When would you prosecute a gov't agent... or an entire agency... and throw
them in the slammer, hard time, for breaking a US citizen's Constitutional
right to privacy and security from unreasonable search?

The Bush Administration's answer seems to be 'never'.



Dan J.S. wrote:
There would be checks in place. For example, I work in the finance industry.
We deal with trades. Each of these trades could be executed in real time,
and you could make a lot of money if you were to do any of the fraudulent
things possible.

And we all know that fraudulent trades *do* happen, but they
are fortunately rare... and prosecutable.

... The SEC does not review each trade, you have compliance
officers in each firm that do. You have spot audits and then you have
history. With these checks and balances it's really easy to find insider
traders, and people that do things they are not supposed to.

So I would use a similar checks and balances system here. Judges would be in
the know on all matters, including secret and top secret files. They would
all know what the other judges are approving. They would also keep a list of
agents or agencies that seem to be over doing certain searches, etc.


That sounds like an outline of a workable system, but it
depends on firm oversight from the top, *and* the opening of
top-secret files to the inspector-judges, which would be
fought tooth & nail by many. I could go along with something
like this, but I tend to lean towards protection of the
Constitution over chasing the bad guy du jour.

The certainty of prosecution for improper action is the key
here. In the finance world, it's the SEC levying fines
(since the game is about money). In the intel and law
enforcement world, it's about getting tossed in the pit with
the bad guys. No prosecution = no real enforcement.

Regards
Doug King