[Consultant32452]

I don't know if the FISA system is abused or not, but I certainly would not take the word of anyone who made a living off it to tell me it's all good. I submit I may have a very different definition of reasonable use. I know the opinions of regular police and courts and I disagree with them too.

[AmericanChopper]

> I don't know if the FISA system is abused or not

You do now:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fbi-director-carter-...

[jorblumesea]

I think if your proof is "I don't trust anyone in government" that's a pretty weak argument, no? Also, isn't it true that every warrant is just opinions about whether someone has done something warranting investigation? I don't see what any of these objections have to do with FISA.

[gpm]

> "I don't trust anyone in government" that's a pretty weak argument, no?

Not trusting the government is the entire point of large portions of the US constitution...

[op00to]

No, the US Constitution essentially lays out all the things the people entrusted the government to do.

[gpm]

It does both, and I don't mean to minimize the extent to which it does that. An unambiguous example of it doing nothing but restricting the government would be the 6th amednment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_...

[op00to]

I was being pedantic and not including amendments. :)

[gpm]

Article 1 section 9 isn't an amendment and is still just a bunch of restrictions :P

The first one, for example, is

> 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

[jorblumesea]

The constitution is all about checks and balances. There was implicit trust in the government from the very outset of the founding of this country. It was a documented designed to guarantee trust. If you don't trust the checks and balances that the government provides, then the constitution is a worthless piece of paper. Warrants are by definition, a check and balance of sorts, although I understand it doesn't feel that way. Police (executive branch) comes to a judge (judicial branch), who approves or rejects the warrant. The judiciary has the final say over whether the police can search a home, for example.

I think it's interesting how many people point to how we need to get back to the roots of constitutionalism, but also say "I never trust anything governments do or say".

If that's the case, why do you think the constitution will help you there? The document itself requires huge levels of trust.

[gpm]

Well sure, if I took the extreme position of arguing to never trust the government you'd be right.

That's not what I, or the person you are originally replying to is doing. Rather we would say something like "you are asking us to trust the government when it is bypassing or ignoring the checks and balances put into the constitution precisely because of issues like this". For a few examples:

Checks and balances are why the 6th amendment requires to a "speedy and public trial". Which the FISA courts are not providing. They are why the 6th amendment requires the accused to be informed of the "nature and cause of the accusation", which is regularly being violated by these secret proceedings by way of parallel construction.

You bring up the topic of warrants, but warrants (by the 4th amendment) must "upon probable cause [... describe] the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized". From what little we have seen of the FISA proceedings, neither of those conditions are being respected.

You bring up the judicial branch, but the judicial branch is required (by article 3 section 2 of the constitution) to hear only cases and controversies, one sided proceedings that aren't even released publicly after the fact to be challenged are neither. This clause exists (I believe) precisely because one sided arguments lack the necessary checks and balances to reach a fair verdict

[Spooky23]

That position is used by extreme elements to justify their pet issues. The founders distrusted the risk of tyranny, not government.

[Consultant32452]

What were your thoughts on the police and court system while Black Lives Matter was making all the headlines? Or if that's not your cup of tea, how about when the court let Epstein go free when he was raping children?

I'm expressing a mainstream opinion at the least if not the majority. Being a more secret court doesn't make me feel more trusting.

[jorblumesea]

Most Americans only experience small parts justice systems eg: traffic tickets, civil courts, the usual things in our daily life. But the US justice system is huge and has really varied uses and applications.

To extrapolate all the abuses of the wider justice system to a highly specialized court whose only purpose is national security would be a mistake, in my opinion. It's such a specific purpose and such a specialized role, it's hard to say for certain.

The only thing we have to go off is the testimony and opinions of those who have experienced it. We have no other barometer or metric, everything else is hearsay.

You're not wrong, it's just not a strong argument.

[Consultant32452]

The state regularly tortures, murders, starts civil wars, provides weapons to genocidal allies, etc. I have literally the entire history of the world on my side. You have, as you admitted, hearsay. The sane position is that they will be at least as bad in private as they are in public.

[azinman2]

Who are “they?”

The state is not a monolith. It’s barely top-down. It’s a collection of people in many different departments with their own ideals and relations. The people who decide what dictators to arms are NOT judges, nor come from the domestic judicial branch.

[Consultant32452]

"They" are the people requesting those FISA warrants. "They" are the people who put you in prison forever without a trial. "They" are the people Snowden revealed to be flaunting the law with illegal domestic surveillance programs.

[jorblumesea]

If the state is as unethical and as shady as claimed, why bother with FISA and warrants? Why not just do whatever you feel like, because as you say, anything goes?

[mirimir]

It's pretty clear that they do. Read about SOD, for example.

Or official policy on StingRays and stuff. Basically, telling investigators to lie to prosecutors and judges.

[jariel]

" I submit I may have a very different definition of reasonable use."

That's fine - you can go ahead and vote. There's an election coming up. Collectively, most Americans probably agree with the current use, and there are actual control and oversight by the Judicial system. Which is unlike China.