Slashdot Mirror
Thomas Drake Innocent of All Ten Original Charges
decora writes "NPR, and dozens of other media sources, are reporting that NSA IT whistleblower Thomas Andrews Drake is innocent of all 10 original charges against him; including the 5 Espionage Act charges for 'retention' of 'national defense information.' Drake stared down the government to the last minute, rejecting deal after deal, because he 'refused to plea bargain with the truth.' The judge had even recently ruled that there was no evidence that Drake passed classified information to a reporter. In the end, he has agreed that he committed a misdemeanor: 'unauthorized access to a computer.' It is unknown what this means for the other non-spy espionage cases that Obama's DOJ currently has pending (Kim, Sterling, Manning), or the Grand Jury that is currently meeting to discuss Espionage Act charges related to WikiLeaks."
FYI, since it wasn't in the summary and people will inevitably ask: the charges carry a max of one year in jail, and the prosecution agreed not to pursue any jail time at all.
that all is not lost for the U.S.A.
But the pessimist in me is pretty convinced this will not have the effect of a call to rationality, but rather a doubling down to ensure that the next case can be held up as an example to those who would dare bring light to the misdeeds of those in power. Maybe they will feel they need to have an execution for maximal effect.
Sorry, but here in the States you are assumed innocent until proven guilty. At least, that's how it's supposed to work.
I found the following article from the New Yorker to provide considerable information about what led up to the charges:
New Yorker: The Secret Sharer
That's not what he is talking about. Findings of a jury or of a judge trial is not whether someone is innocent, but whether they are guilty or not guilty of the charges. There is a difference.
They had no case. He was a source for Congress and others within our government on a massive NSA wiretapping program to make government recording all of our plaintext emails look like the the purest product of enlightenment and benevolence, probably the creepiest secret surveillance program of the modern era.
The only upside compared to other systems is that because we live in the US, and we have a strong federal judiciary and some strong de jure personal freedoms, the results of the surveillance are only rarely if ever actually used against our citizens, to justify torturing or imprisoning them, etc...--it's not like Chechneya, for example, where everyone is afraid someone else is one of the secret police, and the Russia-backed head of state goes around personally torturing people. Ask a reporter there if they would feel comfortable criticizing him and they respond "there'd be no need to ever do that!"
This guy may be an ass, I don't know--but the NSA went too far, and someone had to expose that in a way which did not betray the country, as to Congressional oversight. I am sure the NSA meant well and I can imagine how much pressure they were in post-911. I don't blame them for going too far, I blame them for not pulling back on their own as it became more obvious they were violating the Constitution. The problem is whether the next guy will mean as well, whether they always will, and whether rules will come more and more to reflect a disconnect between the morality of individuals and the ethics of government, causing a schism contrary to the ideals of democracy and the free world.
I don't think either the neocons or the Obama administration would be happy about this.
But what about the impact? There's no denying our (the US) enemies are happy about it.
Dear US, not everything is about you. Kinda fighting a civil war right now.
Hugs and kisses,
Muammar Kadafi
It was enemies of the USA that wasted time and taxpayers money bringing him to trial in the first place - they just happen to be on the US payroll. They are not going to be happy and external forces are really not going to give a shit either way about a conveniently guy some lazy spooks grabbed because doing their real job requires too much hard work.
No, you aren't assumed innocent. The courts are supposed to presume innocence while in front of a jury. There is no "duty" for anyone not actively presenting to a jury while a court is in session to presume or assume innocence.
Further, assuming (or presuming) something is irrelevant to whether it's true. OJ killed Nicole. He is guilty of that act. He was found not guilty in a court of law. None of those are contradictory statements of fact (whether they are true is something that can be debated elsewhere).
If the cops presumed you innocent, they'd never arrest you. If the prosecutor presumed you innocent, they'd never file charges. If the judge presumed you innocent, he'd not let the trial proceed. The presumption of innocence is what the jury is supposed to do, and nobody else in the entire system (and certainly nobody outside the justice system) is expected to presume innocence, though they are expected to act that way under reasonable rules of the court when in front of the jury.
Learn to love Alaska
It's true that a few of the charges were dropped due to the prosecution not wanting to release classified information, but that was only after they dropped other charges (the ones related to his giving out the info) due to lack of evidence. And the few remaining charges were apparently too shaky for the prosecutors to take to trial.
Don't click...it's a tarp. You have been warned.
No one is reporting he is innocent. They reached a plea deal. The government dropped the 10 charges because a judge decided the prosecution would have to show classified material to the jury. Dropping the charges because you don't have enough evidence to make a case (i.e. without using classified material) is not the same as deciding he is innocent.
Note to /. system coders: Please enforce a goatse filter on newly opened user accounts. Yikes. dotdotdotter and dotfan are sockpuppets for the same goatse troll.
sigfault (core dumped)
If you shine a light on government waste, incompetence or malfeasance be prepared for the government to use its unlimited checkbook and unaccountable law enforcement types to make your life a living hell.
Not that I have anything against Mr. Drake (and I applaud him for being a whistleblower), but there is nothing in the case that indicates a judgement of innocence. It is juvenile, subjective, and pretty much fucking stupid to use both wikipedia and ./ to pass an Op.Ed as a statement of historical fact.
Someone (Decora) who tell others to find their own references
you can find that in the various secondary sources im just too lazy to go re-reference them. i am going to edit and put back
in the wiki talk page when confronted with the lack of good reference materials, it someone I would take his words from with a grain of salt.
I don't get it. Do /.ers not understand the basics of the U.S. legal system (a rhetorical question...)?
Not guilty does *not* mean innocent. At least two posters state this, and this is a basic fact. Yet they are modded to oblivion as trolls, etc.
And this guy is *not* innocent, if anyone bothered to read the news, regardless of one's biased point of view. This is a fact. He will plead guilty to lesser, misdemeanor charges.
OK, now I guess I'll get modded to oblivion as a troll, too, eh?
sigfault (core dumped)
Police - Your honor, I need a warrant to search the suspect's home.
Judge - What probable cause are you basing the warrant on?
