US drug agency surveillance unit to be investigated by Department of Justice(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
US drug agency surveillance unit to be investigated by Department of Justice
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/06/justice-department-surveillance-dea
2 comments
Hahahahaha. I am sure they will get the justice they desire.
A clean bill of health will be given[1].
All parties involved with be granted immunity, possibly retroactive, even though no wrong doing was found[2].
More payments to data providers will be given[3], not considered bribes. This is after issuing them said (retro)active immunity from attempts at legal recourse.
[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/cia-chief-w...
[2] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/10/supreme...
[3] http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/07/10/us-pays-companies-big...
All parties involved with be granted immunity, possibly retroactive, even though no wrong doing was found[2].
More payments to data providers will be given[3], not considered bribes. This is after issuing them said (retro)active immunity from attempts at legal recourse.
[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/cia-chief-w...
[2] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/10/supreme...
[3] http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/07/10/us-pays-companies-big...
By that logic, there's no need to have an investigation in the first place. Snide comments like this are informative only of your attitude.
His comment may be snide, but the expectation that the investigation will be a sham is, I would wager, a common opinion of the general public.
If anything, it goes to show that we've lost faith that the government can keep itself in check.
If anything, it goes to show that we've lost faith that the government can keep itself in check.
And how can it not be a sham? Since the DEA is part of the DOJ, we're going to have the DOJ investigating itself. Does anyone really think that the cooperation between the DEA and the NSA wasn't approved at the very highest levels, by Holder and probably Obama? Wouldn't it make more sense to have the DOJ investigated by a bipartisan Congressional committee, or to appoint a special prosecutor who isn't being employed by the very people he'd be investigating?
I don't think it's an issue of faith. The US Government keeps demonstrating, in an overwhelming fashion, that it can't keep itself in check. Hardly a day is going by at this point where some new scandal or abuse isn't crawling out of DC on just privacy alone.
Short, recent list: TSA abuses; IRS abuses; Benghazi; Iraq & Afghanistan; droning; right to assassinate; NDAA; SOPA; PIPA; fiscal discipline (complete lack thereof); constant military intervention across the middle east, helping to put theocrats in power; supplying Al Qaeda with money and arms; hyper scale NSA abuses spanning all electronic forms of communication; indefinite detention; enhanced interrogation; fast & furious; arresting people for freedom of speech issues (eg recent federal terrorism cases against several young people for what they said online); abuse of the espionage act, using it to attack leaks and whistleblowing. And on, and on and on it goes.
Short, recent list: TSA abuses; IRS abuses; Benghazi; Iraq & Afghanistan; droning; right to assassinate; NDAA; SOPA; PIPA; fiscal discipline (complete lack thereof); constant military intervention across the middle east, helping to put theocrats in power; supplying Al Qaeda with money and arms; hyper scale NSA abuses spanning all electronic forms of communication; indefinite detention; enhanced interrogation; fast & furious; arresting people for freedom of speech issues (eg recent federal terrorism cases against several young people for what they said online); abuse of the espionage act, using it to attack leaks and whistleblowing. And on, and on and on it goes.
That 'logic' was how the US telcom wiretapping and their subsequent granted retro-active immunity[1] issue played out.
It was not snide, but a historical reference. Sorry if you did not get it.
[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/09/us-usa-court-telec...
It was not snide, but a historical reference. Sorry if you did not get it.
[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/09/us-usa-court-telec...