9 ms·

The key point of the article: The government discovered that the head of Temple's physics department had transferred to China schematics for a 'pocket heater',

The key point of the article: The government discovered that the head of Temple's physics department had transferred to China schematics for a 'pocket heater', which is used for semiconductor research and for which he had signed some sort of NDA (I don't know with whom). The FBI arrested him, handcuffed him, led him away; and the U.S. attorney charged him. You can imagine the effect on his job, reputation, etc. We pick up the story here: But months later, long after federal agents had led Dr. Xi away in handcuffs, independent experts discovered something wrong with the evidence at the heart of the Justice Department’s case: The blueprints were not for a pocket heater. Faced with sworn statements from leading scientists, including an inventor of the pocket heater, the Justice Department on Friday afternoon dropped all charges against Dr. Xi, an American citizen. My concern is, do heads roll at the FBI and U.S. Attorney's office after a failure like that? Is there accountability?

CamperBob2 11y ago
The key point of the article, to me, is really not in the article at all but in one of the comments. Tobin Worcester 22 minutes ago Once again, the government is demonstrating that we cannot trust it to wisely use the evidence that it is collecting on us. It just goes to show how we as private citizens are accountable to our government, but the reverse is never true. Rest assured no heads will roll over this. No lawsuits will be won or even be permitted. No elections will be lost, no careers ruined. The prosecutor's office will continue to run 100% open-loop, as usual.
- cariaso 11y ago
  See also the case of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wen_Ho_Lee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wen_Ho_Lee
- Asbostos 11y ago
  That's because you'll continue to vote for the same party that's responsible for it. You can blame the government all you want, but almost everybody in America is to blame for either voting for it or not voting for anyone else.
  - rhizome 11y ago
    How in the world are you able to interpret this as a partisan issue?
    - bpodgursky 11y ago
      Uh, because the actions of the Justice department are a direct function of whatever the Executive branch wants to focus on. The Attorney General is nominated by the president. They decide who the federal government prosecutes. It is absolutely political.
      - mistermumble 11y ago
        The surveillance state machinery has been a long time building, under the aegis of both parties. I think the Republicans push this with more vigor than the Democrats, but Democratic administrations such as the current one keep the machinery running.
        bpodgursky 11y ago
        This is not a greater debate about the vague idea of a surveillance state, it's about a very concrete case the federal government could either choose to prosecute or choose to drop. The current administration chose to prosecute. That decision was a decision entirely up to the executive branch, which is entirely up to the electorate. Making (not well supported) assertions about "republican adminstrations pushing a surveillance state" does not change those facts.
        nitrogen 11y ago
        Most of the people who work at the DoJ are not elected or appointed, and they probably have a fair amount of influence on what is visible to the AG.
        trentlott 11y ago
        So which party or candidate has made dismantling the DoJ their key issue? Because a president really only gets one or two Big Things plausibly accomplished. The Democrats clearly won't do it, and we can rest assured the Republicans will busy themselves with abortion and warmongering with Iran.
smtddr 11y ago
>>My concern is, do heads roll at the FBI and U.S. Attorney's office after a failure like that? Is there accountability? There should be a minimum $500k USD awarded to anyone who's arrested by USgov but then found innocent. Of course the problem this will cause is that if USgov arrests you... they will try their hardest to find any kind of violation on you. And as we know, the law is so complicated that chances are if USgov looks hard enough they can find dirt on anyone. So... as much as I wish they were held accountible, the pain they'd put you through to make sure they're not found in the wrong makes me hesitant to levy anything on them. I want it to be much easier for them to admit being wrong than going forward with pressing charges.
- jrs235 11y ago
  "Of course the problem this will cause is that if USgov arrests you... they will try their hardest to find any kind of violation on you." No the problem with that is tax payers are punished for shitty government official decisions. The officers and officials don't have to pay, they have "endless" funds. Individual actors need to be held accountable. The DoJ is now focusing on criminally charging executives at companies, not just the companies themselves, for breaking laws. Government officers and officials should also be held accountable.
  - MaulingMonkey 11y ago
    > No the problem with that is tax payers are punished for shitty government official decisions. Which would hopefully motivate the tax payer to hold their government officials accountable while helping restore those harmed. Hopefully... > Individual actors need to be held accountable. Agreed.
  - SapphireSun 11y ago
    Guess who is ultimately responsible for shitty government decisions in a representative democracy... If the people are technically the source of government power, the people as a whole should bear the responsibility of ensuring that good government is elected. Punishing the taxpayers broadly ensures accountability from the top (the people).
- 11y ago
dylanjermiah 11y ago
>My concern is, do heads roll at the FBI and U.S. Attorney's office after a failure like that? Is there accountability? Who's going to hold them accountable? Those who fund them have no choice in the matter, so it's naive to expect accountability in the first place.
- Gibbon1 11y ago
  A small change I would make would be to allow appellate courts to ban prosecutors and police officers. A ban meaning they can't bring cases before the court or testify. Bans could be temporary or permanent.
  - Beltiras 11y ago
    Yellow and Red cards, just like soccer. This idea actually has some merit.
  - neltnerb 11y ago
    wow... this is really clever. personal accountability and an incentive to not pursue any charges not clearly backed up by the facts.
a3n 11y ago
> My concern is, do heads roll at the FBI and U.S. Attorney's office after a failure like that? Is there accountability? Never worked in the FBI, but just based on how rabid the US govt appears to be over prosecuting and winning, threatening people with ruin so that they can get any win ... No, not a single head will roll. At most, relevant supervisors will console the investigators and prosecutors. "Well, bad break kid, the guy was innocent." I really don't think it's about enforcing the law, or protecting the public or the Constitution, it's about annual reviews and advancement. We are resources for law enforcement.
- mig39 11y ago
  No, they won't say "the guy is innocent" -- they'll say "bad break kid, the guy got off ... on a technicality."
downandout 11y ago
Nothing will roll. In fact, Dr. Xi won't even receive an apology or acknowledgement that something wrong happened here. He probably can and should sue in this case, as they destroyed his reputation over a "mistake". The government either a) brought these charges due to extreme negligence, or b) brought the case in bad faith, knowing that their case was fatally flawed from the beginning and were looking to use the charges to extort Dr. Xi into cooperating against his Chinese counterparts. Either way, the government is liable for the damages its actions caused.