Police - The suspect destroyed the evidence.
Judge - You saw him destroy the evidence?
Police - No, but there is no other way we could have missed it, the killer would have left a trail of blood. Since the suspect did it and we didn't find a trail of blood the only possible explanation is that he destroyed the evidence. To deny this warrant would be to reward him for committing more crimes.
Judge - ??
It doesn't work that way. The standards of evidence may vary but the presumption of innocence applies to the entire legal system.
Sorry, to be clearer I should have said: "On point in this particular case, this guy is not innocent, if anyone bothered to read the news...."
sigfault (core dumped)
But what about the impact? There's no denying our (the US) enemies are happy about it.
Corrupt elements within the NSA brought bogus charges against a heroic whistle blower and lost big-time. And... you think our enemies are happy?
Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
When we'll finally have Bushitler out of the White House!
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Sure. A traitor for revealing NSA warrantless wiretapping to us.
America is turning into a police state.
The authority is actually violating the laws in this case.
Instead of innocent until proven guilty, the authority is using that "traitor" bait to paint Mr. Drake as if he is guilty of treason against the United States of America.
Shame on Uncle Sam !!
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
This is a big fat witch hunt by bureaucrats with too much ego and power at their disposal. There (was) a good complete article on this complete story over at the New Yorker. Short recap: the NSA has had running for a number of years a project called Echelon which sucks in every bit of email, cell phone, satellite and any other type of electronic communication and tries to process in (they called all the electronic eavesdropping "total information awareness") --Carnivore and Omnivore installations at AT&T sites are part of this--. Now this left them with a great big haystack and finding needles turned into a big pain. One crypt analyst came up with a solution and called it 'thin thread'. It was rejected by the current bureaucracy because they had another project already underway called trailblazer. So this 'thin thread' project was on the shelf. People got re-assigned and it time passed. Trailblazer failed after a few years and a few hundred million dollars. Thin thread was pulled off the shelf, but since the original team had already been reassigned, new people were working on it. Some careful controls that limits spying on Americans was built into the original version. The powers that be went out of their way to spy on Americans (even though thats not part of the NSA mandate, and illegal). The original developers protesters complained, then left. The witch hunt that followed is part the Thomas Drake trial. ---sorry for the long blurb, the New Yorker piece is 10 pages, and there is a lot of dirt I left out--,
Sincerely (hello you NSA people!),
Anonymous Coward.
While would they be happy about it? Drake obviously committed no espionage. I am pretty sure our enemies are planning to commit actual espionage and not merely to do whistle blowing in order to improve our government agencies.
/.ers tend to handle intersection in a weird way. A intersects B implies A = B. "Not guilty" intersects Innocent so "Not guilty" = Innocent. Top it off with some rigid binary thinking, Guilty XOR "Not Guilty" and Bob's your uncle.
The accusation is made on the basis that the parent hates Obama, and is willing to say any thing, with or without justification. That's what partisanship is, it's a mental disease, a behavioral disorder.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I edited wikipedia , to make it hopefully much more neutral. Thanks for the tip.
As for the slashdot story, I believe that Thomas Drake's innocence is not opinion. I believe that it is a fact. If you have 10 counts against you, and they are all dropped, then you are innocent of them. Several readers have pointed this follows from the 'innocent until proven guilty' meme (which i hadn't thought of, but is a good argument...) do you disagree? Just because I am biased does not mean I am factually wrong, does it?
I believe the slashdot headline compares favorably in accurate to the other mainstream news headlines that are currently crowding around cyberspace.
The other headlines on other news sites typically say something like "NSA Leak case reaches plea deal", or "NSA spy espionage case pleads out" or "Spy-Agency Leaker pleads guilty to lesser charge" or "classified leak case reaches bargain" or whatever.
Many of these statments are misleading, or flat out wrong, and most of them imply things that are factually incorrect. Thomas Drake was never, ever, not even once, charged with 'leaking'. There is no law against 'leaking'. There are several laws covering 'disclosure' or 'delivery' of information, but he was not charged with one of those laws either. Why? Because they had no good evidence that he ever delivered any classified information to anyone. He specifically took precautions against divulging classified information to anyone - that was part of his agreement with Gorman of the Baltimore Sun - that he wouldn't give her any information.
Now, the DOJ indictment of him contains a lot of statements about 'giving classified information to a reporter', but when they actually brought criminal charges, none of those charges was for 'leaking' or 'disclosure' or 'delivery' of information. A statement is a totally different thing from a charge. Thus, any headline that says he was 'charged with leaking' or 'charged with disclosure' is misleading at best and flat out wrong at worst.
As for this word 'classified', it is also wrong. The Espionage Act 793(e) does not even use the word 'classified', it uses the phrase "national defense information". This is an important distinction, because only a jury can decide if a defendant's information counted as 'national defense information'. And this typically refers to serious military stuff, like diagrams of ships or something - that is what the law was refering to when Congress created it in 1917, and when Congress created its forefather the Defense Secrets Act in 1911, and what Congress intended when it amended the Espionage Act in 1950. And as Schmidt and Edgar point out in their famous 1973 Columbia Law article, Congress has repeatedly refused or failed to blanketly criminalize the posession or delivery of classified information - as Elsea points out in her 2010 CRS article, there is a 'patchwork' of laws, because Congress itself, and the President, love to leak classified information to the media. Thus, every headline that uses the word 'charged with leaking classified info' in relation to Drake's case is factually incorrect. He was never, not even once, charged with any law that contains the word 'classified' anywhere in it.
Again, the indictment makes a lot of statements about 'giving classified information to a reporter' (Which the judge ruled there was no evidence of). Even the headline of the DOJ news release might say things about 'classified information'. It is not my fault that the DOJ lawyers cannot read the Espionage Act. And again, a statement in an indcitment is a totally different thing from a criminal charge.
Lastly I'd like to cover the implications, the sort of tone and demeanor, of the language of the many articles floating around the web.
