No kidding. He wasn't charged with a crime. He raised the suspicions of the FBI who investigated and found no crime. That's pretty much their entire job. Investigate and if evidence of a crime is found, to pass it off for prosecution. I'm not really seeing anything wrong here, other than the fact the tracker may have been placed without a warrant.
Sending money to a foreign country is not probable cause to investigate a federal crime.
"He raised the suspicions of the FBI who investigated and found no crime. That's pretty much their entire job."
Statements like this evince a complete misunderstanding of the role of law enforcement in a democratic society.
The FBI's job is to respond to proper complaints of violations of the law, and to investigate where there are clear and articulable facts that lead them to believe a crime has occurred.
Their job is not to surveil the citizenry for signs of aberrant behavior.
>Their job is not to surveil the citizenry for signs of aberrant behavior.
So practically then you're saying most crime should just be allowed to happen as it can't be detected without taking a proactive approach.
For example, CCTV at a gas station shouldn't be installed until after the place is robbed.
I'm expecting the come back to be "Oh, but that's a private business, it's only bad if government do it?". Why is it bad if the government (ie the people working en masse) try to prevent harm to private citizens but not bad for individual or small groups of citizens?
"So practically then you're saying most crime should just be allowed to happen as it can't be detected without taking a proactive approach."
Where any approach to law enforcement conflicts with the fundamental principles of ordered liberty, including privacy, that approach is improper. If we attached video cameras to all citizens that would prevent a lot of crime, but it would be a tremendous violation of privacy rights.
"Why is it bad if the government.. try to prevent harm to private citizens but not bad for individual or small groups of citizens?"
Because the government is unlike any other organization. It has a monopoly on the use of force. If a gas station uses CCTV cameras, and I feel that violates my privacy, I can choose not to use that gas station. If the government decides to enact a law mandating installation of CCTV cameras in your living room, you can't refuse.
>If the government decides to enact a law mandating installation of CCTV cameras in your living room, you can't refuse.
Unless you live in a democracy.
>Because the government is unlike any other organization. It has a monopoly on the use of force.
In a democracy of course the government is the combined (in some way) will of the people. It bemuses me when people rail against "the government" and forget that means "the people's expressed (in some way) demands" in a democracy; I'm not saying that you're forgetting that part about democracy BTW.
It can be depending on the foreign country and/or the recipient.
AND Authorities investigate people in order to determine IF they are committing / have committed a crime. Being investigated and investigating is normal healthy part of our justice system. (btw, IMO warrantless surveillance is not)
Absolutely true, but the so-called "money laundering" statutes at the federal level are written in such a way that they can convict anyone under them for any financial transaction. This is by design, because it gives the government a free hand to get warrants, seize assets and convict people that they otherwise would not be able to because they lack evidence of a real crime.
