Why Whistleblowers Can't Get a Fair Trial 441
phantomfive writes "'Seven whistleblowers have been prosecuted under the Obama administration,' writes Jesselyn Radack, a lawyer who advised two of them. She explains why they can't get a fair trial. In the Thomas Drake case, the administration retroactively marked documents as classified, saying, 'he knew they should have been classified.' In the Bradley Manning case, the jury wasn't allowed to see what information was leaked. The defendants, all who have been charged with espionage, have limited access to court documents. Most of these problems happen because the law was written to deal with traitorous spies, not whistleblowers."
One and the same (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:One and the same (Score:5, Insightful)
In the Thomas Drake case, the administration retroactively marked documents as classified, ...
Going back retroactively to MAKE someone a criminal is an act of corruption and injustice.
Son of bitch. I hated Bush and now Obama. Will there ever be a President that I can respect?
Re:One and the same (Score:5, Insightful)
The system does not seem designed to allow that.
Nope, they anticipated this (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly, the math pretty much guarantees this outcome. The people who designed the system we use had few models to look to and did not have the background to anticipate the problems that would arise.
"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."
Letter to Jonathan Jackson (2 October 1780), "The Works of John Adams", vol 9, p.511
Re:Nope, they anticipated this (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:One and the same (Score:5, Insightful)
True, individuals anticipated all sorts of things (both right and wrong), but so much of it was rooted in personal philosophy and so little could be backed up with any kind of historical evidence or models, even when they were right it was little more then an personal guess.
That's because if we base on "historical evidence or models", what we'll find is that the norm for humanity is some form of authoritarian rule by a small group of elites, including that monarchy that the Founding Fathers were trying to move away from.
The Founding Fathers, following queues from the Enlightenment, wanted to break away from that. They want to break away from how humanity has always behaved. Yes, the Founding Fathers are some of the first Progressives.
Just like Progressives today and in every age, they're seen as rebels and traitors by the establishment. We only call them heroes because they succeeded.
Re:One and the same (Score:4, Insightful)
Democrats have assumed the term "progressive" and until they relinquish it, at least in America, the term cannot be seen to represent "rebels and traitors" toward the establishment. Indeed, if there is anything Democrats excel at, it is entrenching the rightward push of the GOP as the new normal. It is, for example, Democrats who have taken concepts that only a decade ago were considered radical, like due process free detention, and not only entrenched that practice, but expanded it to include due process free execution.
Re: (Score:3)
Based on some experience with it, I'd say a large number of non-voters don't vote because they don't see anyone they wish to vote for...
Re:One and the same (Score:4, Interesting)
Will there ever be a President that I can respect?
I hope not, that would lull you into a false sense of security.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: One and the same (Score:5, Insightful)
Vote third party. That's the only way it will ever happen.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: One and the same (Score:5, Interesting)
Voting 3rd party is for people who have a great deal of idealism but a poor grasp of math, politics, or history.
... or for people who do not feel that they, in good conscience, could actually support either of the candidates being offered by the two major parties.
Keep in mind that a significant percentage of people who vote 3rd party might otherwise stay home and not vote at all. If they choose to vote for a 3rd-party candidate, they are not altering the outcome of the race between the two parties, since otherwise they wouldn't be participating at all. You can argue that their choice is irrational, but if they don't actually see a significant difference between the two major parties (which is increasingly difficult to see on many issues outside of "hot-button" social issues), they may not feel like they could support either one. Would you rather that they simply stayed home and not express their voice at all?
The key thing often forgotten by those who argue against anyone ever voting for a 3rd party is that they somehow think that all voters are "owned" by the 2 major parties. And if someone chooses to vote for a 3rd party, they are somehow "taking votes away" from a major party candidate.
Here's a newsflash: LOTS of people DON'T VOTE. Some are just lazy, but others simply can't be bothered to make a "choice" between two candidates when they like neither one of them. If a 3rd-party guy comes along and excites them enough to get that person to vote, no vote was "stolen" from any major party.
Contrary to popular belief, candidates actually need to EARN their votes. They don't come by default to them just because Democratic voters always vote Democrat or whatever. Lots of registered Democrats don't vote at various times, and other times they will vote Republican or even for some other party.
There's a reason why "get out the vote" campaigns are so critical to elections -- it's that many people are not even motivated enough to support a major-party candidate by getting off their butt and going to the local polling place. For many of those people, who otherwise might not vote at all, the major parties have not succeeded in convincing them of anything -- they didn't EARN those votes.