They seem to imply the story here is that a 'leaker' had to 'plead to a lesser charge'. That is utterly misleading. Another view of the story, one that I believe will be in the history books, is that the government, after a case that started when Bush demanded the FBI find the NS
the court could not convict? not a problem. congress critter is already working on something to make sure the next guy will be staring at life sentence or firing squad. just mention the word "terrorism" and "unpatriotic" and all the congress critters will fall in line.
"Truth is treason in the empire of lies." -- Ron Paul
==================
Hippie Logger Jock
==================
Requiring due process isn't a presumption of innocence. It's a requirement of due process. The process doesn't presume innocence. It is designed more to prove guilt while meeting the bare minimum Constitutional protections.
Learn to love Alaska
FTFY
I have to admit that the bash side of my brain appreciates your quotation marks. In any case, I checked out Merriam-Webster to see what the real language nazis think about !guilty?=innocent, and they indicate that guilty is a near antonym of innocent, and not an exact antonym. That is the most heartwarming experience I have ever had with a dictionary.
AC presumes the US' enemies are happy about it. Since your points are obvious, "thinking" clearly wasn't part of the activity.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Apparently, the US' enemies operate on the theory that governments are inefficient and incompetent, so improving the US government would clearly destabilize it. .....or maybe not.
And, yes, I'm sure you're right.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
> I don't get it. Do /.ers not understand the basics of the U.S. legal system (a rhetorical question...)?
Of course they don't. We don't teach law in our school system, for the most part. If you ask someone how a bill becomes a law, they will say it has to be approved by a majority of congress and signed by the president--but the reality is a lot more politics, industry groups, committee activity, anonymous holds, riders, earmarks, comments, a lot of meaningless fluff to be sound bytes, a lot of time on the phone to donors, congressional approval (not necessarily majority vote), and then presidential signing. And that's just for the stuff that comes out of Congress--we have a lot of other law, through rule-making and regulatory authority and through the court system, and on the state and local level.
You could cover a huge amount of it in a semester or year with good students, in a decent survey course, but we don't.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
Given that the Politburo is the one source not paying NPR a damn thing these days, and given NPR's unnerving willingness to broadcasting material embarassing to the government far in excess of those media sources who you personally pay to tell you what's going on, you might want to consider which source is actually in the public's interest.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Pin the tail on the whistleblower?
Treason is very difficult to prove. Drake wasn't even charged with Treason. Espionage is less difficult to prove, but the government lacked compelling evidence for those charge as well. And so on it it went, down the line, until what was left was "unauthorized use of a computer". I suppose that if "ex post facto laws" were not unconstitutional, the feds might have been able to invent the crime of "similar to espionage", but they can't.
According to the US Government, Drake is neither a spy, nor a traitor.
Does the phrase "double jeopardy" ring any bells? No? Here....let me help: "Double jeopardy is a procedural defense that forbids a defendant from being tried again on the same, or similar charges following a legitimate acquittal or conviction"
For further reading: Double Jeopardy
The teachers will crack any minute, purple monkey dishwasher.
Stop poking holes in everyone's conspiracy theories with your truth and logic!
When agreeing to a plea bargain, you have to say not only that you agree to the bargain, but that you are doing so because you actually are guilty. This is coercing a lie from innocent people who simply can't risk adding to their jail time if they have a weak case.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
Politicians come and go. They should always be challenged upon every decision they make, they need not be respected nor adored, in fact it is normal that a significant portion of the population dislike them, anything else stinks of corruption and grossly biased media.
What needs to be challenged in this case is an out of control bureaucracy, a willingness amongst it's members to pervert the course of law to feed their own ego and chances of promotion. The distortion is reflected in the change from policing to law enforcement, where policing forces those meant to assist the public in upholding the law, now feel entitled to use force against the public to inflict their own personal view of the law.
Torture is the norm, whether it be chemical weapons or electric shock, to enforce the ego of law enforcement members. Likewise the legal system is abused, with those who are meant to seek justice now abusing it to feed their own personal goals.
Who is at fault the politicians or the electorate, those ignorant idiots that cheered along the war on drugs(actually a violent assault upon drug users), those that supported crap like environmental terrorists (not the polluters mind you but the people trying to prevent the pollution), that approved restrictive compounds and permits for protesters (utterly pointless protests and those citizens treated like disobedient children in a protest play pen), and routine violent assaults upon protesters with virtually zero justice (complete and total abandonment of the legal principles of minimum force) and of course using the courts as a penalty a pre-emptive fine of ten of thousands of dollars used with criminal intent and extortion as it's base motivation.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
If he did indeed pass the data, he isn't a hero, he is most likely a traitor, or at the very least guilty of espionage, wire fraud, or some other similar charge. That makes him an enemy of the US.
So there's no place for whistle-blowers in your world?
Sure he may have done the things you mention (though the courts didn't find proof), but to expose the largest, most blatant illegal wiretapping operation EVER, it was worth it ("public interest" and all that).
Though, it is interesting to note, that the government gave themselves a "get out of jail free card" for this operation (see FISA 2008) but apparently this guy wasn't included in their alternate reality where spying isn't bad.
I'm guessing you favored Nixon behaving like a king with no rule of law and attempting to distory the democratic process to stay in power with no one ever finding out. You should be ashamed of such a horrible opinion.
If the government of the US is corrupt and a person exposes them then he is not an enemy of the US, he is an enemy of the US government. There is a difference. If you want what is best for the US you'd better learn that difference.
Slander like calling him a traitor is not only illegal, it also harms the US more than he ever will.
In the US courts of law you never have to prove innocence. It's the default starting position. Unless proven otherwise, that's what the defendant is. If the prosecution fails to prove you guilty, that's what you are.
This is factually correct, no "Um, no" about it. If you're not being tried for anything, no one describes you as "not guilty." If you've been tried and acquitted, you're just as innocent as someone who hasn't been tried. There's no middle-of-the-road legal status that applies to people who have been acquitted versus those who have never been prosecuted. Both sets of people are simply legally innocent, as the GP said, period.
Didn't help OJ.
- Dan.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Your argument fails at your definition of "guilty". Someone isn't guilty because you think they are. You can only ever be guilty of a crime if you are found so in a court of law. It gets interesting when you appeal (IANAL - will you end up in a sort of "suspended guilty" state?), but that's not the case here.
