The NSA Gives The DEA Information on American Citizens to Make Non-terrorist investigations; WE AINT - Polidicks

[QUOTE=catbarf;41984658]This is a jurisdiction issue that's a little more complicated than people make it out to be. Let's use a thought experiment: We have a drug cartel in Mexico moving drugs across the border into the US. The NSA has a bug in place that tells them that a shipment is going to be picked up by an American citizen in Mexico, who will bring it back across the border. They relay this information to the DEA, who make the arrest after the person enters the US. Suddenly, news headline: NSA Gives The DEA Information on American Citizens to Make Non-terrorist Investigations. Who was in the wrong here? The NSA's job is to perform foreign surveillance, and the DEA's job is to perform domestic enforcement. The NSA doesn't have the authority to operate within the US. The DEA doesn't have the authority to operate outside the US. The best thing for both agencies to do is simply share information so they can perform their relevant tasks, but what makes it complicated is that maybe the person the NSA is watching is actually a US citizen, operating overseas. Who should be the one to conduct this investigation, then? Maybe the FBI? Well, now it's getting complicated, and the FBI can't operate overseas either. So now at best we have the NSA monitoring a US citizen overseas, the FBI monitoring the same citizen domestically, and the DEA needing info from both to make an arrest. That's a mess. Just some food for thought. Not every case is as murky as this, and the NSA monitoring US citizens exclusively domestically is definitely overstepping their reach and needs to be curbed hard. But it's usually not so clear-cut.[/QUOTE] What about the CIA? they should be the one doing work outside of the contry.

[QUOTE=Flapadar;41986154]I'm not French - but you've ignored my point. You implied illegal search and seizure etc are something someone who's not American wouldn't understand. Which is plain wrong unless you're looking at backwards ass countries.[/QUOTE] You know what just invalidate my whole argument. This is the second time I read your flagdog as french and I feel so embarrassed. I'm furthering the American stereotype haha I'm so sorry.

Dem bunch o' monkeys leading NSA.

-thatwasdumb/snip-

[QUOTE=breakyourfac;41986000]I'd love for them to do that, I really would.[/QUOTE] why

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;41986538]why[/QUOTE] So I could ask them why they're wasting their fucking time talking to a 19 year old boy that spends most of his time sitting in his grandma's basement.

[QUOTE=catbarf;41984658]This is a jurisdiction issue that's a little more complicated than people make it out to be. Let's use a thought experiment: We have a drug cartel in Mexico moving drugs across the border into the US. The NSA has a bug in place that tells them that a shipment is going to be picked up by an American citizen in Mexico, who will bring it back across the border. They relay this information to the DEA, who make the arrest after the person enters the US. Suddenly, news headline: NSA Gives The DEA Information on American Citizens to Make Non-terrorist Investigations. Who was in the wrong here? The NSA's job is to perform foreign surveillance, and the DEA's job is to perform domestic enforcement. The NSA doesn't have the authority to operate within the US. The DEA doesn't have the authority to operate outside the US. The best thing for both agencies to do is simply share information so they can perform their relevant tasks, but what makes it complicated is that maybe the person the NSA is watching is actually a US citizen, operating overseas. Who should be the one to conduct this investigation, then? Maybe the FBI? Well, now it's getting complicated, and the FBI can't operate overseas either. So now at best we have the NSA monitoring a US citizen overseas, the FBI monitoring the same citizen domestically, and the DEA needing info from both to make an arrest. That's a mess. Just some food for thought. Not every case is as murky as this, and the NSA monitoring US citizens exclusively domestically is definitely overstepping their reach and needs to be curbed hard. But it's usually not so clear-cut.[/QUOTE] Your thought experiment relies on a lot of suppositions. Why does the NSA have a bug in place that will detect what is or is not being shipped across the borders of the United States? Do they have the right to search every parcel, package and crate that crosses into our sovereign territory? What about the people whom are moving into this territory with these packages? Doesn't that violate Unreasonable Search and Seizure, particularly the Search clause? You manage to conflate the NSA's gathered intelligence and the DEA's responsibility to stop certain illegal activities. Should our domestic intelligence agencies really be washing eachother's hands like that? Mind that the NSA strictly forbid the DEA from disclosing the source of their 'anonymous tips.' That fundamentally seems strange and problematic when you consider the implications of 'anonymous tipsters' being able to 'report' on the activities of others. You also make a lot of incorrect assumptions about the jurisdictions of our Law Agencies. Supposing that the DEA has no authority outside of the US, and that perhaps some convoluted reach around must be imposed to pursue U.S. Citizens abroad that you somehow drag the FBI into. This isn't the case. The DEA regularly acts outside of it's sovereign jurisdiction, often at the grace and sometimes at the behest of foreign nations. When we begin presuming to act outside of our borders without either consent or permission though, is when we begin doing the same thing Soviet Russia did and still does when it just randomly stations 'peacekeepers' in foreign states. It's fundamental Gunboat Diplomacy. It is actually pretty cut and dry. The NSA shouldn't be handing over intelligence it IS NOT CLEARED TO COLLECT to people who are not CLEARED TO KNOW IT. If you begin permitting it for any reason, you begin permitting so-called 'bedroom constables' and submit to being watched at all times in the name of 'safety' and 'efficiency.'