If such people come out and vote for a 3rd-party candidate they actually believe in, they are making a positive contribution to the process: and they should be applauded for it, not told that they are simply stupid or ignorant.
Re: (Score:3)
The key thing often forgotten by those who argue against anyone ever voting for a 3rd party is that they somehow think that all voters are "owned" by the 2 major parties. And if someone chooses to vote for a 3rd party, they are somehow "taking votes away" from a major party candidate.
I've never understood that line of reasoning.
Voting 3rd party is akin to "stealing" votes from the two major parties exactly the same as me purchasing a bag of potato chips is "stealing" that money from the entertainment industry.
If someone wishes to claim I was "stealing" my own vote which is mine to do with as I please, then let them step up to the plate first and allow me to dictate how they spend their vote. Otherwise it's nothing more than hypocritical to demand the same of me.
As you already mentioned
Re: One and the same (Score:5, Insightful)
IMHO the best reason to vote for a minor party candidate is to send a message to the major parties: If you move in the direction of this minor party, you might get my vote next time.
Re: One and the same (Score:5, Insightful)
No, voting 3rd party does not actually help. It, unfortunately, is tightly integrated into the problem and contributes to the very effect proponents claim it counters. Voting 3rd party is for people who have a great deal of idealism but a poor grasp of math, politics, or history.
Then what do you suggest? Let's tally: Voting 3rd party does not help, Voting for the current two parties does not help; Trying to get into the current 2 parties and work it from the inside does not help. What's next up on the list? Are you advocating rebellion? Historically, that doesn't tend to work too well either.
I see no good option. They're all ugly. So far, voting 3rd party seems to be the best of bad options I can come up with.
So, what is your solution? I'm all ears for that option that actually does help and give us a net gain instead of eroding our freedoms and taking away our wealth and equality.
Re: (Score:3)
Rebellion and revolution can restore wealth and equality... just like voting can restore wealth and equality too. At this point, I'd rather vote. Rebellion and revolution are always messy. There is no scenario where most people come out totally happy. War is ugly. Especially civil war. Who are your foes? It becomes brother against brother and father against son.
War also leads to only conclusion: Might makes right. Whoever is strongest and tenacious and dominates will be the winner. Anyone caught in
Re: One and the same (Score:5, Insightful)
The lesser of two evils argument is a big deal. I support abortion rights. I support separation of Church and State with respect to marriage (give any two adults that want legal marriage rights those rights, or give no two adults those legal marriage rights, don't selectively define who can and can't have them based on religious law). I support social welfare programs. I support a tax system that shifts the tax burden into a purely progressive system - which is not what we have now, because of the differences between the income tax and the capital gains tax. The Democratic Party supports those things, the Republican Party does not, so the Democrats are my lesser of two evils. But both parties are hopelessly corrupt.
The current surveillance without court oversight and indefinite detention of terror suspects without court oversight was started under a Republican President and majority Republican Congress and perpetuated by a Democrat President with a majority Democrat progress.
The Democrats that made me one of the hopeful in 2008 are trying to block, trap, and prosecute the whistleblowers that Obama promised to protect in his campaign. There was a Slashdot article when that statement was removed from the Obama campaign websites a few months ago.
No Child Left Behind was the last serious attempt to reform education on a national level, and it was bipartisan and undoubtedly started with the best of intentions, but it takes money away from schools that need it most, gives money to schools that need it least, buries teachers in paperwork, and sucks the love of learning out of kids by grilling them with standardized tests.
The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards to save the environment by increasing fuel economy are a token gesture meant to appear like action without doing anything - the US uses 70% of its petroleum per year on transportation, but that's not all personal passenger vehicles - commercial vehicles aren't subject to any similar big jumps in fuel economy standards. A big chunk of the energy and other natural resources used in the country is used by businesses, and in many cases it's cheaper to deal with inefficient energy use on an ongoing basis than to make a big one time investment in more efficient equipment and then either pay interest on the loans you made to get it or deal with the opportunity costs associated with investing in efficiency instead of something else. CAFE is a classic case of "make it look like you're doing something!"
The War on Drugs against marijuana is the latest form of the make-work programs under FDR's New Deal. Employ some people (DEA and associated prosecutors, plus lots of prison staff) and keep other people out of the work force (drug offenders in prison). We should have just put the pot heads to work digging ditches, spent the rest of the money funding free rehab clinics for any citizen, and saved ourselves a lot of heartache - and it's taken too damn long for the federal view of a substance clearly less dangerous in all respects than alcohol to change.
