Which of these Are Permissable for Federal Law Enforcement?

[JimBowie1958]

I am jsut curious how people think about the scope of Federal agents actions that are allowable before they get fired.

 

[Desperado]

None of these are legal or acceptable but all have been used by US law enforcement officials

 

[JimBowie1958]

None of these are legal or acceptable but all have been used by US law enforcement officials

And yet, supposedly educated and knowledgeable American citizens defend the FBI's actions and exonerate them for each of these things.

Why is that? Are they unAmerican? Ignorant? Ideological nit wits?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Why does a person think it is permissable to trick a target into not fetching their lawyer, not informing them of their Miranda rights, not bringing notes, not being guarded in their statement, and not making the 'discussion' formally a criminal interview then using the interview anyway in order to bankrupt the target and pressure him to flipping on his boss?

 

[Papageorgio]

None of them are legal, nor are they permissible.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If we let Federalis operate in this manner, we are not a free people. We only have the illusion of freedom until we get the wrong bureaucrat mad at us.

 

[Oddball]

NOTA

Especially so since there's no expressed constitutional authority for federal law enforcement agencies to exist at all.

 

[JimBowie1958]

NOTA
Especially so since there's no expressed constitutional authority for federal law enforcement agencies to exist at all.

Sure there is, else how would Treasury collect its tariffs, dude?

Postal Service inspectors?

US Marshalls Service?

You think the Executive branch is supposed to be some toothless group of old hens depending on others to enforce federal laws?

 

[Oddball]

NOTA
Especially so since there's no expressed constitutional authority for federal law enforcement agencies to exist at all.

Sure there is, else how would Treasury collect its tariffs, dude?

Postal Service inspectors?

US Marshalls Service?

You think the Executive branch is supposed to be some toothless group of old hens depending on others to enforce federal laws?

But there were no federal laws as such back then...No FBI, NSA, DEA, BATF, US Marshals, none of it.....Laws against force and fraud were taken care of at the state level....It was only via the idiocy of alcohol prohibition that the federal police state was set into motion.

 

[JimBowie1958]

But there were no federal laws as such back then...No FBI, NSA, DEA, BATF, US Marshals, none of it.....Laws against force and fraud were taken care of at the state level....It was only via the idiocy of alcohol prohibition that the federal police state was set into motion.

US Marshalls Service was established in 1789 by George Washington.

Judiciary Act of 1789 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

US Postal Service Inspectors go back to 1772

United States Postal Inspection Service - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

List of Federali LEO orgs.

Federal law enforcement in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Daryl Hunt]

NOTA
Especially so since there's no expressed constitutional authority for federal law enforcement agencies to exist at all.

Sure there is, else how would Treasury collect its tariffs, dude?

Postal Service inspectors?

US Marshalls Service?

You think the Executive branch is supposed to be some toothless group of old hens depending on others to enforce federal laws?

But there were no federal laws as such back then...No FBI, NSA, DEA, BATF, US Marshals, none of it.....Laws against force and fraud were taken care of at the state level....It was only via the idiocy of alcohol prohibition that the federal police state was set into motion.

The US Marshal's Service was created just after the first convening of the US Supreme Court. At one time, US Marshals were all over the US and had juristician in the Territories. They worked for the Courts and the Federal Judges had them go out and apprehend. The FBI is a 20th century group while the US Marshals is an 18th century group.