[QUOTE=archangel125;41984375]There comes a point where 'Police State' starts looking too little like hyperbole or conspiracy bullshit and more like a mild exaggeration. If this trend continues, it'll be understatement one day. Abandon ship, come to Canada instead.[/QUOTE] As if were that much better.

[QUOTE=breakyourfac;41986555]So I could ask them why they're wasting their fucking time talking to a 19 year old boy that spends most of his time sitting in his grandma's basement.[/QUOTE] Is that worth the hefty fines

[QUOTE=redsoxrock;41986334]What about the CIA? they should be the one doing work outside of the contry.[/QUOTE] No, not in this case. Part of the reason people have been attacking the NSA is because they don't understand the NSA's purpose. The NSA is not a domestic agency like the FBI, BATFE or DEA. They're not really supposed to operate within the US at all; their mission is focused on other countries. Where the CIA handles the gathering of HUMINT, human-based intelligence (eg spy in an embassy handing off briefcases of documents), the NSA handles SIGINT, signals-based intelligence (eg radio broadcasts from an embassy revealing sensitive information). The CIA handles spies, the NSA handles surveillance, both operate outside the US. The tricky part is when people within the US are operating outside the US, or in contact with people outside the US. Then there's no good solution and it's why we have this mess that we do now.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;41986600]Is that worth the hefty fines[/QUOTE] Why the fuck would I get fined for saying peaceful protest isn't cutting it anymore. I don't really care that much, if some government agency thinks they can turn me into some passive fuckhead then they have another thing coming.

[QUOTE=Cabbage;41986106]It would be a satisfying shit though because it'd just prove his point.[/QUOTE] he'd have more things to worry about than proving his point