Our freedoms are eroding, our education is failing, our veterans are suffering, and the middle class is shrinking. These clowns are all either incompetent to fix it or too busy profiting from the problems. I will still support a local candidate that's Democrat or Republican based on the person. But on the national level, I will be voting third party, even if I think that third party is looney, because the other two parties are Sauron and Saruman trading jokes between Mordor and Isengard while the world burns.
Re: One and the same (Score:5, Interesting)
Voting for a third party can make a real difference, actually, and thinking otherwise is also demonstrating a poor grasp of US history:
1. An upstart single-issue party in the 1860's ran a not-very-prominent Congressman for President, and won. The party in question implemented the policy proposal they had organized around, dramatically changing the nature of the country.
2. A popular president who was disillusioned with the policies of his own party split off and formed his own party in 1912. He didn't win an unprecedented third term for the presidency, but his party elected a bunch of people to state offices and the US House. More importantly, many of the policies advocated by that party, previously considered political non-starters, were implemented in many of the states where the party had significant following, and a later president (more on him in a moment) implemented quite a few of those policies on the national level.
3. In the 1930's, the president who implemented the 1912 party's policies was able to convince his party to go along with it in part because they were supported by a third party that was winning hundreds of thousands of votes and some local elections in key states.
When you look at the history of third parties, generally speaking the credible threat of a third party challenge forces the major party that the third party is most like to adopt enough of that third party's positions to keep the voters who are considering bolting to the third party. Otherwise, the only competition the two major parties have is each other, and they can between the two of them take any issue completely out of public consideration by simply agreeing between the two of them that a particular policy is acceptable to both of them.
For a recent example of this, look at the Patriot Act - there was nobody to vote for that actually opposed it, so it was going to happen regardless of what the pesky voters thought. Had there been credible third-party threats opposing the move (e.g. Greens or Libertarians), then sitting Republicans would be worried that they might lose because enough people voted Libertarian to let the Democrat win, while sitting Democrats would be worried that they might lose because enough people voted Green to let the Republican win.
Re: (Score:3)
Why should I be forced to vote for the lesser of two evils? If I do, I only keep them in power by perpetuating the status quo.
If I vote third party, and tell others to do the same, hopefully at some future date enough momentum is built up to at least force the two major parties to take heed and change their tune a bit to win back the voters bleeding off.
Re:If 10 parties have 10% of the vote each (Score:4, Informative)
One can philosophize all they want, but the way our system was built, voting 3rd party streghtens the position of the candidate furthest from the voter's preferences. It is no throwing your vote away, it is helping the worst candidate. This can not be changed any more then 'if we all think positively and stop believing in gravity we can all fly!'.
Re:If 10 parties have 10% of the vote each (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:If 10 parties have 10% of the vote each (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, that is untrue. Nixon would have been convicted in the Senate had he not resigned. It was a count of the votes that convinced him to give up the ghost and protect what was left of the dignity of the office. Many forget that Vice President Agnew was forced to resign as well as had criminal charges filed against him. Again, he would have also been impeached and convicted had he not taken the plea deal.
To bring this back on topic...
It was Nixon's Watergate scandal that was the result of a whistle blower, (deep throat) that alerted the American public to the illegal dealings in the oval office. Without whistle blowers, the illegal activities of those in power would go unchecked much like it is today.
Re:If 10 parties have 10% of the vote each (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately the way our voting system was constructed, you WILL always end up with 2 parties. End stop. Every other country that uses the US system has also ended up with 2 parties, it is built into the math, and no matter how much enthusiasm there is for any particular 3rd party, the 2 party system is what it will stabilize to every, single, time.
While you are right that the U.S. system is flawed and will tend toward 2 parties, you draw bad conclusions from that premise. That premise does not guarantee that (1) it will always be the same two parties, nor does it guarantee (2) that those parties will always adhere to the same agenda/platform for all time.
Notice that we didn't always have the two parties we have now, for example. The Republican party emerged in the mid-1800s and overtook the Whig party [wikipedia.org] for good reasons. There have also been a number of times since then where a 3rd-party presidential candidate has significantly contributed toward changing the issues discussed in an election. The most recent significant one was probably Ross Perot, who received about 20% of the popular vote in 1992. His presence in debates and during the campaigns served to highlight issues that otherwise may not have even been discussed, as well as problematizing the consistency of the two major party platforms. (For the record, I was NOT a Perot fan, but that's just the most recent example of a strong presidential 3rd-party candidate.) If a 3rd party managed to get a candidate with the charisma, connections, and rhetorical skills of Obama in 2008, it certainly could be possible for a party shift to occur like that which destroyed the Whigs 150 years ago.