Until such time as there is a formal conviction, someone is assumed innocent. A lesson the assorted press still hasn't learned either, leading to the destruction of lives of people that *were* innocent.
In this case, the subject is guilty of one crime - the one he has been convicted for. Not of anything else. To state otherwise is AFAIK actionable as libel or defamation.
Insert
How did it not help him? Has he been acquitted in a criminal trial only to be brought to trial again in a criminal court for the same charges?
If so, how did it pass under the radar?
Omnes tuae crepidines sunt nobis sunt. Ascendo tuum!
You can and should draw your own conclusions, but IMO this "Hylandr" is a seriously weird individual.
That may be the case, but what does it say about you that you went through all the trouble to build such a complex ad hom about someone who said something so ridiculous in the first place? As an AC, too. Emphasis on the C.
He's nutty, but you're the pot. Um. As in calling the kettle. You get my point. I hope.
Omnes tuae crepidines sunt nobis sunt. Ascendo tuum!
if they whont be able to drage him into court becouse it based on classfyed info they dont whant to share they will just make this guy go away very soon. they whont do it right away becouse the media is all over this but when they get bord and find something else to report on they will get rid of this guy in there own silent way. and trust me if there acting like there going to back down thats when you leave the country forever and prey they never find you.
Due process doesn't presume innocence, but the police don't decide the law, they only enforce it. As the court makes the final decision when it renders the verdict, the presumption of innocence by that court until such time as guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt means that according to the law of the land the accused is presumed innocent until such time as guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Theoretically.
This also means that if the prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then according to the law of the land, the presumption of innocence continues. Anyone and everyone can at that point start believing the accused was actually guilty, but according to the law of the land, that doesn't matter one whit.
While there is valid philosophical argument separating the terms "innocent" and "not guilty", the point is moot in the context of criminal law. Your point about law enforcement and prosecution not requiring presumption of innocence is a non-point.
Omnes tuae crepidines sunt nobis sunt. Ascendo tuum!
If he did indeed pass the data, he isn't a hero, he is most likely a traitor, or at the very least guilty of espionage, wire fraud, or some other similar charge. That makes him an enemy of the US.
Thank you good sir, for restoring my lack of faith in the US once again. Go forth sir, and vote your freedoms away one by one. May your government issued assprobe be most painful.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
Anyone and everyone can at that point start believing the accused was actually guilty,
Anyone and everyone can presume guilt or innocence long before that. Opinions are never dictated by the government, not what they should be, nor when you can hold them.
While there is valid philosophical argument separating the terms "innocent" and "not guilty", the point is moot in the context of criminal law.
No, the point is quite relevant. The courts do not decide whether one is "innocent" and in fact people have been found responsible beyond a preponderance of the evidence, but not beyond a reasonable doubt (see OJ). Though I agree one of those isn't criminal, the point is clear that the level of proof is all that the courts determine. They can't declare innocence. They are often wrong when asserting guilt. The simple fact of the matter is that someone either did or did not do the act in question. They are "guilty" or "innocent" at the time of the incident. The courts decide, based on relatively strict rules, whether guilt can be proven. What the courts find and what did or did not happen are unrelated (though we hope highly correlated).
Learn to love Alaska
I edited wikipedia , to make it hopefully much more neutral. Thanks for the tip.
As for the slashdot story, I believe that Thomas Drake's innocence is not opinion. I believe that it is a fact.
In that case, express it as a opinion (that YOU believe it is a fact) instead of putting it as a fact (as a legal judgement) being reported in the media and in the references you previously provided (none of which made that statement.) I do believe the man is innocent as well, but there has been no legal judgement expressing so. And none of the references you made in the media claim "innocence" as a piece of news.
You misrepresented (pretty much lied) the statements made by NPR and other news outlets to prop out your opinion (which I think is right.) That's dishonest. When you submitted your article to /. , you should have said very clearly:
1. NPR and other news outlets broke the news that Mr. Drake's case has been dropped in exchange for pleading for a much minor charge, and that he won't face jail time.
2. That YOU, based on x, y, z or whatever, strongly believe in Mr. Drake is innocent.
And then you should have refrained from putting #2 on the wikipedia entry because that has never been wikipedia's purpose (even if a million dishonest slimeballs do so on a daily basis.)
If you still don't get this and why, you are still a dishonest slimeball independently of what you believe about the case. It's not just your beliefs that define you, but also your actions.
Why is the article treating this guy like some sort of innocent?
Because it's more likely the NSA trumped up the charges as revenge for Drake ratting them out to Congress, than there being some sort of substance to them?
Is this just a feeble attempt to imply that Barack Obama is riding roughshod over the Constitution in his pursuit of Stalinist USA?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Does the phrase "double jeopardy" ring any bells? No? Here....let me help: "Double jeopardy is a procedural defense that forbids a defendant from being tried again on the same, or similar charges following a legitimate acquittal or conviction"
For further reading: Double Jeopardy
GP would probably argue that Obama will also abolish double jeopardy, along with the Constitution of the United States and the Easter bunny..
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
How did it not help him? Has he been acquitted in a criminal trial only to be brought to trial again in a criminal court for the same charges? If so, how did it pass under the radar?
OJ had to go through a second, civil trial, which he lost and had to pay damages. So the point is that if the government were feeling nasty they could presumably try something similar.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
As you should be made to know !!
OJ was not guilty, but NOT innocent !!
OH was found not criminally guilty, but he was sued and found liable in a civil court, and so he is definitely not "innocent" morally even if innocent legally.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Anyone and everyone can presume guilt or innocence long before that. Opinions are never dictated by the government, not what they should be, nor when you can hold them.
I think you're mixing up the common mis-use of "presumption" to mean "assumption". A presumption in the legal sense is something that you take as being true in the absence of evidence to the contrary, not just a random opinion based on your own prejudices.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Not guilty does *not* mean innocent.
No, clearly it means guilty Mr Smith.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
... and is willing to say any thing, with or without justification. That's what partisanship is, it's a mental disease, a behavioral disorder.
