White House Responds To Petition To Fire Aaron Swartz's Prosecutor

First time accepted submitter devloop writes Petitioners requesting the White House remove D.A. Carmen Ortiz from office for gross prosecutorial overreach in the case of Aaron Swartz, received today what amounts to a denial from WhiteHouse.gov. "Aaron Swartz's death was a tragic, unthinkable loss for his family and friends. Our sympathy continues to go out to those who were closest to him, and to the many others whose lives he touched. We also reaffirm our belief that a spirit of openness is what makes the Internet such a powerful engine for economic growth, technological innovation, and new ideas. That's why members of the Administration continue to engage with advocates to ensure the Internet remains a free and open platform as technology continues to disrupt industries and connect our communities in ways we can't yet imagine. We will continue this engagement as we tackle new questions on key issues such as citizen participation in democracy, open access to information, privacy, intellectual property, free speech, and security. As to the specific personnel-related requests raised in your petitions, our response must be limited. Consistent with the terms we laid out when we began We the People, we will not address agency personnel matters in a petition response, because we do not believe this is the appropriate forum in which to do so."

Comments

question

[the_Bionic_lemming]

How many times has this administration embraced a petition and moved forward with it?

Re:question

[phantomfive]

Another question, do you think Obama even reads them?

At a minimum they've been a good source of entertainment for eight years. I'll miss them when they're gone.

As much as could be expected

[guises]

This is probably the best response possible to an "I demand you fire that person who has made me angry" rant. The petition could have asked for some reform to the prosecutorial discretion system which allowed her to hound Aaron in the first place, or maybe to the ridiculous wire fraud law that she used, but demanding the head of someone who annoys you is, one: ineffective scapegoaterry, and two: asinine entitlement.

Re:As much as could be expected

[Anonymous Coward]

...but demanding the head of someone who annoys you is, one: ineffective scapegoaterry, and two: asinine entitlement.

Not sure if you're trolling (in the classic sense) but I'll bite.

This wasn't just about a random stranger wearing ugly socks. This was a government official abusing their official authority for personal gain. As you note, there may be a broader issue that prosecutors have no legitimate need for such authority but expecting government officials to (only) use their power for the benefit of the people generally is hardly "asinine entitlement". And it's not scapegoating if the person actually did the thing that people are angry about.

Re:As much as could be expected

[Anonymous Coward]

The procecutor overreacted by bringing down a sledge hammer to swat a fly.

Humans aren't flies and this wasn't some accidental panic on the part of the prosecutor: she was abusing her power, with absolute disregard for anyone who might be hurt, in order to enhance her own personal political standing.

Re:As much as could be expected

[guises]

It's scapegoating in that it's pinning the problem onto a single person, who ultimately isn't responsible for a systematic issue. This is not a case of crooked individual undermining a fair and just system - what she did was commonplace, it just doesn't usually happen to someone with whom you've heard of and sympathize with. Saying, "Let's get her!" and then going home satisfied that you've beaten the bad guy is exactly how this sort of thing is allowed to continue.

Note: I am not defending her any more than I'd defend the gangster used as a classical scapegoat. Neither of their hands are clean. Does she deserve to be fired? I don't know, maybe, but it wouldn't actually do anything.

Re:As much as could be expected

[Anonymous Coward]

It's scapegoating in that it's pinning the problem onto a single person, who ultimately isn't responsible for a systematic issue.

So if there's a lot of crime in a neighborhood then it's scapegoating to punish someone who commits a crime in that neighborhood?

Saying, "Let's get her!" and then going home satisfied that you've beaten the bad guy is exactly how this sort of thing is allowed to continue.

Doing nothing,as you seem to be advocating by agreeing with Obama, is also a pretty good way to let it continue.

Does she deserve to be fired? I don't know, maybe, but it wouldn't actually do anything.

The president doesn't make the laws nor does he determine the interpretation of the laws. He has a limited capacity to veto laws - and hopefully we'll see a lot of the in the next couple years. The president's power is to exercise discretion in the execution of the laws - more specifically, to carefully choose good people to exercise discretion in the execution of the laws on his behalf. It is not just the president's prerogative to fire bad subordinates, it is his fundamental responsibility.