And, if you're willing to look beyond the presidency, you can find plenty of examples of 3rd-party candidates actually elected to various offices, including sometimes to federal office.
One can philosophize all they want, but the way our system was built, voting 3rd party streghtens the position of the candidate furthest from the voter's preferences. It is no throwing your vote away, it is helping the worst candidate.
Except when your candidate gets elected, which actually does happen, particularly in many local or state elections.
And even if your candidate doesn't get elected, the examples I mention can often cause major party candidates to shift their views if the 3rd party candidate is perceived as a significant threat.
So no, it's not as simple as you make it out to be. Just because we have a system that tends toward 2 major parties doesn't mean you have to shut up and take whatever crap they serve to you... and sometimes voting for a 3rd party candidate can facilitate changes. (Not saying it always will -- but it's not always the irrational choice you make it out to be either.)
Re: (Score:3)
First, I think a lot of Obama's smaller victory margin over McCain was simple racism, people who, in the privacy of the voting booth, voted for the white guy. That's not the sort of issue you can bring up in a campaign, but there is a good deal of racism left in the country.
Second, I think the lack of the Obama supporters in at least 2012 was due to disappointment with Obama. He got a Nobel Peace Prize for Not Being Bush (in fairness, he did some good and inspiring things in his first weeks in office),
Re: (Score:3)
That term is itself a symptom of broken system. The system is designed in a way where a rational voter cannot have more than two options to choose from. If you vote for one of the two established options, you have a chance of influence over which of the two will win. If you vote for anybody else, one of the two established candidates still wins, and your vote had no influence over which of them.
Usually some voters will think both options suck so much, it is not worthwhile voting for any of th
Re: (Score:3)
If you vote for one of the two established options, you have a chance of influence over which of the two will win. If you vote for anybody else, one of the two established candidates still wins, and your vote had no influence over which of them.
Except when the third-party candidate wins. Seriously -- it happens in local and state elections, and even occasionally for Congressional office. Contrary to popular belief, the president is not the only politician in America. And -- while they are infrequent -- there are plenty of examples where 3rd-party candidates were elected to other offices.
Usually some voters will think both options suck so much, it is not worthwhile voting for any of them. [snip] For a start, I don't know how many of them realize they are putting the choice of a winner in the hands of other voters
Except when the third-party candidate wins. See above.
Also, sometimes in a voting situation, "abstain" is actually a valid option. It's not a cop-out. Some
Re: One and the same (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Than this shit?
Probably.
Re: One and the same (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: One and the same (Score:5, Interesting)
That will never happen due to "winner takes all" laws in the States.
It has already happened, numerous times. A third party won in 1860, when Abraham Lincoln, of the upstart Republican Party, beat both the Democrats and the Whigs. In the 1920s and 1930s, the Socialist Party won enough votes that the Democrat Party co-opted much of their platform to win back those votes. In the 1990s, "culture war" conservatives like Pat Buchanan won enough votes to pull the Republican Party sharply to the right on social issues.
History has shown that voting third party is by far the most effective way to change how America is governed.
Re: (Score:3)
Ross Perot ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... [wikipedia.org] ), won a large amount of popular vote in 1992 (~19% the largest third party popular vote in almost a century) and I don't recall any big sea changes in the two big parties... He would have probably gotten an even larger share of votes if he hadn't stopped campaigning shortly before the election due to death threats and other craziness.
Re: One and the same (Score:4, Insightful)
The creation of the electoral college had nothing to do with large distances or travel time. It had everything to do with giving the lower population areas a voice. If we went with just the popular vote, candidates would end up only campaigning in a handful of high population cities. I once saw an extreme example, but quite apropos. Imagine somebody campaigning on the idea all our problems would be solved by nuking Montana. That candidate would only have to convince enough people in the top 5-10 population centers to win enough votes to do so. Can you at least see that the people in Montana might have a problem with that? I am always open minded about replacing the electoral college, but unless an idea comes across that gives low population centers a voice, it probably is not a good idea.
Re:One and the same (Score:5, Informative)
It's also explicitly against the US Constitution: Article I, Section 9 [heritage.org]. The folks who wrote that document knew all the tricks in the tyrant's book -- from personal experience.
Of course, classified information is not a law, it's classified by executive order. I would point out that executive orders did not exist when the Constitution was written, and should not give the President a free pass to do what Congress is expressly forbidden from doing. By waving his hands and chanting "national security," the President places himself above the law and the Constitution. Again.