Or a religion.
If he did indeed pass the data
He did indeed "pass the data". To the Inspector General who was investigating the abuse of wiretaps. Whatever "proof" the government had that he passed it to a reporter was so Top Seeeekrit that the judge couldn't be allowed to see it under seal.
Which probably means that if that super-secret evidence (of a prior event that wasn't so secret the government could not press charges and claim publicly that this event happened) ever actually existed, the only excuse I can think of was that the evidence had been obtained illegally (ie from using the warrantless wiretaps the Inspector General was investigating on Congress and/or the Investigator General) and would have been not only inadmissible in court but would have blown the fucking lid off of the Capitol.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
The US Senate used to serve a very similar role to the House of Lords. It was appointed by the state legislatures without the advice or consent of "The People(tm)" because it was supposed to represent the interest of the individual states as whole bodies against the federal government's authority. That's one of the reasons why you didn't see a major rejection of the 10th amendment and expansive police powers within the states by the federal government until the popular election of senators turned them into federal politicians as opposed to representatives of their state governments with authority over the federal government.
Repealing the 17th amendment and undoing the arbitrary size limit on the House of Representatives would do wonders to reign in the power of the federal government by changing the entire political culture.
For example, one can very well be guilty but not found as such by a court of law. This is why the courts do not generally attempt to answer the question "is the defendant innocent?" Rather, the courts try to answer the question, "is there enough evidence to prove the defendant did this?"
This is why, at least in the US, you will sometimes see someone win a criminal case (get judged not-guilty) but then lose a civil case that presupposes that the defendant is, in fact, guilty. The criminal and civil courts tend to use different standards (reasonable doubt vs. preponderance of evidence).
So, in other words, if the case is dropped (or the defendant is acquitted of all charges), that really says nothing about guilt or innocence. Rather it only says something about the amount of evidence in play. In this case, the amount of evidence is being limited by government fiat. They aren't willing to diclose certain evidence. Consequently, the courts do not have sufficient evidence to convict. That is a far different decision than the court determining that someone is innocent.
Which is why he lost that wrongful death civil case. Or, in other words, there are gray areas where people might be "legally innocent" in some contexts but not in others.
The presumption of innocence is not the same thing as being innocent. Only in very rare cases will a court contain a determination of innocence as part of a finding of fact. It's a bit like the position of an agnostic compared to a hard atheist. Just as the agnostic states "I don't know if God exists", the courts state "I don't know that the defendant is guilty." This is a different judgment in kind than if the courts stated bluntly, "I know that the defendant did not commit the crime" which is pretty comparable to the hard atheists' position "I know that God does not exist."
How did it not help him? Has he been acquitted in a criminal trial only to be brought to trial again in a criminal court for the same charges?
If so, how did it pass under the radar?
OJ had to go through a second, civil trial, which he lost and had to pay damages. So the point is that if the government were feeling nasty they could presumably try something similar.
*Bingo*
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
You're a fool. The classified material that he "took" (according to him he forgot it was in his filing cabinet) was declassified months after he took it. All he did with it was let it sit around. For further information read this wonderful article from the Wall Street Journal.
My bad, New Yorker.
GP would probably argue that Obama will also abolish double jeopardy, along with the Constitution of the United States and the Easter bunny..
And then he'll have Public Enemy write a new national anthem, make being Muslim mandatory for citizenship, elect himself lifelong emperor of the New United States of Blackness, and make being white a felony.
[/sarcasm comment="sad that I feel the need for this tag"]
I think the mistake is in failing to comprehend -- or admit -- that there are grey areas in the legal system, as in the reality of life. In a Venn diagram in words, the set of all innocent is a subset of all not guilty. The sets of all guilty and all not guilty do not intersect, and wholly cover the phase space considered.
The hard part, and this is maybe where well-meaning people are confused, is when the legal system errs, declaring someone who is, in absolute fact, innocent as guilty. Then it's easy to confound these various sets, I suppose.
sigfault (core dumped)
Didn't help OJ.
- Dan.
Double Jeopardy does not apply to civil lawsuits that are filed after a criminal trial acquittal.
Is there really anyone left these days who couldn't be considered a US enemy in some sense or another? They even spy on the brits and the aussies these days...?
Why is the article treating this guy like some sort of innocent? If he is indeed innocent of passing classified information, then I'm glad justice did not miscarry. If he did indeed pass the data, he isn't a hero, he is most likely a traitor, or at the very least guilty of espionage, wire fraud, or some other similar charge. That makes him an enemy of the US.
Well, if he did any of those terrible illegal things, he should be tried for them. And I do not believe for one second that the courts would not allow some sort of redacting or anonymising of crucial security information if that was part of the evidence against him.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I submit that both the government and people of the US are enemies of the US.
Er, the government and the people of the US are the US, unless you believe there is some sort of Platonic Ideal US of which our reality is merely a flickering reflection on a cave wall.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
If the cops presumed you innocent, they'd never arrest you. If the prosecutor presumed you innocent, they'd never file charges. If the judge presumed you innocent, he'd not let the trial proceed.
That's not at all true. Cops and prosecutors are agents of the state. Their discretionary powers are limited. In some cases, even if they believe a person to be innocent, cops are bound by statue to arrest, and prosecutors are bound by statute to prosecute.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
You can't do that.
(the re-try part)
As bad as things are, you still can't be tried again over the same 'issue'
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Care to quantify this anti-democratic accusation? And the world can get together and talk about the US anytime they want but who cares it's not like the international community would actually do anything except publish those oh so definitve UN resolutions. And understand one thing China and Russia would not do anything to the US that might proke a serious conflict because they know in the end that no matter how much damage they inflict on the US they definitley would not survive the experience.
Every country on the planet has been spying on one another for ages. What do you think embassy staffs do besides process visas? It's a good bet that 75% of all embassy officers work for their countries intelligence services.
Right the jury or judge doesn't need to find anyone innocent, they are presumed to be unless found guilty.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
You say that as if those that was not already a synonym for mental disease or behavioral disorder.