[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;41986562]Your thought experiment relies on a lot of suppositions.[/QUOTE] I don't think so, but I'll bite. [QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;41986562]Why does the NSA have a bug in place that will detect what is or is not being shipped across the borders of the United States? Do they have the right to search every parcel, package and crate that crosses into our sovereign territory? What about the people whom are moving into this territory with these packages? Doesn't that violate Unreasonable Search and Seizure, particularly the Search clause?[/QUOTE] This thought experiment doesn't imply searching packages. The bug could be a microphone hidden in a room where cartel members meet, that overhears their plans. All that matters here is that the NSA, operating outside the US, come into possession of intelligence pointing to crimes that will occur inside the US. In this capacity they're acting within their jurisdiction and legally. [QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;41986562]You manage to conflate the NSA's gathered intelligence and the DEA's responsibility to stop certain illegal activities. Should our domestic intelligence agencies really be washing eachother's hands like that? Mind that the NSA strictly forbid the DEA from disclosing the source of their 'anonymous tips.' That fundamentally seems strange and problematic when you consider the implications of 'anonymous tipsters' being able to 'report' on the activities of others.[/QUOTE] It's not 'anonymous tipsters', it's concealing the source of sensitive information. If in court the DEA has to testify that they got intelligence from the NSA predicting the import, then the cartel will know that they've been bugged and will take steps to contain it. It's not about covering the other agency, it's about covering the source of information. The FBI does it internally with their witness protection programs. For what it's worth, I don't think it's a good thing that they actually lie about the source of information, but it's not actually important to this discussion. Even if they told the truth about where they got the info, the facts of the case would remain. People aren't getting upset because the DEA lies, they're upset because of perceived oversteps by the NSA. [QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;41986562]You also make a lot of incorrect assumptions about the jurisdictions of our Law Agencies. Supposing that the DEA has no authority outside of the US, and that perhaps some convoluted reach around must be imposed to pursue U.S. Citizens abroad that you somehow drag the FBI into. This isn't the case. The DEA regularly acts outside of it's sovereign jurisdiction, often at the grace and sometimes at the behest of foreign nations. When we begin presuming to act outside of our borders without either consent or permission though, is when we begin doing the same thing Soviet Russia did and still does when it just randomly stations 'peacekeepers' in foreign states. It's fundamental Gunboat Diplomacy.[/QUOTE] No agency should be operating (not like, training or for specific assignments, but continuously operating) outside its jurisdiction barring very specific circumstances. The DEA shouldn't operate outside the US for the same reason the NSA shouldn't operate within the US. You wouldn't be okay with NSA spying on Americans just because a court decided it was A-OK, right? The jurisdictions of federal agencies are very explicitly defined to prevent this kind of abuse. [QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;41986562]It is actually pretty cut and dry. The NSA shouldn't be handing over intelligence it IS NOT CLEARED TO COLLECT to people who are not CLEARED TO KNOW IT. If you begin permitting it for any reason, you begin permitting so-called 'bedroom constables' and submit to being watched at all times in the name of 'safety' and 'efficiency.'[/QUOTE] The NSA is permitted to collect intelligence originating outside the United States, what happens with that intelligence is another matter entirely. Anyone with sufficient clearance then has access to it, as federal agencies share intelligence all the time. You seem to be implying that the NSA or CIA gathering intelligence in another country is unacceptable if that intelligence is then used within the US. Here's another example: A CIA spy within Al-Qaeda learns the name of an Al-Qaeda agent, a US citizen, living in the US. The information is passed on to the FBI, who make an arrest. In this case, the CIA has acquired information through a covert program against a US citizen. Is this unjustified?

[QUOTE=breakyourfac;41986630]Why the fuck would I get fined for saying peaceful protest isn't cutting it anymore. I don't really care that much, if some government agency thinks they can turn me into some passive fuckhead then they have another thing coming.[/QUOTE] Well you kinda said [QUOTE=breakyourfac;41984704] This peaceful protesting shit won't work, we need to go all out or nothing.[/QUOTE] Now help me understand what you mean by "going all out"

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;41986758]Well you kinda said Now help me understand what you mean by "going all out"[/QUOTE] ROFLBURGER is secretly a FBI Agents trying to get Break to incriminate himself!

[QUOTE=breakyourfac;41984976]There was a protest in just about every state capitol that had a sizable population. It was large enough to scare the crap out of the gov't and force them to plant propaganda to discredit the movement.[/QUOTE] That should have been a big wakeup call to people that peaceful protest is no longer an option. From the beginning the movement was under attack from all sides. So many reports of plainclothes cops trying to incite riots, planting known crazies in the crowd, all in an attempt to start a riot so they would have justification for shutting up the protesters with tear gas and beatings. The regime was spying on pretty much anyone who publically organized or attended Occupy protests, with 'leaked info' about the Occupy surveillance operations being disseminated to the media in an attempt to intimidate both the protesters and people thinking about joining them. And the media performed extremely efficient assassination of character in regards to the movement, by depicting them as unwashed anarchists and 'riots waiting to happen' whenever possible, which in turn lead to people not wanting to associate with the movement because they had been made to look undesirable. And all of this worked, because the Occupy movement fizzled out within a year (though a lot of it had to do with how directionless the protests were), and now you only see tiny groups who usually get cited or arrested pretty quickly for camping and loitering under laws usually reserved for victimizing the homeless.