Re:One and the same (Score:5, Informative)
It's actually because the espionage act defines things that "apparently should" be classified as protected under law too. It's a bad law, but it's not the same as ex post facto.
Re:One and the same (Score:4, Interesting)
But was the jury told that the material was classified, or that it "apparently should" have been classified? Even telling the jury that it was classified after the fact is unacceptably prejudicial. Was defense allowed to point out that the material wasn't classified at the time that the alleged act occurred? If not, then it's the same as an ex post facto law.
Re:One and the same (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:One and the same (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes -- and then there is the fact that federal code base of crimes is so vast, vague, and its implementation left up to so many agencies, that even the ABA can't count all of the crimes one can commit, most of which have no element of intent.
http://online.wsj.com/news/art... [wsj.com]
See also: Three Felonies a Day: http://www.threefeloniesaday.c... [threefeloniesaday.com]
So what would you call it when there is criminal framework that is unknowable and that punishes you even if you have no ill intent? Despotic?
Re:One and the same (Score:4, Insightful)
The sad part is where you seem think the president has anything to do with this, or, for that matter, anything to say about this.
Re:One and the same (Score:4, Insightful)
Because the people involved in the prosecutions and classifications don't report up to him as the head of the executive branch? Because he doesn't have an absolute pardon power to pardon anyone he likes? You'd blame the CEO of a company for what his company does. In this case the President has way more legal power to intervene than a CEO would in a similar situation. Heck, after President Obama's recent stint of just changing laws with only a fig leaf of legal basis beyond he said so, presumably his administration thinks he can just unilaterally declare they weren't enforcing the law in these particular types of cases.
Re: (Score:3)
That's exactly the point. They report to him what they want him to here... he bases his decision on these information. Without omniscience, he is just a pawn of the permanent government. He has the power to do a lot of thing, most of them he cannot do for different reasons. Furthermre, he can only exercise his power based on the information he has at hand.
The only thing a president might be able to do about this, is place the right people at the right jobs to be sure he gets the correct (and sufficient) inf
Re: (Score:3)
Irrelevant. The president is in charge of the executive branch, and is thus accountable for everything that happens in it. Harry Truman used to say that, and accepted responsibility for everything.
If the president became aware of this after it happened, he can issue a presidential pardon, and assure that it doesn't happen again. Getting a new AG would be a good start. Do you believe that any of these things have, or will, happen?
If you want the big job, you get the big responsibility too. No excuses.
Re:One and the same (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, Dwight D Eisenhower.
Re:One and the same (Score:5, Informative)
Here's Eisenhower's farewell address to America. Note that he tried to warn us about everything that has come to pass. [youtube.com]
Re:One and the same (Score:5, Insightful)
It is a crime to intentionally misclassify documents ...
How many people have been prosecuted for clearly overclassifying information?
Re:One and the same (Score:4, Insightful)
What about United States v. Reynolds [wikipedia.org], where the US government claimed the state secrets privilege (in fact, invented it for this trial) to cover up the fact that in 1948 a plane crashed because of an engine fire (before you say anything about keeping aircraft performance secret, you should know that engine fire problems on B-29's had been public knowledge for years).
Moreover, if it's not clear at exactly what level something should be classified, then whether something is supposedly under-classified is unclear, and hence isn't prosecutable as a crime, because excessively vague criminal laws are unconstitutional.
So if as you say, you can't criticize someone for over-classifying something, and it's never prosecuted anyway, and under-classifying it is too vague to be a matter of criminal law, then why (as per the GGP) is intentionally mis-classifying information a crime? It's a say-so law, to be prosecuted for threat and harassment, and yield a conviction only if you have an acquiescent judge who favors the government over the Constitution.
Re:One and the same (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm old enough to remember the Watergate hearings, but as time goes by Nixon doesn't seem so bad.
What about Iran-Contra, which raised much more serious questions of unconstitutionality and abuse of power. No higher-ups were prosecuted. It makes Watergate look like an honest affair.
Re:One and the same (Score:4, Insightful)
That is better, but still overly simplistic.
Say 10% of the electorate (exaggerated numbers to make a point) votes Libertarian next election. Now, further suppose that everyone who voted Libertarian would have the Republicans as their second choice, and suppose the dems win by under 10%. This means that, had they voted for their second choice, it would have won instead.
HOWEVER, you also have to look at the long-term impacts and at how wide the gap is between choices. The Republicans would probably see this 10% going Libertarian and start adopting more Libertarian policies going forward to try to win this extra 10%. If the Libertarians agreed with 0% of Democrat policies, 10% of Republican policies, and 100% of Libertarian policies (again, exaggerated numbers...) and as a result of the changes they now agree with 30% of Republican policies, then they probably came out ahead by voting third party. Even though it cost them in the short term, the next election there will be a significantly greater number of their issues represented.