If Drakes council is spouting off to random friends he should be disbarred for violating his clients privilege.
OJ had to go through a second, civil trial, which he lost and had to pay damages. So the point is that if the government were feeling nasty they could presumably try something similar.
So what are you saying? The government is going to sue this guy for damages? Seriously? Have you thought this through?
Omnes tuae crepidines sunt nobis sunt. Ascendo tuum!
Progressives are the worst group of blowhards on the planet and I'd rather attend a "Death To America" festival in downtown Iran than listen to progressives attack everything and anyone who happens to contradict their version of reality. Progressive are the epitome of "throwing out the baby with the bath water" types who have no regard for the destruction and deaths that would occur if their grandiose solutions where to be implemented. Describe to me an example where the Rule of Law and Constitution has been discarded. Hounding whistleblowers, surveillance, and criminal investigations are challenged everyday in courts around the country. Care to name one person who has ben convicted using illegally obtained evidence in a US court? Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it illegal. Amazon closed the Wikileaks account because they specifically broke the terms of the account contract. The government did not force them to drop them. The same thing for the other public companies where Wikileaks also violated their contract terms. The government didn't make those terms and the government did not enforce those terms either. The Wikileaks fiasco needed to be scrutinized by the government to determine if anything was illegal under current laws. There is only one person arrested over this and he was in a unique situation being an active member of the US military at the time of the leak and subject to military laws which are different than civilian law. I have not seen any sign of more arrests in the future. The government can huff and puff all they want but according to law they do not have any legal means to charge anyone else, especially foreign nationals. If the US was un-democratic or worse they would have had Assange and anyone else they wanted in custody in a blink of an eye, extradition treaties be damned, and then used national security perogatives to basically do anything they wanted with them.
Whatever you want to make believe is fine. The end result was the same. He was tried twice, for the same accusation. Both involved some form of corporal punishment, both can land you in jail under certain circumstances.
Why do people insist on believing similar, or even identical, results are different if alternate paths to the conclusion were employed?
- Dan.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Their discretionary powers are limited. In some cases, even if they believe a person to be innocent, cops are bound by statue to arrest, and prosecutors are bound by statute to prosecute.
Can you cite that statute? I thought one of the basic tenets of the separation of powers was that all three must agree. All it takes is the police to decide not to arrest or the prosecutors to not prosecute for "guilty" people to go free, with the assumption that it would be used to control the government's hold on the people, not for corruption as it is more often used for.
Cops may say "I believe you are innocent, but I have to arrest you anyway" but that's likely unrelated to what they actually believe.
Learn to love Alaska
I think you're mixing up the common mis-use of "presumption" to mean "assumption".
Presumption: "An act or instance of taking something to be true or adopting a particular attitude toward something, esp. at the start of a chain of argument or action." Nope, I'm using it in the dictionary definition. Are you sure you are?
A presumption in the legal sense is something that you take as being true in the absence of evidence to the contrary, not just a random opinion based on your own prejudices.
So a non-random opinion based on prejudice is ok (that's what presumption of innocence is) is ok, but a random one isn't ok? That's fine, then my presumption that the closest living ex-lover is the murderer works more often than not. And you call it "prejudice" but I call it "statistics." The ex-lover is almost always the guilty party. I get to use it for things like amazing friends and coworkers. A coworker mentioned that his best friend was serving time in prison. The next words out of my mouth were "was the assault on his wife, or was she a live-in girlfriend?" The answer was "live-in girlfriend" with a puzzled look at me for guessing so much as to craft such a specific question.
Such things like that lead to the presumption of guilt against those who are most likely to have committed the crime by those involved (even the cops). Assumption is different in that it is more exclusive. If you work on the assumption that the ex was guilty, then investigating the repairman who was last there would be a waste of time. When you presume them guilty, you still investigate all angles.
Learn to love Alaska
*Amen*
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Lol
I am flattered, if not a little alarmed that you took the time to visit my personal website. i shall have to fill it out more this weekend maybe. I am sorry you don't like Mormons. That doesn't make me weird. As for email, I would be an idiot to invite hoards of spam to my inbox if I didn't use a form and a captcha. It even has pictures but I guess that was too difficult for you. :)
I get frustrated like anyone else and tend to be negative sometimes as my post indicated. I am glad he was found not guilty, but you have to admit as far as anything fair these days it's extremely rare and I wouldn't be surprised if some attempt wasn't made to get him again. I would cite the present activity of our government to try and find a way to prosecute wikileaks operators / collaborators as one example.
My remark may have been off the cuff, but I begin to wonder what would have you so upset that you might actually make a personal attack out of it.
Just to quote the very front page of my site:
We believe in your right to believe in anything you want, regardless of what we believe, as long as you recognize and respect our right to believe in anything we want, regardless of what you believe.
That said I welcome you even if you disagree with my beliefs. That right ends however, on the contact link if your input is hateful or contains drama. You can postulate a differing opinion from mine, just not hateful.
Peace and God Bless,
- Dan.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
I was under the impression that there were statutes that said so explicitly. But I didn't find any with a quick search.
Rather, what I am referring to may just be based on judicial procedure, and a (common) misinterpretation of it. It's so common, in fact, that I've been taught this by two different lawyers, and never really had any reason to doubt it. Basically, it is the rule that certain "questions of fact" are "for a jury to decide". This leads prosecutors (and even police) to mistakenly believe that their duty is just to collect evidence and pass it along to an eventual jury, instead of using any type of discretion. In actuality, of course, this rule only exists due to abuses like those of "Hanging Judge" Isaac C. Parker, who had a habit of denying defendants the right to a jury trial. The defendant has the right to have a jury decide the question, but it's not an absolute requirement like many apparently believe.
This is a good example:
http://justicebuilding.blogspot.com/2007/06/self-defense-and-prosecutors.html
"The truth hurt me in this case," said Williams, who expressed no surprise at the verdict.
"They were bringing a lot of violence to this defendant. It's tough to put yourself in that guy's shoes and say he didn't act appropriately. It's really tough."