CamperBob2 11y ago

The key point of the article, to me, is really not in the article at all but in one of the comments. Tobin Worcester 22 minutes ago Once again, the government is demonstrating that we cannot trust it to wisely use the evidence that it is collecting on us. It just goes to show how we as private citizens are accountable to our government, but the reverse is never true. Rest assured no heads will roll over this. No lawsuits will be won or even be permitted. No elections will be lost, no careers ruined. The prosecutor's office will continue to run 100% open-loop, as usual.

cariaso 11y ago
See also the case of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wen_Ho_Lee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wen_Ho_Lee
Asbostos 11y ago
That's because you'll continue to vote for the same party that's responsible for it. You can blame the government all you want, but almost everybody in America is to blame for either voting for it or not voting for anyone else.
- rhizome 11y ago
  How in the world are you able to interpret this as a partisan issue?
  - bpodgursky 11y ago
    Uh, because the actions of the Justice department are a direct function of whatever the Executive branch wants to focus on. The Attorney General is nominated by the president. They decide who the federal government prosecutes. It is absolutely political.
    - mistermumble 11y ago
      The surveillance state machinery has been a long time building, under the aegis of both parties. I think the Republicans push this with more vigor than the Democrats, but Democratic administrations such as the current one keep the machinery running.
      - bpodgursky 11y ago
        This is not a greater debate about the vague idea of a surveillance state, it's about a very concrete case the federal government could either choose to prosecute or choose to drop. The current administration chose to prosecute. That decision was a decision entirely up to the executive branch, which is entirely up to the electorate. Making (not well supported) assertions about "republican adminstrations pushing a surveillance state" does not change those facts.
        nitrogen 11y ago
        Most of the people who work at the DoJ are not elected or appointed, and they probably have a fair amount of influence on what is visible to the AG.
        trentlott 11y ago
        So which party or candidate has made dismantling the DoJ their key issue? Because a president really only gets one or two Big Things plausibly accomplished. The Democrats clearly won't do it, and we can rest assured the Republicans will busy themselves with abortion and warmongering with Iran.