For a more real-world example: Both the Dems and the GOP are very ardently pro-war. So the only *electoral* option to try to get more anti-war policies to be adopted is to vote third party. You can't possibly choose the party that represents you best if neither party represents you at all. In which case, you should at least register your discontent, lest they think you're just too busy watching American Idol....
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't quite agree. I get what you mean, but a whistleblower releases information to those who it isn't supposed to go in order to improve the security their country and the lives of their fellow countrymen, whereas spies release information to those who it isn't supposed to go in order to undermine the security of said country. While the methods and results may even be the same the intent is different.
The Rosenbergs were executed as spies (and I have no particular beef with their classification as such) because they released information to the Russians about the atomic program in order to restore a balance of power, thus aiding the security of the United States. Just by means that the government did not agree to.
As long as it is the government stance that "security" is tantamount to "being able to squash everybody else like a bug" (and yes, that's basically the NSA approach as well), it is hard to disti
Re: (Score:3)
True, but that doesn't matter much. In a court, "noble cause" isn't really a defense (some exceptions apply).
By the time a trial court sees a case, the law is effectively fixed. At that point, the only questions are whether the defendant intentionally committed a crime. For whistleblowers, the fact of the matter usually is that yes, they intentionally broke the law. Snowden and Manning knowingly released classified materials with a reasonable expectation that foreign agencies would get access to them. Plain
Re:One and the same (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, nullification is frowned on by judges. That doesn't mean it's wrong; it means that many judges do not like anything that curtails their power as the black-robed potentate at the head of the room.
Jury nullification is a sacred part of Anglo-Saxon law, and everyone needs to know about it. As far as I'm concerned, it should be a part of jury instructions every trial, or included in high school civics classes, because the number of Americans who know this simple concept is vanishingly and frighteningly small.
Your last sentence there is NOT an example of jury nullification. In fact, it's pretty much the exact opposite.
It is, fundamentally, the job of the jury to decide law as well as fact. It's why we have juries -- it doesn't take 6 or 12 people to decide fact, after all -- a computer could do that. The jury exists to check abuse by the state, as a final stop to the application of bad law. This is so important because the state holds all the power (police, judge, prosecutor, jury pool, etc) to the point that without jury nullification, even the most innocent of the "innocent until proven guilty" of accused doesn't stand a chance against the system -- a system we ALL know is corrupt and dangerous.
So let the judges squirm. We, the people, have ourselves to protect.
Re: (Score:3)
Your observations on a police state would be true enough iff the letter of our laws tended to perfectly capture the spirit and actual will of the people (where the people consider the possibility that they might one day fall on the wrong side of a 'creative' letter of the law argument). Alas, that is not the case. Far too often we see 'excessively creative' interpretations of the letter of the law that go against the spirit of the law. The only thing that makes that condition more or less livable for most p
Re:One and the same (Score:5, Insightful)
When a government is corrupt, dishonest, and incompetent, then a whistleblower and a spy are essentially the same thing
That's why I get such a kick out of it when these idiots get on TV and call Snowden a traitor because he didn't "go through the proper channels," as if the very agency he was ratting on was going to give him a fair hearing and not throw his ass in prison as a spy/hacker/traitor immediately.
Re:One and the same (Score:5, Insightful)
When a government is corrupt, dishonest, and incompetent, then a whistleblower and a spy are essentially the same thing
That's why I get such a kick out of it when these idiots get on TV and call Snowden a traitor because he didn't "go through the proper channels," as if the very agency he was ratting on was going to give him a fair hearing and not throw his ass in prison as a spy/hacker/traitor immediately.
And they're wrong anyway. Snowden did go through proper channels. He was ignored or told to mind his business. That's always the way it goes when one goes through proper channels. I don't think I have ever heard of a case where a person discovers wrongdoing, goes to his superior about it and has his superior actually take meaningful action.
It makes perfect sense, if you think about it (which is why the folks on TV get it wrong). Any given program has been conceived, discussed and agreed upon by people at a high level. They have run the scenarios and considered the outcomes and consequences. Now some staffer comes along and tells them that what they are doing is likely illegal and certainly creepy. They're going to listen to him and take his concerns seriously? Of course not! They're going to tell him to shut up. But the folks on TV will say Snowden should have gone through proper channels, as though he would have gotten any traction. They're either serving an agenda or depressingly naive.
