Hacker News Reader

Comment by DevKoala | Hacker News Reader

Is there any way to vote against the current way the FBI/CIA operates? They are straight up coercing witnesses with fake testimonies to get a man prison, whose only crime was sharing the truth about the shameful inner workings of our American government.

View on HN

No, and it is only going to get worse

Since the Inception of the FBI they have declared war on the citizenry, they have zero respect for the constitution, seeing it as a hurtle to their power.

They have done this under many names "War on crime", "War on Drugs", "War on Terror", and now "War on Domestic Extremism"

They are all covers for the same abuse of power. The only way to end it is a complete reversion of decades and decades of legal frameworks that allows all levels of government to ignore the constitution, pass laws clearly outside the powers of Article 2 Section 8, and removal of all accountability under immunity practices like "Qualified Immunity" and "Sovereign Immunity"

In sort it will take something on the order of another Constitutional Convention and a complete restructure of the federal government... So I doubt anything is going to change

And they only ever pursue the small targets.

Their failure to actually prove that justice will catch up with the big fish at the top of the crime, drugs, and terror chains has resulted in the domestic extremism problem.

The FBI's continued incompetency laid bare. Possibly by design.

Vote for politicians who will pass laws that dictate how they are to operate. Alternatively, if it is an avenue in your state, start a referendum to pass a state law calling for a Constitutional Convention (requires 34 states) to pass an amendment to deal with it.

We can’t even vote for politicians to fix potholes

This is why multi party systems work better than two party systems.

You can have a party dedicated to potholes if you have enough potholes, and you can have a party dedicated to agency oversight.

Both partys need to form coalitions to get any control, and need to compromise with each other or find win win situations for both parties.

The two party system has similar inside groups that sort of do this but it isnt pronounced, people still fall back to party lines when pushed (instead of their own views), and none are forced to compromise for their constituents. If they toe the party line theyre safe.

You can have multi parties with having single issue parties. Single issue parties are short sighted and can't respond to areas outside of a issue because the party isn't unified. You need some idology.

Very funny. In reality politicians have very little impact on the operation of these agencies who exist in the permanent bureaucracy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKDdLWAdcbM

What would be the objective of the convention? "Let's update the Constitution to fix all thing things" sounds nice and all, but are there specific changes we want that "both sides" would be happy with?

A politician in conflict with the FBI and CIA?

Someone who makes comments such as "Deep State Department," "drain the Swamp," and "witchhunt"?

I'm having Trumble thinkinp of one. I Don't know aldbody offhand.

He would have to be backed by the US military to have a realistic shot against such powerful factions of the US oligarchy. Who's popular with the military?

Someone with cool dance moves too.

You gotta be pretty smooth to dodge those CIA hitmen with their heart-attack guns.

No.

Not even an uncontrollable, unencumbered, outsider (Trump) critical of the FBI/CIA could make dent in 4 years.

The current US Senate majority leader once said: “Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.”

Even the local police can get back at you.[1] The FBI has a budget 1000x greater.

https://citymonitor.ai/government/they-rely-you-being-intimi...

I bet it’d be way worse after four years of Hillary. Like in Blackjack, sometimes a push is a win.

I continue to be amazed at the level of competence ascribed to this man. Donald Trump was, at heart, a lazy do-nothing in search of sycophancy and praise. He had zero inclination to actually change anything about how the government operates. All he cared about was that it was "his". And to the extent he was ever "critical" of agencies, it was only because they said something (or leaked something) that embarrased him.

All that "drain the swamp" bullshit? The fever swamp made that up. That was never Trump's gig, not once, from the day he showed up until he fled.

I understand this is how you feel. However, your reply reeks of not only anger, but of hatred. You haven’t succeeded in identifying biographic or factual characteristics that even merit inspection. Navel gazing.

Saved me a reply. I appreciate that!

Vote for the party which is most critical on them.

Currently Republicans though it used to be the Democrats.

Embedding undercover agitators in radical groups goes on all the time I'm sure. It's valuable but very easily abused, too.

>Vote for the party which is most critical on them.

>Currently Republicans though it used to be the Democrats.

This statement shows the absurdity of a two-party political system. Voting for either party will not change anything. You need to vote for particular politicians, and if that's not possible, then there is no way at all for reform or change.

If you always reliably vote for (Party X) then paradoxically you are less likely to get your concerns addressed because they mainly need swing voters to win elections.

People who switch parties to vote for their pet issue probably have a disproportionate impact on the outcomes, because both parties gain an incentive to take a position on that issue.

> If you always reliably vote for (Party X) then paradoxically you are less likely to get your concerns addressed because they mainly need swing voters to win elections

Nope, they need to mobilize their voters and demobilize the opposition. The media narrative about the importance of swing voters is greatly exaggerated, but it justifies election year media drama like showcasing “undecided voter” panels at debates.

Add to this that the Trump administration had the chance to pardon Assange, and there was a strong and impassioned campaign from his partner (of which he shares 2 children) putting the case forward, but instead they pardoned actual war criminals. So I'm not sure the Republican administration/voter base really cares that much for JA either. The military have to visibly protect their own so they can assure the next gifted killing-machine asset that they can indulge in what they joined up for.

What Republican policies are you referring to? Dems at least have some subgroup willing to defund the police.

Why do you think the FBI embedded itself in a right-wing group and then cooked up the idea to kidnap Governor Whitmer?

You know, the FBI seems to have advanced notice and involvement with a lot of these kinds of plots...including the ones that actually go off. What is it that they're getting done with our tax money anyway?

For the furious downvoters, remember, the FBI habitually preys on the mentally ill to pull shit like this:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/fbi-entrap...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/nov/16/fbi-entrapment...

https://www.hrw.org/report/2014/07/21/illusion-justice/human...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com