smtddr 11y ago

>>My concern is, do heads roll at the FBI and U.S. Attorney's office after a failure like that? Is there accountability? There should be a minimum $500k USD awarded to anyone who's arrested by USgov but then found innocent. Of course the problem this will cause is that if USgov arrests you... they will try their hardest to find any kind of violation on you. And as we know, the law is so complicated that chances are if USgov looks hard enough they can find dirt on anyone. So... as much as I wish they were held accountible, the pain they'd put you through to make sure they're not found in the wrong makes me hesitant to levy anything on them. I want it to be much easier for them to admit being wrong than going forward with pressing charges.

jrs235 11y ago
"Of course the problem this will cause is that if USgov arrests you... they will try their hardest to find any kind of violation on you." No the problem with that is tax payers are punished for shitty government official decisions. The officers and officials don't have to pay, they have "endless" funds. Individual actors need to be held accountable. The DoJ is now focusing on criminally charging executives at companies, not just the companies themselves, for breaking laws. Government officers and officials should also be held accountable.
- MaulingMonkey 11y ago
  > No the problem with that is tax payers are punished for shitty government official decisions. Which would hopefully motivate the tax payer to hold their government officials accountable while helping restore those harmed. Hopefully... > Individual actors need to be held accountable. Agreed.
- SapphireSun 11y ago
  Guess who is ultimately responsible for shitty government decisions in a representative democracy... If the people are technically the source of government power, the people as a whole should bear the responsibility of ensuring that good government is elected. Punishing the taxpayers broadly ensures accountability from the top (the people).
11y ago

dylanjermiah 11y ago

>My concern is, do heads roll at the FBI and U.S. Attorney's office after a failure like that? Is there accountability? Who's going to hold them accountable? Those who fund them have no choice in the matter, so it's naive to expect accountability in the first place.

Gibbon1 11y ago
A small change I would make would be to allow appellate courts to ban prosecutors and police officers. A ban meaning they can't bring cases before the court or testify. Bans could be temporary or permanent.
- Beltiras 11y ago
  Yellow and Red cards, just like soccer. This idea actually has some merit.
- neltnerb 11y ago
  wow... this is really clever. personal accountability and an incentive to not pursue any charges not clearly backed up by the facts.

a3n 11y ago

> My concern is, do heads roll at the FBI and U.S. Attorney's office after a failure like that? Is there accountability? Never worked in the FBI, but just based on how rabid the US govt appears to be over prosecuting and winning, threatening people with ruin so that they can get any win ... No, not a single head will roll. At most, relevant supervisors will console the investigators and prosecutors. "Well, bad break kid, the guy was innocent." I really don't think it's about enforcing the law, or protecting the public or the Constitution, it's about annual reviews and advancement. We are resources for law enforcement.

mig39 11y ago
No, they won't say "the guy is innocent" -- they'll say "bad break kid, the guy got off ... on a technicality."

downandout 11y ago

Nothing will roll. In fact, Dr. Xi won't even receive an apology or acknowledgement that something wrong happened here. He probably can and should sue in this case, as they destroyed his reputation over a "mistake". The government either a) brought these charges due to extreme negligence, or b) brought the case in bad faith, knowing that their case was fatally flawed from the beginning and were looking to use the charges to extort Dr. Xi into cooperating against his Chinese counterparts. Either way, the government is liable for the damages its actions caused.