Re: (Score:3)
Why do we say when someone who turns their back on a company, or even most government agencies, they're a whistleblower; but when they do the same to the military, or the intelligence apparatus, they are said to have betrayed the country itself?
Re:One and the same (Score:4, Interesting)
Why do we say when someone who turns their back on a company, or even most government agencies, they're a whistleblower; but when they do the same to the military, or the intelligence apparatus, they are said to have betrayed the country itself?
Because it serves to conflate the interests of the military or intelligence agencies with that of the country as a whole. People are less likely to view them poorly when it is axiomatic that the CIA (or whomever) is working in the best interests of the United States. They overthrew an elected government? Must be okay, since they're only trying to look out for us.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Because a government is by definition corrupt, dishonest, and incompetent,
What a sad world you live in.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you find me a government which does not meet at least two of these criteria? Reasonably-sized: At least a couple of million citizens.
This Is Nothing New. (Score:5, Insightful)
Washington, Adams, Franklin, Hancock, et al would've been hung as traitors if the Brits had quashed the American rebellion.
Bucking the system is courageous for a reason.
Re: (Score:3)
History is written by the victors.
-- Winston Churchill
Re:This Is Nothing New. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Traitorous spies? (Score:5, Informative)
Traitorous spies? No, that is false. The law was written to deal with socialists advocating isolationism in WWI [wikipedia.org].
Re:Traitorous spies? (Score:4, Insightful)
And not just socialists, right wing opponents of war were not treated notably better.
The espionage act has been used against real spies on occasion, but more often it has been used as a stick against dissenters.
Re: (Score:3)
hello real world (Score:3)
its laughable for people to think anyone who challenges deep political and financial power structures are going to 1. somehow be rewarded or applauded for their efforts or 2. get some sort of "fair trial" (whatever that really means in our current legal system) where a positive outcome for the WB would encourage others to follow suit. ...and for those who think otherwise...sorry to tell you...it was your parents putting the money under the pillow, not the tooth fairy :((
Re: (Score:3)
You might have missed these:
Former U.S. Officials Give NSA Whistleblower Snowden Award in Russia
Maybe YOU missed the "in Russia" part. Pretty such any medal pales in comparison to the punishment of having to spend the rest of his life in exile from the country he grew up in and tried to help.
Land of the free..... (Score:3, Interesting)
As an outsider (not a US Citizen) I laugh everytime I read an account of how persecuted US citizens are.
Even in Soviet Russia at the height of the cold war russians had rights. (It's interesting reading the real account of life in russian from people who lived it not the propaganda)
Chinese citizens have more rights than you do (as long as they stay within the political party rules) and the law is mostly clear with clearly defined rules and laws.
The US system of laws and bylaws is so convluded that the Avg person commits 3 felonys a day ("http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/three-felonies-a-day-how-the-feds-target-the-innocent#axzz2rEA3eW6J)
USA's Tax law along is almost 4 million pages long.
Implied
Welcome to the Land of the ^ free
Re: (Score:2)
Even in Soviet Russia at the height of the cold war russians had rights.
Yeah, but they didn't have blue-jeans--which, Ronald Reagan assured me, made them very oppressed! They also couldn't travel around without papers, unlike in the U.S. where you're free to travel around anywhere--as long as you have a driver's license, proof of citizenship, Social Security Number, proof of insurance, and car registration.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow, I grew up in south america as well and I have lots of colleagues from Russia. I am living in the UK now.
How many lies in few sentences. It is so easy to find the truth. Just compare the number of people that immigrated to the USA with the number that emigrated from the USA and you will see how much it is a fallacy.
Paywalled articles on slashdot (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Paywalled articles on slashdot (Score:5, Informative)
Use this link instead, click on the top result:
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
A pain, I know.
Written to deal with spies? (Score:3)
Pretty sure that those things are not problems to do with how these specific laws are written, they're fundamental flaws in the trial process and thus the judiciary itself. If such basic rules are being ignored then by definition you wouldn't know if an accused person was actually a traitorous spy or not, would you, because the system would be unable to come to any trustworthy conclusion.
Hope and Change (Score:5, Insightful)
"As Americans, we can take enormous pride in the fact that courage has been inspired by our own struggle for freedom, by the tradition of democratic law secured by our forefathers and enshrined in our Constitution. It is a tradition that says all men are created equal under the law and that no one is above it."
"Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones weâ(TM)ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek."
"Iâ(TM)m in this race not just to hold an office, but to gather with you to transform a nation."
"Change doesnâ(TM)t come from Washington. Change comes to Washington."
