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

FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–560 of 612 posts

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#551

Post by throwawayqqq11 »

cjs_ac wrote: post #145
6stringmerc wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how does the cycle work? I’m not being sarcastic I actually find this a relevant and on-point summation. I happen to be very interested in the systemic consequences and results in Western history as much as is applicable in present USA. I’m glad to be a bystander and not participant, that’s for sure.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generatio... 2. Modern societies are really complex, and a great deal of information-processing work is required to keep them functioning. Authoritarian governments maintain control by concentrating power, which means there are too few people available to make decisions about the behaviour of the system. A good example is the centrally-planned economy of the Sovie…

I find your explanation of free markets outperforming authoritarian regimes wanting. How should a stable and sealed dictatorship like north korea be impacted let alone destabilized by anything outside privateers do? Can you give an example?

Also, since many people bring up the french revolution. Peak weapons tech back then was front loading muskets and the fights in paris were desparation driven bloodbaths, where such weapons were eventually captured by the revolution. Today, the power gap to be outperformed by free markets is much bigger.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#552

Post by johnisgood »

anigbrowl wrote: post #498
johnisgood wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, at 03:05 she does drive into him, and I have a feeling she would have ended up dead anyway were it police officers instead of ICE. I have watched LOTS of bodycam footages and it is crazy to me that people get shot in scenarios that does not require lethal force, but people seem to side with the cops. I think neither cops nor ICE should be doing this shit.

The ICE agent decided to use his gun 10 seconds before the shooting, when the car was stationary and he was in a safe location, to the right of it, and well behind the front. We know this because his own cellphone video shows him switching his cellphone into his left hand from his right. After a brief verbal interaction with the departing partner of Renee Good, and seeing her about to get into the vehicle, he chose t…

I would have to re-watch carefully a few times, but either way, what you are saying sounds likely. Thanks!

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#553

Post by pxc »

jyounker wrote: post #326
peab wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand protesting ICE for better accountability, they certainly need to be held accountable. But I don't understand those who protest the presence of ICE as a concept. Are there any countries that don't enforce their immigration laws?

ICE has been turned into a secret police force. If you'd like a history of the border patrol in the US, then here is an excellent introduction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdStIvC8WeE

Years ago, this book provided me with a useful introduction to the history of immigration to the United States and various crackdowns (vigilante and official) against it.

It's not a difficult read, but its authors are leftists and the language may sometimes be difficult for readers with sensitivities related to the goodness of Democrats or Republicans or whatever.

(I think maybe I'll re-read it today as well; it's been a long time.)

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7861.No_One_Is_Illegal

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#554

Post by dugidugout »

t-3 wrote: post #550
dugidugout wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe you have the hypothetical confused. > if they were targeting you specifically They are not targeting Natanson at all from what I can tell. They're targeting a source she's writing from (to what extent isn't clear to me). This is precisely why I'm positing Whren doesn't apply here. I get the idea of being 'papered' out of a system, but I'm trying to distinguish a pretext that can be justified (objective prob…

In the case of drugs, they probably wouldn't have any reason to raid you unless you were suspected of stashing drugs or money or some other evidence. The journalist is reasonably likely to be in contact with the leaker and so the cops have a somewhat valid pretext to seize things they thought contained evidence of the crime. Whether or not the cops should be able to do that is another thing, but the precedents have b…

> In the case of drugs, they probably wouldn't have any reason to raid you unless you were suspected of stashing drugs or money or some other evidence.

To keep with the analogy: If I had a public history of contact with the dealer (and was a prolific writer on the inner workings of drug trafficking), police could claim "reasonable suspicion" that I have communications/evidence related to them. That would justify seizing my devices for investigation under the same logic.

I agree there's more context to evaluate, but even Bondi's provided framing troubles me. It seems broad enough to target any journalist with relevant sources to a provided crime.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#555

Post by CompanionCubee »

dabluecaboose wrote: post #257
NickC25 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't fight ICE because they have no laws they need to uphold, and they have an unlimited budget to buy tools to fight you with. And the whiplash is quite small, if not nonexistent. Why? Because there's no depths to which this regime, which is openly hostile to its own population, won't go to assert power, as well as to maintain it.

> there's no depths to which this regime, which is openly hostile to its own population, won't go to assert power, as well as to maintain it. Sounds like a regime worth fighting if that's what you believe, but it seems you've decided it's futile.

>Sounds like a regime worth fighting if that's what you believe, but it seems you've decided it's futile.

They both can and can't fight at the same time. The guns are weapons of war, but also useless in war.

Make it make sense.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#556

Post by CompanionCubee »

immibis wrote: post #205
peab wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand protesting ICE for better accountability, they certainly need to be held accountable. But I don't understand those who protest the presence of ICE as a concept. Are there any countries that don't enforce their immigration laws?

"I don't understand why people protest the Gestapo as a concept. Are there any countries that don't have undercover police?"

> "Are there any countries that don't have undercover police?"

In what countries do undercover police drive marked vehicles and wear insignia of their agency?

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#557

Post by estearum »

BryantD wrote: post #548
estearum wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is unambiguously illegal to pay for goods you know to be stolen. In all 50 states and federally. Most courts would assume someone who purchased a private diary of a living person would know that it was stolen.

"particularly if you don't have knowledge of how the document was acquired."

Correct, and there's no way that the private diary of a still-living daughter of a politician was acquired by any method other than theft.

Prosecutors don't need to prove the buyer actually dispositively knew the document was stolen, only that reasonable person would have known it to be such.

Which would be obvious in this case.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#558

Post by filoeleven »

mikkupikku wrote: post #358
perihelions wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "So in this case the government is raiding the home of someone who did not commit any crime, in the hopes of getting at people who might have." That's unequivocally a lawful basis for a court-ordered search warrant. They must have probable cause that the person being searched has evidence of a crime; not necessarily that the search target and the criminal suspect are one and the same. Search is investigative; not p…

> Search is investigative; not punitive. Let's be real, it can be both. A legal, valid and justified search can be done in a manner calculated to inflict maximum pain. Raiding in the middle of the night instead of when they step out their door in the morning, ripping open walls when all they're really looking for is a laptop, flipping and trashing the place in a excessive manner, breaking things in the process, point…

> A legal, valid and justified search can be done in a manner calculated to inflict maximum pain.

See "three felonies a day" - if everyone will casually and unknowingly break some law daily, selective enforcement can be used maliciously.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#560

Post by kaonwarb »

snowwrestler wrote: post #88

To clarify why it’s aggressive: federal employees have a legal duty to secure classified information, but everyone else does not. Reporters are not federal employees and it’s not illegal for them to have or discuss classified materials. Most of what Snowden leaked was classified, and remains classified to this day , but you and I can read about it on Wikipedia. The government pursued Snowden because he was legally ob…

An anecdote: someone close to me had written some of the diplomatic cables Snowden leaked. After the leak they (and others) received stern warnings to not access stories about the leaks on their unclassified systems, because those systems were not authorized to access the classified information (in the New York Times).
Post reply on HN