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

111–120 of 164 posts

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#111

Post by lapcat »

devman0 wrote: post #58
zionic wrote: 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…

> There are legal avenues for whistleblowing through IGs and/or Congress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Ukraine_scandal

In this case the legal avenues were followed, yet the Director of National Intelligence decided not to inform Congress of the whistleblower report, despite being legally required. The administration could have squelched the report if Michael Atkinson hadn't informed Congress himself, and of course Atkinson was later fired by the President.

Why should a whistleblower trust the very administration they're ratting out?

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#112

Post by tonguez »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #90
rzz3 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or perhaps you’re just getting older, and your income level is rising, and you don’t operate near any edges of the bounds of the law. Due to your perspective, freedom may have become less important that security. Of course there is always a balance to be found, and everyone’s perspective is different, but personally I’m a 1 or a 2 in the `freedom |—————| safety` scale.

I don't think I follow your point about income level. At first blush it sounds like you are suggesting the poor care more about freedom (or have more to fear from the FBI/CIA?). I am personally not worried about my own safety at all. Or maybe it's more fair to say that I worry no more about my safety than anyone would living under the nuclear sword of Damocles (never mind an environment out of kilter) — or that I wor…

“I don't think I follow your point about income level”

it makes sense when you consider that TLAs basic function is to preserve the status quo for wall street. we subvert democracy overseas to preserve corporate profits and have been doing so for many generations a la United Fruit Company, selling weapons to saudi arabia, etc.

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#113

Post by snovv_crash »

Volundr wrote: post #85
missedthecue wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Convicting an unpopular guy is easy. Shutting down a government institution is not. Even Obama failed to shut down Gitmo, despite being the most powerful person in the country for 10 years.

Did he try? I always counted it among many broken promises never even attempted.

It was the first thing he tried, and he was blocked by Congress who refused to fund the shutdown operation.

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#114

Post by haswell »

JTbane wrote: post #106
toma_caliente wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Just wanted to chime in that all ranked voting systems can be gamed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theore...

This is an oversimplified conclusion.

FTA:

> The practical consequences of the theorem are debatable: Arrow has said "Most systems are not going to work badly all of the time. All I proved is that all can work badly at times

Followed by:

> Although Arrow's theorem is a mathematical result, it is often expressed in a non-mathematical way with a statement such as no voting method is fair, every ranked voting method is flawed, or the only voting method that isn't flawed is a dictatorship.[11] These statements are simplifications of Arrow's result which are not universally considered to be true.

Bottom line - this seems interesting, but is hardly as simple as "all ranked voting systems can be gamed".

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#115

Post by coffeeblack »

photochemsyn wrote: post #94
slim wrote: 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.

Especially after what The Intercept did to its founder.

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#116

Post by lern_too_spel »

markovbot wrote: post #81
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…

> It’s saddening that we as Americans tolerate this kind of abuse from the department of “justice”, FBI, and NSA. what do you suggest we do about it? We have no meaningful recourse against the myriad of government abuses.

We have the courts, the threat of which forced the government to make the only illegal program in Snowden's leaks legal. We have the ballot box, which elected Obama, who shut down email metadata surveillance even before it leaked.

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#117

Post by AlbertCory »

chatmasta wrote: post #47

In Bruges is a fantastic film, one of my favorites as well, and makes for a poignant backdrop to this story, wherein the reporter unknowingly manifests its plot from his semi-ironic suggestion of meeting there. The imagery of the FBI guys waiting around in Bruges is just too perfect. Life imitates art.

I was about to say that, but you beat me to it.

> The FBI team in Bruges waited and waited, according to the lawyer, frustrated and in vain.

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#118

Post by lern_too_spel »

zionic wrote: post #108
tootie wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I'm reading the story correctly the villain is that lawyer who seemingly mislead everybody. The DOJ sought to prevent the loss of classified information which may or may not have ever existed related to spying programs that may or may not have ever existed. That's well within their responsibilities even if they were being overzealous. I've never been one to put full trust in any politicians or bureaucracy but the…

> The DOJ sought to prevent the loss of classified information which may or may not have ever existed related to spying programs that may or may not have ever existed. That's well within their responsibilities Really? Wouldn’t most people think a Department of Justice should be actively hunting down and prosecuting those who illegally spy on US Citizens? I mean they’re supposed to work for us, uphold our laws and con…

There is no evidence in this story that anybody was illegally spying on US citizens. The FBI had a court order to allow this operation.

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#119

Post by nullc »

lapcat wrote: post #105
nullc wrote: post #104

I doubt the source existed, the lawyer sounds like a fantasist and both the reporter and FBI fell for his stories. It pretty much says right there in the story that the lawyer was usually full of shit-- "I have concluded that the American lawyer loved to play games with everyone ... The lawyer told Ridd that he frequently lied to me and my colleagues at the Times ... 'I lie my ass off every day'". From personal exper…

> I doubt the source existed, the lawyer sounds like a fantasist and both the reporter and FBI fell for his stories. Except that Risen said he already met the source. The ambush was for their follow-up meeting.

I saw that he said "met" but was the "met" online? I had been leaning towards assuming it was.

If they'd met in person why were they traveling to a far off country?

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#120

Post by [deleted] »

slim wrote: 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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN