Tobin Worcester 22 minutes ago
Once again, the government is demonstrating that we
cannot trust it to wisely use the evidence that it is
collecting on us.
The Attorney General is nominated by the president. They decide who the federal government prosecutes. It is absolutely political.
It is entirely the responsibility of intellectuals and opinion leaders -- including ordinary smart people like HN readers -- that Americans haven't been educated to care and vote on the issue. We appear ready to continue voting for it to get worse.
That decision was a decision entirely up to the executive branch, which is entirely up to the electorate. Making (not well supported) assertions about "republican adminstrations pushing a surveillance state" does not change those facts.
The Democrats clearly won't do it, and we can rest assured the Republicans will busy themselves with abortion and warmongering with Iran.
Third parties do change things, even if it's just the major parties co-opting their positions after getting a scare in the election. "Hey, Party X took ten percent of the vote simply by opposing mass surveillance. Maybe we should get some of that action."
My CEO doesn't watch what I do on a daily or ever basis. I have my assignments and my evaluation criteria, and that criteria does not change when the CEO changes.
Personnel at the working level don't change much with new administrations, and the personnel rules and evaluation criteria likely don't change at all. Agents have to investigate and arrest, prosecutors have to prosecute and win.
I'm sure the President and AG had no hand in deciding whether to start and continue this investigation.
Sorry to be the one to tell you - the only boxen left are the ammo box and the s-box.
It's actually pretty easy to effect change, especially at a local level, because so few people put in the time to try it; it's a lot easier, I guess, to sit around on the internet posting about "ammo box" recourse.
Try volunteering on a campaign in your home town, you'll be surprised at the people you meet and the outcomes you can play a role in.
Something clearly does not scale up.
A major point to the rule of law is to protect assorted minority interests from the majority. The larger the group, the stronger the groupthink.
But if you point that out, you get told to move to Somalia if you don't like it.
There should be a minimum $500k USD awarded to anyone who's arrested by USgov but then found innocent. Of course the problem this will cause is that if USgov arrests you... they will try their hardest to find any kind of violation on you. And as we know, the law is so complicated that chances are if USgov looks hard enough they can find dirt on anyone. So... as much as I wish they were held accountible, the pain they'd put you through to make sure they're not found in the wrong makes me hesitant to levy anything on them.
I want it to be much easier for them to admit being wrong than going forward with pressing charges.
No the problem with that is tax payers are punished for shitty government official decisions. The officers and officials don't have to pay, they have "endless" funds. Individual actors need to be held accountable. The DoJ is now focusing on criminally charging executives at companies, not just the companies themselves, for breaking laws. Government officers and officials should also be held accountable.
Which would hopefully motivate the tax payer to hold their government officials accountable while helping restore those harmed. Hopefully...
> Individual actors need to be held accountable.
Agreed.
So require them to pay you for everything they charge you with but don't convict you of. At a minimum it would put a good sized dent in prosecutorial overcharging.
Never worked in the FBI, but just based on how rabid the US govt appears to be over prosecuting and winning, threatening people with ruin so that they can get any win ...
No, not a single head will roll. At most, relevant supervisors will console the investigators and prosecutors. "Well, bad break kid, the guy was innocent."
I really don't think it's about enforcing the law, or protecting the public or the Constitution, it's about annual reviews and advancement.
We are resources for law enforcement.
Who's going to hold them accountable? Those who fund them have no choice in the matter, so it's naive to expect accountability in the first place.
But months later, long after federal agents had led Dr. Xi away in handcuffs, independent experts discovered something wrong with the evidence at the heart of the Justice Department’s case: The blueprints were not for a pocket heater.
Faced with sworn statements from leading scientists, including an inventor of the pocket heater, the Justice Department on Friday afternoon dropped all charges against Dr. Xi, an American citizen.
My concern is, do heads roll at the FBI and U.S. Attorney's office after a failure like that? Is there accountability?