What's new

Student files lawsuit over FBI's GPS tracking

Absolutely he has every right to. I hope he wins. Once the Gov starts tracking it's own people, that's when things go bad.
 
Probably just checking him out to see if he is a potential patsy.

Most Americans with connections abroad will be targeted by more "interested players" than the FBI. I've been "in the crosshairs" myself, and I know that is the case. I think it's in my interest to have the FBI tracking me.

And yes, Duck, we are patsies.
 
It seems to me that there is not enough information in this article to really make a judgement call, and quite a few assumptions being made regarding the validity of his claim. It is interesting how badly respect for national security and intelligence agencies, and the FBI has deteriorated in recent years. The FBI have always been patsies of one kind or another, but few people I know really believed they were not acting in anyone's best interest or that they were stupid or ignorant of facts and due process. But now we take a single page article from yahoo with little facts beyond the claims of the student that he is being profiled as pure fact and that the FBI is automatically the villain. The fact is we do not know what the FBI knows or has discovered about this person and their affiliations.

I am not necessarily defending the FBI's actions. I think that something like this needs to go through due process and they need to obtain a warrant, but here is a quote from the article about the legal ambiguity in this case:

Judges have disagreed over whether search warrants should be required for GPS tracking. Afifi's lawyers say they are filing this lawsuit in hopes of a decision saying that any use of tracking devices without a warrant in the United States is unconstitutional.

The federal appeals court in the Washington circuit where Afifi's case was filed ruled in August that the collection of GPS data amounts to a government "search" that required a warrant. The Obama administration asked the court to change its ruling, calling the decision "vague and unworkable" and arguing that investigators will lose access to a tool they now use "with great frequency."

I think we are often too quick to rush to condemn agencies like the FBI in their actions as long as we can get a smidgen of allegation that they are going after "obviously innocent people". Remember that the terrorists who pulled off the world trade center attacks were not viewed as anything other than "innocent people" while they planned, trained for, and carried out their crimes.

We need the checks and balances that our government is designed for, and if this and other issues like this are deemed illegal or unconstitutional then there needs to be a price paid. We also need a healthy skepticism among the general populace. But I think also we need a vote of confidence that our federal agencies are actually doing their best to protect us from another attack and actually have the best interest of the people in mind. And I think everyone, even federal agencies, needs the benefit of the doubt until the facts are known and the decisions are made in the courts.
 
It seems to me that there is not enough information in this article to really make a judgement call, and quite a few assumptions being made regarding the validity of his claim. It is interesting how badly respect for national security and intelligence agencies, and the FBI has deteriorated in recent years. The FBI have always been patsies of one kind or another, but few people I know really believed they were not acting in anyone's best interest or that they were stupid or ignorant of facts and due process. But now we take a single page article from yahoo with little facts beyond the claims of the student that he is being profiled as pure fact and that the FBI is automatically the villain. The fact is we do not know what the FBI knows or has discovered about this person and their affiliations.

I am not necessarily defending the FBI's actions. I think that something like this needs to go through due process and they need to obtain a warrant, but here is a quote from the article about the legal ambiguity in this case:



I think we are often too quick to rush to condemn agencies like the FBI in their actions as long as we can get a smidgen of allegation that they are going after "obviously innocent people". Remember that the terrorists who pulled off the world trade center attacks were not viewed as anything other than "innocent people" while they planned, trained for, and carried out their crimes.

We need the checks and balances that our government is designed for, and if this and other issues like this are deemed illegal or unconstitutional then there needs to be a price paid. We also need a healthy skepticism among the general populace. But I think also we need a vote of confidence that our federal agencies are actually doing their best to protect us from another attack and actually have the best interest of the people in mind. And I think everyone, even federal agencies, needs the benefit of the doubt until the facts are known and the decisions are made in the courts.


Whoa there Jackson!!! There was way to much sense in your post. We can't have that floating around here.
 
Back
Top