Now watch me get modded down for using Obama's own words against him. Remember, citizens, report suspicious subversive activity immediately!
Seven out of how many? (Score:2)
7 out of 100 ... would tell me that the those 7 _did_ do something odd
7 out of 7 ... okay let's get paranoid.
7 out of 5 ... NSA at work?
7 out of how many? (Score:2)
There is a continuum from objection to whistleblowing to traitor, not a stark line. How many whistleblowers have there been in the last decade who have indicated waste, fraud, and abuse that exists in the 2 million people who form the federal government? In terms of dangerous or classified documents leaked to the public, where do these 7 stand wrt quantity, sensitivity, and content related to those who were not prosecuted?
Without this data, the fine article is merely clickbait.
So Don't Convict (Score:5, Insightful)
In the Bradley Manning case, the jury wasn't allowed to see what information was leaked.
When you're on a jury, you have a duty to both the accused and your nation to consider evidence fairly, within Constitutional constraints. Being prevented from seeing evidence would, to me, be all the reason necessary to give a verdict of 'not guilty.'
All accused American citizens have a right to confront their accusers and the evidence presented against them, in a fair and speedy trial conducted within due process. Period, end of story; don't like it? Amend the Constitution or GTFO.
Military Trial (Score:3)
Re:They aren't whistleblowing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, most governments forget that they are the servants of the people, not the other way round.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:They aren't whistleblowing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that we do not live in a democracy, we live in a republic. A democracy fails to function beyond a certain number, so a republic is formed to increase efficiency. That is not to say that we are discovering the limits of functioning of a republic, too. Humans may simply not be justly organizable above a certain multiplier of their monkeysphere.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that we do not live in a democracy, we live in a republic.
It's time to update your dictionary, because you're using an 18th century definition of democracy. Back then democracy meant what we now call direct democracy. Nowadays the word has become more general, to the point where it includes both direct democracies and representative democracies. My apologies if the English language changes. I have trouble reading Chaucer too.
http://www.merriam-webster.com... [merriam-webster.com]
Re: (Score:3)
democracy noun \di-mä-kr-s\
: a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting.
Re: (Score:2)
The public often forgets this
Re:They aren't whistleblowing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Whistleblowing is reporting malpractice to a higher authority.
In a democracy, the highest authority is the people. Manning knew that she'd have no success going to her commanding officer, or his CO, or his CO, or even the President or Congress. So he reported the malpractice to the President's boss: the people.
Re: (Score:3)
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_new... [nbcnews.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Care to give an alternative way that Manning could have "spilled the secrets" only to enfranchised American voters? Because otherwise, your supposed counterpoint is null.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember, Manning released _proof_ that the US armed forces were guilty of gunning down a Reuters reporter, then was further complicit in denying it happened and covering up, let alone not offering help to those wounded during the strike.
Re: (Score:3)
Except when those who are the 'higher authority' say "nothing to see here, move along", then doing it through government channels is pointless.
When your government is knowingly breaking the law and doing stuff like this, you pretty much can't gain anything by telling them it's happening, because they don't care.
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In both cases there is way too much alleged indiscriminate collateral damage to hide behind the whistle blower defense.
Fixed it for you.
Without disclosure then their is no proof of collateral damage, instead you have to believe the word of the agencies who were suppressing the information leaked in the first place.
What was proven by Manning's leaks was that the US Military were covering up war crimes. Nothing new there, its standard practice, the last thing the US wants its their soldiers being held to account for their actions.
The Snowden leaks have proven that the NSA is, in all probability, in breach of the US Constituti
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Traitorous spies. (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you a Russian? I'm not. He gave me plenty of information... If you can list a way he could have released his information to the US as a whole without also letting it be seen by the Russians (who are opponents of ours on multiple political issues, but not our enemies by any stretch of the definition) then I will grant there is *some* point to what you said. Otherwise, it's complete bullshit.
Also, as others have pointed out, he did try going through proper channels. He was told to drop it. How high did you expect him to go, and what good did you expect it to do? The president himself has expressed support for the NSA's programs *and* branded Snowden a criminal *before* he took asylum in Russia, so that part of your argument is bullshit. Enough members of congress have said (or voted in favor of) much the same things that I doubt it would do much good to have gone to them, either. With the heads of the executive and legislative branches complicit in this travesty, Snowden *did* go over their heads: to the people who elect those scum. We, the citizens of these United States of America.
So, I ask you again: how was Snowden supposed to reveal the information to We The People, without also revealing it to our "enemies"? (If you wanted to pick examples of enemies, you could do much better than Russia).