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

FBI Monitored Aretha Franklin for Years, File Shows

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 276 posts

Re: FBI Monitored Aretha Franklin for Years, File Shows

#201

Post by mmsimanga »

RetpolineDrama wrote: post #91
fsociety999 wrote: post #62

The FBI is more or less a legalized criminal organization that is funded by U.S. taxpayers, but is unelected and unaccountable to them. This article is from 2013, but I haven’t seen anything to suggest that this behavior has changed: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/04/fbi-in... The important part to consider: > The FBI gave its informants permission to break the law at least 5,658 times in a single…

They also have the seemingly unique and blatantly unconstitutional power to imprison you for ""lying"" to them. The actual wording/charge is "providing false statements", which means anything that they can later suggest is untrue . This is why you should never, ever speak with anyone associated with the FBI even if they are being "friendly". Say they knock at the door and have questions for you about your shady neigh…

I understand your point. I am undecided about the overall impact. I have spent my life in two countries. One is a dictatorship where the culture is basically to tell the cops the truth to avoid trouble. Not great but the net effect is the country has less crime. Less murders, less armed robbery and it is a pretty safe. Just don't say anything about politicians. The other country has a culture of not cooperating with the cops. Basically someone can be shot in a street full of people and not a single witness will come forward. The net result this country is far more dangerous and you need to be careful when out and about. None of them are perfect because humans are not perfect.

Re: FBI Monitored Aretha Franklin for Years, File Shows

#202

Post by prange »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #165
prange wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He and a large number of his supporters contest that, and believe he should run again. Independent polls suggest he would have a good chance of winning. He is probably the only person who might actually get to enact this policy, whereas nobody in the current administration is even talking about it. How could it be more relevant?

It could be more relevant if he were actually president, I suppose. This is just speculation about something that would be nearly 3 years away at best. I similary don't care about what the president in 2029 thinks.

If you think being concerned about Trump, who is widely agreed to still be in control of one of the two US Political Parties, is just far off ‘speculation’ to you, then I’m very surprised you care about an old FBI dossier on Aretha Franklin.

Re: FBI Monitored Aretha Franklin for Years, File Shows

#203

Post by prange »

the_optimist wrote: post #151
prange wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That does seem like Trump’s position - wrongdoing at the FBI means they shouldn’t investigate politicians like him. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-truth-social-fbi-mar-a-... [Edit: Added a link for those who don’t follow news about trump.]

This doesn't "seem" like anyone's position, neither stated explicitly nor implied. You've invented this.

No post body was provided.

Re: FBI Monitored Aretha Franklin for Years, File Shows

#204

Post by tarboreus »

RetpolineDrama wrote: post #91
fsociety999 wrote: post #62

The FBI is more or less a legalized criminal organization that is funded by U.S. taxpayers, but is unelected and unaccountable to them. This article is from 2013, but I haven’t seen anything to suggest that this behavior has changed: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/04/fbi-in... The important part to consider: > The FBI gave its informants permission to break the law at least 5,658 times in a single…

They also have the seemingly unique and blatantly unconstitutional power to imprison you for ""lying"" to them. The actual wording/charge is "providing false statements", which means anything that they can later suggest is untrue . This is why you should never, ever speak with anyone associated with the FBI even if they are being "friendly". Say they knock at the door and have questions for you about your shady neigh…

Let's be real. If they want to mess with you, they don't need to play weird games with you. They're not genies, and they're mostly unaccountable to anyone not their bosses or highly connected individuals. They can not pass go, collect $200 anyway, and mess with you directly.

Re: FBI Monitored Aretha Franklin for Years, File Shows

#205

Post by jstarfish »

bigbacaloa wrote: post #169
pclmulqdq wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even in places that have reasonably good and democratic government, officials take bribes. This happens in Italy, Greece, Spain, India, and many more (almost all of South and Central America). The US and UK are pretty unique in that they aggressively prevent low-level corruption.

There is no routine bribe paying in Spain. What occurs is similar to what occurs in the US - bribes to get government contracts. Day to day bribes are unheard of and Spain is no more corrupt than the US in that sense (in fact, probably less so - I know of people having to pay small "fees" at a county sheriff's office to get some routine document processed).

Fees paid for document processing are annoying and regressive but are not bribes.

They are there to stop you from wasting department resources with requests for 500,000,000 copies of an incident report whose content you disagree with.

Re: FBI Monitored Aretha Franklin for Years, File Shows

#207

Post by williamcotton »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #133
yummypaint wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This takes me back to conversations in the middle school cafeteria. When was the last time you had to bribe a US official to get basic tasks done like register your car? In places that actually have criminal governments this is the norm. Do some research about what it's like in places where there is truly no mechanism for people to remove those in power. Look at russia and the mechanisms by which decisions are made a…

Even in places that have reasonably good and democratic government, officials take bribes. This happens in Italy, Greece, Spain, India, and many more (almost all of South and Central America). The US and UK are pretty unique in that they aggressively prevent low-level corruption.

Motte: All governments are like criminal organizations.

Bailey: Even some Western governments have issues with low-level corruption.

Re: FBI Monitored Aretha Franklin for Years, File Shows

#208

Post by prange »

Banyonite wrote: post #190
prange wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Right wing, left wing, meh. To me (i.e. Opinion ), it's difficult at times to distinguish between the two when looking at the highest echelon on each side. I think my slide into cynicism regarding humans who achieve power, regardless of their stated political philosophies and alignments, started after finishing "The Dictator's Handbook". I read here some posts advocating getting rid of this or that, or saying we shou…

> it seems to take only the inevitable one or two odd instances of corruption to start the rot that will bring it down

This seems to be based on the premise that there could ever be a system that was somehow perfectly free or corruption to begin with.

I think that’s far fetched. I think all human systems are messy and are going to contain some instances of corruption.

The question is simply whether the level of corruption reaches the level that cancels out the benefits of the system as a whole, or not.

Re: FBI Monitored Aretha Franklin for Years, File Shows

#209

Post by yonaguska »

ViViDboarder wrote: post #85
yonaguska wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you hold an entity accountable when that entity has the capability to destroy any single individual with no repercussions? Accountability is further complicated by the fact that the entity is political in nature, so the FBI has actual partisan backing through politicians, the court system, and even down to individual jurists. I honestly don't know what the solution is myself.

If you get rid of the above organizations, the local police become the organization with the capability to destroy any single individuals with no repercussions. Though they have few already, the FBI does investigate local law enforcement agencies. The fact that the head of the FBI is an appointee of an elected official, there is some public accountability through voters if there is enough transparency to inform voter…

The public being informed is really the crux of the issue.

You cite transparency, which is one aspect- but the other interesting problem is the incestuous relationship that our intel agencies have with the media as well.

How much political news coverage was shaped by "anonymous sources" from these intel agencies?

I forget who it was- but I remember one retired agent speaking pretty casually about how the FBI leaks information to journalists by sharing information with retired agents that still hold their clearances.

Re: FBI Monitored Aretha Franklin for Years, File Shows

#210

Post by RetpolineDrama »

scarface74 wrote: post #206
RetpolineDrama wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it? On what charge, "obstruction of justice" perhaps?

Perjury or giving false statements

Not a lawyer but I thought perjury was false statements under-oath, like in a trial. That's a very different matter than being wrong in a casual interview with the cops/feds.

Do you have any examples of laws about "giving false statements" to local police? Seems like a rather blatant 1st amendment violation.

Post reply on HN