Those good people who want to change the system in a big way seem to get assassinated or wait until the end of their term to voice the concerns they've had to the public - though couldn't touch the policy for. Alternatively they don't get into power because the for-profit systems can pay much more to lobbies and then the better way people don't have the same marketing power.

Which party do you think hasn't promoted widespread surveillance without accountability?

Cyber Party

The Green Party?

Pirate Party

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

And I voted for None of the Above, i.e. third party.

How in the world are you able to interpret this as a partisan issue?

Uh, because the actions of the Justice department are a direct function of whatever the Executive branch wants to focus on.

The Attorney General is nominated by the president. They decide who the federal government prosecutes. It is absolutely political.

The surveillance state machinery has been a long time building, under the aegis of both parties. I think the Republicans push this with more vigor than the Democrats, but Democratic administrations such as the current one keep the machinery running.

Both parties are bad on DoJ operations because both parties' insiders and base voters like an abusive DoJ. Vote for Rand Paul or Bernie Sanders in the primary and -- if enough fellow Americans agree -- you could change that. If candidates like that start getting votes, others will follow along on better DoJ operation.

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.

This is not a greater debate about the vague idea of a surveillance state, it's about a very concrete case the federal government could either choose to prosecute or choose to drop. The current administration chose to prosecute.

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.

So which party or candidate has made dismantling the DoJ their key issue? Because a president really only gets one or two Big Things plausibly accomplished.

The Democrats clearly won't do it, and we can rest assured the Republicans will busy themselves with abortion and warmongering with Iran.

Then vote third party, and when your friends tell you to vote for Hillary! explain to them exactly why you're not doing it: that she will do nothing to tear down the Bush/Obama surveillance state that went after people like Xi and Schwartz, and indeed will probably expand it.

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."

Most of the people who work at the DoJ are not elected or appointed, and they probably have a fair amount of influence on what is visible to the AG.

It would have likely gone the same way with any other administration.

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.

Law enforcement does have politics involved, but individual administrations don't have as much control over it as you describe. The Justice Department's priorities transcend election cycles, because not everybody -- in fact, hardly anybody, all told -- is replaced every term. A person can work their entire career for the Feds; there are multigenerational traditions and political momentums operating there that no President can counteract.

US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President.

Sure, but the people who work for the US Attorneys, where do they come from? And what is the pool of people from which the president chooses US Attorneys? This is an organizational/cultural thing.

There are only 210 appointments in the Department of Justice, which has over 110,000 employees. The FBI itself has over 35,000 employees.

Are you sure it was a partisan comment? Which party was he talking about? Maybe he was talking about the party, the Republican/Democrat establishment? (I don't know, but that's possible)

Yes, saying that a problem can be solved by voting different people into office is a partisan argument. The problem is bigger than the voting cycle.

Yes yes, voting for that other faction of the Party will totally help.

Sorry to be the one to tell you - the only boxen left are the ammo box and the s-box.

I suspect you've never tried to be involved in politics.

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.

I've helped with, and seen others fight for, various local political causes, none of which went the way any of us wanted. You can effect change, but only if the change you want is already going to happen anyway, and your opposition will vandalize your property and slander your name.

And downmod you, apparently...

At the even more local level, you can effect changes to things in your own living space quite easily.

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.

It's almost as if it's the very nature of government that leads to this condition.

But if you point that out, you get told to move to Somalia if you don't like it.