> [The] government’s clearly entitled to the information that they’re seeking, and just because you-all have set up a system that makes that difficult, that doesn’t in any way lessen the government’s right to receive that
information just as they could from any telephone company or any other e-mail source that could provide it easily
I find the sense of entitlement the FBI had quite disturbing. Perhaps it is technically true, but they clearly had an attitude not just that they were legally authorized to access such information, but that nobody should be allowed to stop them having it, and any personal cost involved or moral objection is not part of the equation. For me the two do not connect that way - I am entitled to buy a house but nobody is required to help me do it, and if I don't have the money, I'm screwed. It doesn't allow me to murder the guy down the street so that I can take his money to buy the house I want.
The question is, is the FBI allowed to recruit any civilian to do anything they think is necessary to get at some information they are authorised to acquire? Can they go to your grandmother and tell her to prostitute herself if that will help them? At what point does technical ability to accomplish something render you at the mercy of the state to do whatever they tell you? It is one thing to demand someone actively stop obstructing something. But to demand they actively assist goes a step further. The notion of conscientious objection has been accepted and even honoured and respected, even in times of war.
I don't know where this line is. But I know I'm very uncomfortable with the attitude that law enforcement showed in this case.
No it isn't. The government isn't entitled to jack shit. They can demand whatever they want, and they may be able to take it through force, or threat of force, in 99.99999999% of cases, but if the request is bogus, it's bogus, and an individual certainly has the right to take a moral stand and say "no, fuck off".
Now, that individual will probably have their name drug through the mud, be bankrupted, and wind up spending the rest of their life at Gitmo, but they can say "no" if it's important enough to them.
Some people are willing to die for causes they believe in, so it's not such a stretch to think that somebody, somewhere, would tell the govt. to fuck off in a case like this.
No it isn't. The government isn't entitled to jack shit. They can demand whatever they want, and they may be able to take it through force, or threat of force
Your claim here appears to be that the government has only power, not authority (i.e. power + some sort of legitimacy or moral right to use that power). Is that your position? If so, under what, if any conditions do you believe the use of power against other people is legitimate?
If so, under what, if any conditions do you believe the use of power against other people is legitimate?
Self defense. I hold basically the same position as Bastiat, in thinking that government can only legitimately be considered the "collective extension to our individual right to self defense".
The FBI is not allowed to break the law, and the Constitution is the law.
If Snowden showed that some people in government were violating the Constitution, and other people in government were trying to suppress his evidence, would that not mean that the people trying to suppress the evidence are complicit with the violators?
Even if these people didn't swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, it is still the law, and they are still bound to obey it.
So, what's the penalty for helping someone violate the US Constitution? And who enforces that?
Participating in a drug deal to convict someone of the crime is certainly one example of them breaking the law. IMHO, they should only be allowed to arrest someone in a drug deal between two bona-fide drug dealers. Participating as one of the two parties in a transaction should be illegal.
I wouldn't be sure, I'm pretty sure legal entities are allowed to employ entrapment in a lot of cases. Watch episodes of Cops, for example, they will attempt to buy drugs and arrest the dealer, or attempt to get people to solicit prostitution from an undercover (female) officer.
Basically, people should stick to the law; dealing drugs or soliciting paid sex are both crimes, no matter who you do it to/with.
Suppressing evidence sounds like something that would have happened considerably later, after they had reviewed Snowden's email records. Reviewing Snowden's email records seems like a reasonable means for the FBI to determine if they are dealing with a whistleblower or a saboteur. We are all convinced Snowden is a whistleblower, but the FBI isn't likely to believe that just because he says so.
Uh, it didn't exactly look like they were trying to figure out whether he was a whistleblower. It rather looked like they wanted to capture him and put him in solitary confinement, with little intention of going after those who apparently violated the law, to silence him, to stop him from embarrassing the United States government.
Yeah, but even if it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt what's the likelihood they would get anything more than a slap on the wrist when they state it was to "defend your freedom"?
I doubt they'd get a slap on the wrist. Maybe a sticky note saying "don't do that again, mmmkay?" Take a look at 20 years of FBI shootings without a single unjustified shooting: http://rt.com/usa/fbi-justified-every-shooting-report-035/
I find the sense of entitlement the FBI had quite disturbing. Perhaps it is technically true, but they clearly had an attitude not just that they were legally authorized to access such information, but that nobody should be allowed to stop them having it, and any personal cost involved or moral objection is not part of the equation. For me the two do not connect that way - I am entitled to buy a house but nobody is required to help me do it, and if I don't have the money, I'm screwed. It doesn't allow me to murder the guy down the street so that I can take his money to buy the house I want.
The question is, is the FBI allowed to recruit any civilian to do anything they think is necessary to get at some information they are authorised to acquire? Can they go to your grandmother and tell her to prostitute herself if that will help them? At what point does technical ability to accomplish something render you at the mercy of the state to do whatever they tell you? It is one thing to demand someone actively stop obstructing something. But to demand they actively assist goes a step further. The notion of conscientious objection has been accepted and even honoured and respected, even in times of war.
I don't know where this line is. But I know I'm very uncomfortable with the attitude that law enforcement showed in this case.