And, would it do anything? Yes, absolutely! He might have to fire more than one prosecutor but the message would get through eventually. Obama may be giving the impression the the president of the USA is merely a powerless figurehead. But it does not have to be this way. It is not for nothing that the president of the United States is often said to be the most powerful man on the planet.

Re:As much as could be expected

[sjames]

I'm all for firing each and every participant in the systemic issue. Systematically.

However, we only happen to know of one or two at the moment, so let's start there and work our way out.

Zero accountability

[Kohath]

This is one reason why some of us want to stop giving the government more power. Because they can never be held accountable when they misuse that power and hurt people. No one in power is ever guilty of anything. Care and recklessness are rewarded equally.

It's easy to say you're for "openness" (and whatever other buzzwords) when you never have to actually live up to any sort of standards. Why should anyone listen or believe or trust? Apparently, we shouldn't.

Re:Zero accountability

[umafuckit]

This is one reason why some of us want to stop giving the government more power.

And there is some truth to this. However, some of you (and it may not include you) seem to think that the government having less power is always better and is often the answer to problems. Neither of those things are true.

Pierce, Buchanan, and now Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

..we do not believe this is the appropriate forum in which to do so.

Presumably if the White House believed that such a forum existed, it would have mentioned it. So, essentially, the White House is saying that no forum exists to "address agency personnel matters". But one of the main things the president is supposed to do is insure that good people are executing the laws and policies of the USA.

Sometimes I wonder if Obama wakes up in the morning, looks himself in the mirror, and says "How can I undermine the American public's faith in democracy?" People were angry with all the nonsense that was going on in the Bush presidency and they elected Obama with the hope that he would change it. But he hasn't. It's like he's trying his best to prove that democracy doesn't work.

Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan are widely regarded as some of the very worst presidents in the history of the USA. They were all about civility and comprise and the rule of law - pretty much just like Obama. But then Lincoln came along did what he had to do to get rid of slavery - civil war, suspension of habeas corpus, etc. And he's remembered as one of the best presidents in the history of the United States.

Obama hides behind bureaucracy in order to excuse his moral cowardice. Fine, he's gotta be who he is. But he shouldn't be surprised when he goes down in history with the likes of Pierce and Buchanan.

Re:Pierce, Buchanan, and now Obama

[virtualXTC]

If I were a mod, I won't know whether to mod you at Troll or Insightful: Your history lesson on Buchanan and Pierce vs Lincoln was enlightening, but you are totally overlooking the shit-stained victory that is ObamaCare - At this point there's no way the republican's can appeal it, it would cause a mass uprising now that people realize Obamacare isn't really going to kill grandma, and makes it easier to stay insured (COBRA was a ripoff) if your unemployment insurance runs out, or if you decide to become an consultant. ...and there's something to be said about a passing a law that not even the Kennedy's or Clinton's could.

Change the policy

[Roodvlees]

If you want the internet to remain open and free, then why are you allowing copyright to lock it down?

You voted for it

[Anonymous Coward]

Joe Biden is the copyright industry's puppet and was paid to introduce hard prison time for copyright violation:
http://www.cnet.com/news/joe-bidens-pro-riaa-pro-fbi-tech-voting-record/

Note the date. This was already known before Obama's first election. The copyright industry bought themselves the vice presidency.

And all of Slashdot, reddit, etc. looked away, nanana I can't hear you, and voted for that. You voted for this strong prosecution, which Biden implemented as instructed to. The White House are hypocrite psychopaths if they are denying it. The voters are huge hypocrites if they are complaining about it - they shouldn't have voted on this policy. And they will deny it and look away, and vote psychopaths into power again. How fucking convenient for everybody.

End all immunity for government employees

[MikeRT]

Especially prosecutors. Prosecutors, in fact, absolute civil immunity from the consequences of their courtroom hijinks. They can literally, with malice aforethought suborn perjury, withhold evidence that proves innocence (not just cast doubt) and other things and you cannot sue them. Why? The Supreme Court a long time ago ruled that if prosecutors could be sued into the ground for their courtroom conduct it would "unduly influence" their decisions to bring cases.

