21–30 of 151 posts
It wasn't even 2 years after the 2001 PATRIOT act that the DOJ was using the provisions for drug cases.
A probably non-exhaustive list is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_invocations_of_t...
Wow whoever came up with the whole 'in the name of terrorism' is a goddamn genius. Pretty much a free card to get access to anything and everything for the sake of 'security'.
Is it just me or is the FBI a little out of control lately...
Lately?
Is it just me or is the FBI a little out of control lately...
> lately… Lately?
I think the fact that they completely invented a fictitious science to prosecute cases should have brought serious investigation and televised congressional hearings with daily news coverage...
...but nope.
Scrap it and start over.
Wow whoever came up with the whole 'in the name of terrorism' is a goddamn genius. Pretty much a free card to get access to anything and everything for the sake of 'security'.
--Hermann Göring
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> lately… Lately?
Well played, but in the public eye. I think the fact that they completely invented a fictitious science to prosecute cases should have brought serious investigation and televised congressional hearings with daily news coverage... ...but nope. Scrap it and start over.
You'd think terrorism/spy cases would be a small minority of overall cases. And not that hard to justify a warrant. Seems odd that they feel it is important to skip the warrant step for such cases. Why not require a warrant? The more checks and balances the better.
Is there a way to make obtaining warrants more transparent and straightforward?
It honestly seems like they could design a better system that doesn't get rid of the checks, increases citizen trust, and solves their issues.