Ultimately, Williams said, the self-defense issue was one for the community, not prosecutors, to determine.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
And I remember the court cases where the police sued to have "discretion" mean that they don't have to apply the law, ever. They may lose their jobs if they don't do their job, but failing to stop a crime in progress, failing to respond to a call, failing to arrest someone they know has a warrant against them will not result in criminal prosecution, and in many cases won't result in any disciplinary action being taken at all. The police in the US are not required to enforce the law, ever (except as a condition of employment, but that's not a legal requirement, but a contractual one).
The same seems to go with DAs as well. As far as I know, there have been a number of people who were quite mad that weak cases were prosecuted and strong ones weren't, but I've never once heard of a DA being in any legal trouble at all for the choices in cases taken (even when actual corruption was found, things like bribery are prosecuted, but never anything related to professional misconduct for prosecutorial discretion, but I could have missed one or more).
Learn to love Alaska
As far as I know, there have been a number of people who were quite mad that weak cases were prosecuted and strong ones weren't, but I've never once heard of a DA being in any legal trouble at all for the choices in cases taken
Really? You haven't been paying attention.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RCITJ00&show_article=1
And I remember the court cases where the police sued to have "discretion" mean that they don't have to apply the law, ever.
The Supreme Court has ruled that police can't be held civilly liable for failure to enforce the law. They can, of course, lose their jobs though. Which would naturally lead most to err on the side of over-zealous enforcement.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
You haven't been paying attention.
That's not for which cases to take. If the prosecutor were to have pursued the case with the same zeal, but without violating procedures (something I did say could land them in jail), even if he knew the defendants to be innocent, then he wouldn't have gone to jail. Again, he wasn't in jail for choosing to prosecute knowingly innocent people for personal gain. That's ok, and often encouraged in the US. He got sentenced to one day in jail for lying to the judge in court (essentially perjury, as lawyers are officers of the court and assumed sworn in when court is in session).
The Supreme Court has ruled that police can't be held civilly liable for failure to enforce the law.
I'm unclear why you are making that distinction. I stated they could lose their jobs, but that there were no other liabilities (specifying criminal, but as you mentioned they have complete civil immunity as well). You explicitly agreed with what I said, but in a disagreeable manner, so I don't know if you think your comments are anything other than 100% agreement with mine.
Learn to love Alaska
Frankly, even us non-enemies are pretty glad to see this. Your country is getting fairly anti-democratic; how long before the world starts meeting without out you to discuss what to do about you?
Good -- the United States of America is a Representative Republic and always has been. Only when the majority pick Representatives the minority doesn't care for (like when Democrats won control of Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008) does anyone start spouting nonsense about "Democracy"
"Democracy" is mob rule and always has been, throughout history. That's why The Founder's select the current system of Government we have and why true patriots -- such as myself -- aren't going to see it abolished just because a bunch of chicken-shit whiners (the left-wing in regards to George W. Bush and the right-wing in regards to Barack Obama) are pissed they aren't getting their way.
"Don't be a martyr -- BE THE ONE WHO GOT AWAY!"
I'm unclear why you are making that distinction.
I didn't really mean to make any distinction. Posting here is an exercise in frustration with the latest iteration of Slashcode's retarded Javascript interface. So I don't have time to spend several minutes clicking on things in order to make every point crystal clear.
Regardless, you mentioned bribery. And obviously law enforcement are not immune to prosecution for things like criminal conspiracy in which they purposely avoid arresting their conspirators. So there is a distinction to be made.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
My exceptions were for external crimes committed regardless of the selection of prosecution. Taking a bribe to not prosecute someone, then prosecuting them anyway is a crime. So bribery to not prosecute them and not prosecuting them is a crime as well. Whether they are prosecuted is unrelated to whether it was a crime. As such, the distinction that criminal conspiracy and bribery and such are related to whether they select to prosecute is invalid. The decision of whether to proceed with the case is irrelevant to whether a crime was committed.
Such is the case in all such cases I've ever heard of. As far as I can tell, there has never been a criminal case filed against a prosecutor for a decision to file or not file a case (presuming no other crimes were committed that affected that decision). And you (and everyone else) have not presented a single case to prove me wrong. I can't prove the affirmative (short of listing every case ever filed and the reason, which is essentially impossible), but you could prove the negative with a single example. So far the closest you (or anyone else) has come is a prosecutor prosecuted for lying in court, which is completely unrelated to whether he decided to file the case in question.
So I stand by my statement, law protects police and prosecutors from all liability (criminal or civil) for failing to do their job (presuming no additional crimes were committed at the same time).
Learn to love Alaska
You understand, of course, that "the law" has very little bearing on the actions of police and prosecutors anyways, right? I mean, "the law" prohibits speeding, but obviously police aren't criminally prosecuted for that. Your argument is a red herring. Prosecutors who misbehave face disbarment, judicial sanctions and the political process, not prosecution. Police who misbehave only have to fear demotion or loss of employment. My argument was simply that both err on the side of unjustified prosecution, for whatever reason. Your assertion that they could fail to prosecute anyone and not be criminally prosecuted is kind of irrelevant.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
I mean, "the law" prohibits speeding, but obviously police aren't criminally prosecuted for that.
The law doesn't prohibit speeding for police officers while in the commission of their duties. Explicitly in the law. As such, it isn't illegal for them to speed. You are the one using red herrings to try to push your agenda, rather than actually looking at the truth and then forming your opinions based on that. When your opinions are set in stone and you are never wrong, then the truth must be what's flexible. And that's obvious with what you are saying...
My argument was simply that both err on the side of unjustified prosecution, for whatever reason.
My argument was that the system was initially designed such that if there was a "questionable" anything (police, prosecution, or otherwise) then the case should not be followed. Why? Because it's better to let 100 guilty men go free than convict one innocent one.
Learn to love Alaska
My argument was that the system was initially designed such that if there was a "questionable" anything (police, prosecution, or otherwise) then the case should not be followed. Why? Because it's better to let 100 guilty men go free than convict one innocent one.
Uh-huh. And if you think the way the system was initially designed bears even the slightest resemblance to how the system works today, then you're the one whose opinions are overriding empirical reality.
