Slashdot Mirror
Why Whistleblowers Can't Get a Fair Trial
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."
When a government is corrupt, dishonest, and incompetent, then a whistleblower and a spy are essentially the same thing, as they threaten the positions and livelihoods of the corrupt, dishonest, and incompetent politicians and bureaucrats who comprise it.
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.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Traitorous spies? No, that is false. The law was written to deal with socialists advocating isolationism in WWI.
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
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 :((
never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
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
In a democracy, the public IS a higher authority than the government. Sometimes, the officials forget this.
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.
The link is to a news story behind the Wall Street Journal's paywall; I think such stories should be reconsidered. Such situations are acceptable with posts on science, which often link both to a popular-science write-up and to the original journal article: probably those readers with the expertise to read the original literature are subscribers. Links to ordinary news stories should follow the same policy: if there must be a link to a paywalled story, a link to a generally accessible version should be expected as well.
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.
Yes, most governments forget that they are the servants of the people, not the other way round.
"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!
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
In the US, every public official's oath of office is to the Constitution (ie, to the rule of law). God helps us if we ever truly become a nation where the rule of men overshadows the rule of law.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
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.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
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."
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re provide aid to our enemies in the process... mb you missed the "Manning acquitted of aiding enemy" aspect...
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_new...
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
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
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.
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!'.
The UK has a first-past-the-post system, and we currently have a coalition government, formed by one of the two major parties and the third party. Going back to the middle of the last century, the third party was one of the dominant two and was displaced (and reformed after merging with another small party) by one of the current two. FPTP electoral systems do tend towards two-party systems, but they're not stable and can be periodically upset (at which point they'll again start tending towards a two-party system. They trick is to upset them frequently).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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...
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 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.)
This was on WSJ; so all I saw was a bunch of faded text behind a window telling me to pay up or leave. I wish slashdotters wouldn't link to pay-wall sources. Some of us currently can't afford to pay for this stuff, so we're left wondering just what the hell the rest of you are talking about.
Show me one instance where Snowden gave ANYTHING to the Russians instead of the British press.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
voting 3rd party streghtens the position of the candidate furthest from the voter's preferences
No, it doesn't. It strengthens the position of the 3rd party.
You are trying to use game theoretical optimums to model a system which is inherently game-theoretically irrational by design. Consider this:
Informing yourself about the issues, takes time. Informing yourself about each candidates positions on the issues takes time. Going to the polls takes time, even if "the polls" is just your mailbox. You could spend that time doing literally anything else, but you don't, despite the nearly-impossible odds that you taking the time to do these things will influence the results of the election.
According to game theory then, about 60% of people in the voting age population (approx. voter turnout) are being irrational. So what is going on here? Well, you understand that if only a small number of people vote, then they will have a great deal of power, and that is clearly bad. You know your vote probably won't make a difference, but if EVERYONE thought that way, it would be really bad.
Game theoretically, you know it would benefit you right now to push button B, but if EVERYONE pushed button B we would all suffer. You aren't thinking about yourself, you are thinking about the group. That is an area of human behavior described in the study of superrationality.
So why then the two party system? Actually, two party systems TEND to crop up even using voting algorithms specifically designed to give 3rd parties a fair chance. Even in wars, you see factions magically aligning themselves into two narrowly-defined groups of strange bedfellows.
The reason is because of ignorance on a massive scale. To bring back the war analogy, we were allies with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden once, because we didn't know any better. People are scared into an irrational panic when faced with the false specter of "the Great Enemy" and are suddenly willing to compromise their own goals with lesser enemies. But it doesn't have to be like that. It isn't ALWAYS like that even now, particularly when people are informed. And that is what "vote 3rd party" advocates are trying to achieve.
Vote your conscience. Vote 3rd party*
*Unless you conscience tells you to vote for one of the two main parties.
In a military trial the term jury doesn't mean what it does in the real world. The jury is hardly the defendant's peers. Manning knew this and went for a trial by the judge only.
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).
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
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.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
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.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
That stupid "we're a republic, not a democracy" meme is annoying and it must die.Seriously.
democracy noun \di-mä-kr-s\
: a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting.
I don't have a sig.
I really don't get why--even on a site filled with smart people--people buy into the propaganda surrounding the Tea Party. Look at the facts: They have subverted one of the parties and have effectively gained a good portion of control over it to the point where the mainstream component is mobilizing to fight them and they have caused more debate outside the talking points of both parties than any single force since Ross Perot. I am not politically active but I get the impression, from what I have seen watching from the outside, that the Tea Party is just a bunch of regular people who are sick of mainstream politics and they are doing something about it. It stems from the republican party because those people are traditionally the most politically active and aware. The media and all the establishments of mainstream political control are not interested in really having this system upset and so they all band together to attack the Tea Party, and they do a damn good job dragging a lot of people with them. Just my observation.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
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), and didn't follow through on that. Had he closed Gitmo, cut down on stupid TSA practices, pushed hard to get his health care reforms through Congress in reasonable shape, the people he inspired in 2008 would still be around. Frankly, I'm very disappointed in Obama for not getting his way in Congress. I thought an Illinois politician would play better hardball.
Third, I think you have the wrong idea about co-opting ideas and issues. If you start a F/LOSS party, and it becomes popular, Democrats and Republicans are going to start acting more in favor of F/LOSS. Lots of politicians have principles, but they know they have to go along with things popular with their constituents to get re-elected. The party itself is likely to die after a while, but its impact will remain in US politics for a long time.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes