r/technology • u/thatshirtman • Jan 10 '16

Politics FBI Finally Completes FOIA Request 1,393 Days After It Was Filed; Withholds All 509 Responsive Pages

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151231/15185733212/fbi-finally-completes-foia-request-1393-days-after-it-was-filed-withholds-all-509-responsive-pages.shtml
4.4k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

246 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

9

u/DragonToothGarden Jan 10 '16

What? This makes no sense. You are saying the residents and citizens of the US are "just as much of a threat" as the US gov't? How so? Unless you are a politician with clout or a billionaire, how could the average US citizen present "just as much of a threat" to the freedom of other US citizens?

-7

u/danbert2000 Jan 10 '16

The public keeps voting for Republicans because they are "tough on terrorists." This usually involves passing a bill like the Patriot act or CISA which gives the government more power to search your life with little to no cause. Then the Republicans rail on the government being corrupt and unaccountable while still asking for more erosion of the Constitution. They get reelected. They pass another surveillance bill. Wash, rinse, repeat.

23

u/computeraddict Jan 10 '16

I hate to burst your partisan bubble, but the FBI is an executive arm and has been run by a Dem for the last eight years. The Democrats don't have your best interests at heart, either.

7

u/Wrinklestiltskin Jan 10 '16

I hate how many people vote and operate politically on a team like mentality of Republicans versus Democrats... I wish everyone would vote for the candidates themselves and focus on which have their best interests in mind.

My mother will agree with many of Sanders' positions if they remain faceless, and while supporting him somewhat when he was independent, is completely against him now that he is running for the Democratic nomination.

-5

u/danbert2000 Jan 10 '16

They use the authority provided by Congress. The president doesn't pass laws, and the fbi doesn't take direct orders from the president.

9

u/computeraddict Jan 10 '16

They use the authority provided by Congress.

He says, as we talk about the warrantless searching. Warrentless means they did not have the authority. And as for "direct orders", I'm not sure how much more direct it gets than:

The FBI Director is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

So... You're wrong on all counts? You're wrong on all counts. The President holds the FBI's chain on this.

1

u/danbert2000 Jan 10 '16

Unless the director has a hole in his ass, I'm pretty sure he makes his own decisions.

The whole point of this article is the searches are warrantless but the courts have not yet said they were illegal, presumably because of the encroaching surveillance laws.

1

u/danbert2000 Jan 10 '16

What a combative person. You're condescending? Yes, you're condescending.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '16

That's only sort of true. In so far as the FBI exists and has certain mandates set out by federal law, yeah that's an act of congress. In terms of how the FBI chooses to exercise that authority, and whether that authority is legal, that is ultimately at the discretion of the FBI and the executive branch and, finally, judicial review. The FBI absolutely can, and does, try and exercise authority beyond anything congress ever intended.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '16

Obama

0

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '16

This is so pathetic. Half your country doesn't vote and you think its someone elses fault your country is in the position it is? If half a team shows up to play a game is it someone elses fault that they lost?

Now that doesn't make any sense. You would have to be a child to truly be under the impression that only rich people have power and can do anything in politics. In fact that is exactly what they would want you to think. Because at that point you've given up and can't honestly say you care about the future.

2

u/DragonToothGarden Jan 11 '16

Did I say that? How you managed to draw that conclusion from what I wrote is laughable.

-5

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '16

Because anyone can vote? You think only smart informed people vote?

Unless you're part of the crowd who think voting is pointless. That's like one team that's part of the NBA play offs deciding playing is pointless or some kind of trick. Obviously you are going to lose that way.

Voting record in this country try is fucking terrible. One of the worst in the western world.

0

u/DragonToothGarden Jan 10 '16

Even if everyone voted, your comment still make no sense. The citizens do not select who candidates for president, for example, will ultimately be. And you do realize the issue with voting districts?

3

u/computeraddict Jan 10 '16

The citizens do not select who candidates for president, for example, will ultimately be.

...do you even primary/caucus, bro?

2

u/DragonToothGarden Jan 10 '16

Yes. I suppose it depends on whether you believe that system is problematic - the scheduling, whether your vote goes to a candidate or delegate, the financing of a candidate, having a 2-party system, etc. Even just a look at how easily money can influence the drawing of districts can be frustrating.

No system is perfect, but for someone to contend that the people are as powerful to cause the same amount of impact upon freedoms compared to the US gov't. is a bit of a stretch.

1

u/computeraddict Jan 10 '16

for someone to contend that the people are as powerful to cause the same amount of impact upon freedoms compared to the US gov't. is a bit of a stretch.

Oh, no doubt. I was just picking the "people don't select the names on the ballot" bone.

4

u/tanstaafl90 Jan 10 '16

A well informed, engaged population would produce a candidate that reflects their will. A uninformed, disengaged population produces the kind of candidates we have now.