Sounds like the water boarding debate.
“[S]upport[ing] other investigative requests, develop investigative leads, and corrobrate other information” sounds very important to me.
I’m on your side vis-a-vis the Patriot act, but this analysis is pretty thin gruel, hinging as it does on a very specific reading of her words.
Aww, the new kid at the office is fitting in so well…It’s just heartwarming.
Well sure it didn’t lead to any major breaks. That’s because they’re not collecting enough data, obviously.
“It’s no wonder hardly anyone believes what government officials say about the alleged importance of the FBI or NSA’s mass surveillance programs anymore.”
That’s because it’s becoming clear that it’s not really about terrorists; it’s about controlling the entire population and punishing those who step out of line.
The former heads of the Stasi and KGB must be green with envy.
It didn’t result in any major breaks, in terms of evidence that would hold up in court or can be disclosed in public. It was invaluable for turning up leads that then would be duplicated in parallel construction, and we’d all be at risk from the terrorists if it weren’t available for that. So yes, it is, and isn’t, giving valuable information to investigators, both at the same time.
(It’s called plusgood doublethink, Citizen!)
I think your tongue is firmly planted in your cheek with this comment, but it’s worth repeating that the FBI has yet to foil a “terrorist” plot that they didn’t cook up and put into motion themselves.
I guess the reading depends on the assumptions you make about where the truth lies, which is your point of course.
It also reminds me of soda cup sizes, the big one isn’t the biggest and the jumbo isn’t the largest either, and while the information didn’t provide major results, saying it was valuable doesn’t tell me much about where that data fits in the scale of importance. Was it so valuable as to be vital? It doesn’t say so.
Its worth reminding that most people would consent to the current state of surveillance if they perceived it was keeping them safe and indeed, people who still defend this do so explicitly because they believe it does.
Now, the best that can be said is that it may be valuable to law enforcement which is not the same as saying it is vital for public safety, the threshold at which a lot of people (not me FYI but YMMV) would be OK with such intrusive spying.
That just goes to show that you can’t trust anyone! There are terrorists in the very ranks of the FBI, cooking up terror plots and setting them into motion! We have to double down on the surveillance to catch them!
(Oh, and won’t someone please think of the children!)
I’m sorry, I can’t come up with a reductio ad absurdum for right-wing authoritarianism. It went beyond absurdity too long ago.
I think it would quickly get quite recursive. Something along the lines of a “yo dawg…”
It is fair to say that if government knew everything then they would be able to prevent crime, but we have some rules about that. Right? It isn’t enough to say it works. It also has to not break the constitution and it isn’t for law enforcement to make that decision.
Bill Binney calls the NSA the “New Stasi Agency” b/c they learned from the Stasi and upped that game.
Ms. Lynch is a great example of the perfect politician; you don’t need brains, just a really loud voice!
Oh, Lynch has brains - she has tons of smarts. She’s also smart enough to know upon which side her bread is buttered.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.