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

51–60 of 164 posts

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#51

Post by zionic »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #43
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…

> I believe it’s a fundamentally American viewpoint to prefer freedom over security 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.

Are you not convinced this is correct, or not convinced it’s an American viewpoint?

You could argue you disagree with the concept, but I don’t think you could honestly argue it’s not a traditionally American position.

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#52

Post by missedthecue »

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…

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.

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#53

Post by lapcat »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #46
lapcat wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#54

Post by robonerd »

alasdair_ wrote: post #27
robonerd wrote: post #5

> [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…

> Why protect this asshole? Because future sources need to trust you. Protecting sources needs to be absolute, or some of them will wonder what it takes to constitute “betrayal” in the future. Not betraying a source that has wronged you is fantastic signalling to future sources.

You'd trust this guy?! He has spooks crawling all over him. This lawyer was informing the FBI on the journalist's source, and the journalist won't even name that lawyer. An NSA/TLA/etc leaker would need a death wish to approach this journalist now, having read this story.

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#55

Post by mistrial9 »

zionic wrote: post #32
mistrial9 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ok but those agencies look for enemies, and you have just made yourself one, and anyone else that agrees with you essentially, by the conflict "us or them" language. Real reform has many avenues, but none of those include becoming like your own enemy, and vilifying the job. I am not a fan and not making excuses, but the wording here is impossible to agree with, except to start some kind of riot?

> but the wording here is impossible to agree with Why? You haven’t disagreed with my argument, only argued instead that winning against them is impossible so our only path is to submit and hope for incremental improvements by submitting extra hard. These agencies only exist and operate (in theory) with the consent of the governed. In reality almost no one consents to this, so these agencies rely on mass apathy and i…

> only argued instead that winning against them is impossible so our only path is to submit

that is most definitely not what I said at all

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#56

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

It is a fascinating read.

Still, I am not sure if it is a good sign that the story presented, if true, seems more intriguing than average "Blacklist" episode. I would normally default to blaming X ( in this case Holder, Pompeo and Trump as they are named in the story ), but the reality is those are just people, who just happened to use that power.

The issue is that unchecked power apparently will exist until a truly unscrupulous man uses it to his advantage ( if that did not happen already ).

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#57

Post by jameshart »

zionic wrote: post #48
ajross wrote: 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…

In theory a person who believes that the NSA is engaged in illegal activity can, rather than laking classified information to the press, take evidence of the wrongdoing to the FBI. Inspectors General are also a thing. They can also go to their congresspeople.

In theory.

That someone has to resort to leaking to the press to achieve accountability is a bug in the system, it's not how things are meant to work.

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#58

Post by devman0 »

zionic wrote: post #48
ajross wrote: 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…

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 affirmative defense I could possibly get behind that, the devil would be in the details.

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#59

Post by mistrial9 »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #43
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…

> I believe it’s a fundamentally American viewpoint to prefer freedom over security 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.

as a many-generation American, I believe that the great compromise here was to find some balance, where strong law-and-order can exist, and free-as-in-freedom can also exist.. There is no scenario, I think, where either side does not fail and suffer from their own excesses over time.. so the trick is to address that as the parade continues.. Yes, we do remember Watergate.

Re: The FBI tried to ambush my source

#60

Post by phpisthebest »

ajross wrote: post #31
phpisthebest wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that because the courts will rubber stamp a warrant is not a valid rebuttal to unchecked power Just like the saying that a "federal prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich" like wise the FBI could get a warrant for anything they desire at any time The warrant requirement is a not a check on power, and has not been for decades, the courts and our legal system is no longer a protector of rig…

> The idea that because the courts will rubber stamp a warrant is not a valid rebuttal to unchecked power But the crime is "release of classified material". That's not a rubber stamp, it's a clear allegation of criminal activity. I think your real feeling is that this material "shouldn't" have been classified (based on what you believe it contained -- the reporter never got it). And maybe that's true! But the facts i…

My comment has no bearing on the facts of this case, or my opinions on state secrets

The fact of the matter is the warrant system, a non-adversarial system based on flimsy assertions and often out right lies by police and agents is not now, and likely never has been a check on government power

Post reply on HN