How many innocent people ended up in Gitmo again?
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Are we discussing "how it should be" or "how it is"? Because the "presumed innocent" is firmly in the "how it should be" category as well. It seems you are condemning in me that which you adhere to most. Since you were the one taking the "how it should be" stance with presumed innocent, I responded in kind with other "how it should be" statements. Since you disagree with that approach, then we can also take the same approach you advocate with presumed innocent and declare that you have proven yourself wrong.
Learn to love Alaska
I'm not the OP. I never made that argument. So, at this point, you are just responding in order to read your own posts. Are you going to respond to this one too?
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
I'm not the OP. I never made that argument. So, at this point, you are just responding in order to read your own posts. Are you going to respond to this one too?
Nah, just to point out that you posted such great lies such as:
In some cases, even if they believe a person to be innocent, cops are bound by statue to arrest, and prosecutors are bound by statute to prosecute.
Not true anywhere, and you've defended the spirit of that statement even after you admitted it was 100% false. It's kind of funny, and your repeated justifications amuse me, so yeah, as long as you keep trying to justify your horribly wrong statements with non sequiturs, ad hominems, and just flat making stuff up, I'll keep replying. How about you, you gonna post again? Come on, top your last ones and tell me how cops are required by law to arrest criminals when they've sued and won the right to never arrest anyone and have no legal responsibility for that.
And I really liked how you pointed out that cops aren't prosecuted for speeding when every state in the union has an explicit exception for emergency vehicles as if you didn't know that and it was just their own discretion that let them speed with impunity (which does apply, but only when they are off duty). I couldn't figure out if you figured I was too stupid to know the truth, or if you were really so arrogant as to lecture me about the law when you are ignorant and 100% wrong.
But go ahead, I can't wait to see what comes next.
Learn to love Alaska
Aaaaaand, of course the answer was "yes". So that's, what, seven responses?
even after you admitted it was 100% false
Once again, your failure at reading the thread has led you to attribute statements to me that I didn't actually make. Perhaps you are confused again? Maybe someone else "admitted it was 100% false"? I conceded in my second post that it was not actually statute but merely judicial law. And of course, as I pointed out over and over again, this makes no difference whatsoever to my argument since there is no distinction between statute and judicial law to a cop or prosecutor.
The fact that you seem to want to make such a distinction and argue about prosecutors going to jail, however, is hilarious. I don't think I've ever seen anyone erect such a ridiculous strawman as "prosecutors aren't put in jail for who they prosecute therefore they follow no rules whatsoever," and then beat it with such stupendous zeal as you have done here in this thread.
Even in the face of evidence to the contrary, of a prosecutor actually going to jail for pursuing defendants he knew to be innocent, you split the tiniest hairs of distinction between species of prosecutorial misconduct in order to maintain your argument.
Congratulations, it seems you just might have what it takes to be a lowly court officer in some Lilliputian American backwater.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
the prosecutor claimed that but the claim is very questionable, since two of the documents Drake is accused with were UNCLASSIFIED.
many other documents were 'retroactively classified'.
the judge in a previous writing described how there was 'no evidence' the hushmail emails contained classified info, nor that the newspaper articles contained classified info from Drake's house as the government claimed.
assuming that the government is accurate is not a good way to be 'neutral'.
you can read a bunch of the case files, motions, petitions, etc, by googling 'thomas drake selected case files fas.org'
thanks
My main problem was implying that NPR + other news sources used the word 'innocent'. Well, they didnt use that exact word. Sorry for implying that. I wrote it out of anger, because nobody else was pointing out that blatant fact. The point of their stories is that all charges are dropped, which makes him innocent. . . ergo they are writing that he is innocent. If i had written "NPR reports Drake Case collapsed", when NPR had really said 'all charges dropped', would that have also been SLIMEBAG DISHONESTY? or would it simply be accidentally implying a word was used when it wasnt?
If you would like to present your case please feel free to provide more details.
as for wikipedia....
will you revisit each one of my dozens of past edits to the article, and scream at me about each one, that i am a DISHONEST SLIMEBALL for each edit? because each of my previous dozens of edits on his article also contained mistakes, and i corrected them over time. It happens all the time on wikipedia, that is just the nature of the beast. That's why i like editing wikipedia actually, because people correct my mistakes, or they suggest corrections for me, or i can fix my mistakes later on. I have re-done entire articles because of people's criticisms of my writing. That, to me, is what wikipedia is about, not about 'refrain from editing for fear you might get two words wrong'. Is that your position? that nobody should write anything on wikipedia because out of thousands of words, two words might be 'too positive' towards a person in a biography of living person article? What is your position on wikipedia? do you ever write there? why or why not?
now the day he got freed, i read dozens of headlines about the case. were those reporters all all DISHONEST SLIMEBALLS when they put false and misleading statements in their headlines about him 'leaking classified information'? thats borderline defamatory, and false.
As for slashdot...
Why just scream at me? why not scream at the slashdot editors? they have changed my headlines before... in one of my previous stories, i wrote "Bush" in the headline, they replaced it with 'Government'. Good for them. But in this case, they chose to leave 'innocent' in there. Slashdot editors have posted and tweaked tens of thousands of stories in their time - why is their journalistic judgement invalid while, say, the New York Times is valid? Do you know what the New York Times did in the Wen Ho Lee case? That he won a massive lawsuit against them later on for harming him and writing lies about him?
After Drake's reputation has been run through the mud, is it not someones job to stand up and state the fact that he is innocent? How is it accurate or responsible to hide this fact from the public? I will admit that i got a little carried away in the moment, it would have been 'more neutral' to write 'all 10 charges dropped'. But slashdot is not wikipedia. It is slashdot.
I will need a lot more evidence before i can accept that i am a DISHONEST SLIMEBALL.
there was no evidence he passed any classified information to a reporter.
the charges against him were not for passing information to a reporter.
they were for 'retention'.
having it in his basement.
which, by the way, is what the government IG office had told him to do - keep the IG documents for your records. they neglected to mention that some of the documents would be retoractively classified later on