|
|
|
|
|
|
by BonsaiDen
3920 days ago
|
|
|
The real problem here is the fact that there is missing oversight on these court orders, since it might be the case that the judge handing out the order does not have sufficient knowledge of the matter at hand and so there is a huge potential for misuse by the police or intelligence agencies. In the end it boils down to the simply dilemma of choosing between either catching all "criminals" or protecting the rights of the people. The latter way of course makes life a bit harder, since you'll never be able to prevent all crimes and people will potentially die, but people die all the time, since dying is a a basic risk of life. The former way is essentially a rabbit hole, because it allows you to rewrite the definition of a "criminal" to just about anything you'd like and once you get a court order the "criminal" being is pretty much done with their life. This of course was and is still used in dictatorships of all kinds of sizes and employed by numerous secret police agencies around the world. Once there is a way to criminalize any action and then instantly "get rid" of that person, people who are going to use these powers WILL pop up and take over power. Now of course in the short term no third party candidate is going to show up on the US politcal floor and take win a majority in the elections over night and then install a dictator system based on all the pre-existing powers by simply outlawing all other parties and anyone who objects to the new rulers claims. But 10 or 20 years from now things might be different and if we don't fight over abuse of the law and protect the general public we might end up in a pretty bad situation someday. |
|
|
The oversight on the judge? Higher-level judges. If you are arrested after a warrant that is later found to be invalid, the evidence collected based on the warrant is thrown out. This can go all the way to the supreme court. As it did in Franks v Delaware: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franks_v._Delaware