation. Throughout its history it has wholesale spied on the public, collected dirt on political opponents and has been used to discredit dissidents. This agency is used solely to protect power. Their stated mission is ancillary to the true purpose. With a history like that the whole agency should be disbanded. But, power will find another way to legally spy on oppo…

I generally agree with your statement, but there is an additional function of agencies like the FBI (no, it's not to do with their PR campaigns on catching serial killers and child abuse rings).

It's best explained by looking at the behavior of the US pharmaceutical corporations relative to outfits like Mexican and South American drug cartels. Both engage in the same business: selling drugs to consumers, but one is extremely violent, one is not. Most of the violence in the illegal drug trade is cartel-on-cartel violence, with a fair amount of innocent bystanders. Imagine if say, Purdue Pharma or Gilead were conducting armed raids on each other production lines, hijacking each others shipments, etc. Similarly, what if a mid-level manager at Johnson & Johnson were to abscond with millions of dollars in product and set up a rival operation?

These corporations are all ultimately owned by Wall Street investors, by and large. This is who the FBI is there to serve and protect, a lot of people misunderstand that. They prevent such shenanigans as the drug cartels get up to (wholesale murder I mean) by investigating internal corporate crimes of that nature. Otherwise, the CEOs would be hiring private security (like cartel enforcers) to crack down on such things, in a extrajudicial process. The FBI also covers for the crimes of the mighty and powerful, too - HSBC laundering $2 billion in Sinaloa cartel drug money comes to mind, and then future FBI Director James Comey went to 'advise' them. No criminal charges were brought.

If we look at Wall Street as a kind of white-collar organized crime ring, the FBI is basically their enforcement arm. This is why so many top top-level FBI types 'retire' to lucrative positions in Wall Street firms, as Mueller did. It's a rather telling trend.

I suppose the kind of political operations they get up to are also in service of this general agenda, i.e. going after politicians who threaten Wall Street interests, covering up certain outrageous crimes that would reflect badly on the pillars of society, and so on. Overall, rather similar in function to the Soviet NKVD and the German Gestapo (and later, STASI), although not quite as powerful (they still can be embarrassed in legal proceedings, see the Steven Hatfill case, the Leonard Peltier case, etc.).

So, they serve a particular function for their Wall Street masters, but it's a pretty sleazy world they live in, and nobody should trust them anymore than you'd trust some STASI operative.

Post reply on HN