So you can sue a cop who beats you up because that's not within his training and there's no good faith defense. A prosecutor, legally trained with a JD, can intentionally commit a felony against you in a court of law and your only resources are as follows:

1. Plead with another prosecutor to prosecute him.
2. Get a friend/relative/street thug to meet him in the court parking lot with a baseball bat.

Because the civilized option 3) of taking matters into your own hands in a civil court is completely impossible and has been for a few decades.

Can we stop worshipping Swartz already?

[damn_registrars]

Swartz was an idiot, not a hero. Stop making him a religious idol. Has anyone criticized Carmen Ortiz for the prosecution that her office led on Whitey Bulger or Dzhokhar Tsarnaev?

No, they have not. This petition isn't about Carmen Ortiz, it is about more people trying to make a hero out of a fool. Carmen Ortiz worked hard to get to where she is, don't paint her as a super-villian just because Swartz crapped himself when he realized how stupid his choices were.

Re:Can we stop worshipping Swartz already?

[Anonymous Coward]

Carmen Ortiz worked hard to get to where she is,...

So did Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.

But what I don't get is the idea that there needs to be a high threshold for replacing people in positions of power. I mean, as a lower level scientist I could end up not getting my contract renewed for any number of reasons ranging from not quite enough available funding, to not churning out quite enough publications, to the boss deciding that my personality isn't quite the right fit for the team. If anything, we should have even higher standards for people in positions of power - if they so much as wear a pair of socks that doesn't match the rest of their ensemble then kick them to the curb and replace them with somebody better. If janitors need to lay awake in the wee hours of the morning with cold fear in the pits of their stomachs that they might not be able to feed their families because of inadequate job performance then high level government officials should fear much worse.

Re:Can we stop worshipping Swartz already?

[Trailer Trash]

Swartz was an idiot, not a hero. Stop making him a religious idol. Has anyone criticized Carmen Ortiz for the prosecution that her office led on Whitey Bulger or Dzhokhar Tsarnaev?

No, they have not. This petition isn't about Carmen Ortiz, it is about more people trying to make a hero out of a fool. Carmen Ortiz worked hard to get to where she is, don't paint her as a super-villian just because Swartz crapped himself when he realized how stupid his choices were.

You're creating a false dichotomy where either Swartz was a hero or Ortiz is a hero. In fact, neither is a terribly respectable character.

The issue with Ortiz's prosecution was that she offered him a plea deal of 6 months with the alternative of prosecuting him with charges that would carry up to 50 years in jail and $1,000,000 in fines. If she thought the crime was worth 6 months in jail then she should have simply prosecuted it as such (and frankly should be forced to prosecute it as such since she obviously can't be trusted with any discretion).

She's scum. That doesn't mean that Swartz is some kind of hero.

Re:Can we stop worshipping Swartz already?

[Anonymous Coward]

My point here though is that the case never made it to court. In fact it really was quite a ways from making it to trial.

That is part of why she is evil. Rather then pushing for it to go to trial she intentionally kept a Sword of Damocles over his head as a way to punish him, via threats of jail time and lawyer bills.

Re:How many times done anything helpful?

[JRV31]

The ACA was announced and pretended to be in operation before the software was ready: How Obamacare's epic fail exposed our government's biggest tech problem. Whoever is at the top of the U.S. government was obviously completely incompetent. (Often a U.S. president merely pretends to be in charge, hiding what is actually happening, and who is arranging it.)

The President is very much a figurehead - he wields no real power whatsoever. He is apparently chosen by the government, but the qualities he is required to display are not those of leadership but those of finely judged outrage. For this reason the President is always a controversial choice, always an infuriating but fascinating character. His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it. Douglas Adams - Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy

Re:How many times done anything helpful?

[g0bshiTe]

Explain how prior to ACA I could escape a dr visit with a $30 copay and maybe get a bill for 60 - 70% the balance, now I get 100% the balance up until 10k.

I could buy it was about providing healthcare to those without, yet you can try to deny it's about healthcare but your argument falls apart due to it being a "requirement for healthcare coverage".

If it were about healthcare it would be about healthcare not coverage.