3 ms·

Yeah; I remember that one too. The Smisek one was just more recent, and Smisek was also a much more visible CEO than Nacchio given United's place in the airline

by exelius 11y ago

Yeah; I remember that one too. The Smisek one was just more recent, and Smisek was also a much more visible CEO than Nacchio given United's place in the airline industry. From what I can tell, the Smisek issue may have genuinely involved some wrongdoing, but Smisek may only be involved because the ultimate target is Chris Christie. But he was a titan of his industry, and when he left there was no retirement party or farewell video: just a new guy sitting in his chair and a short press release explaining that a change had been made. Nobody is immune. But yeah, that's the jist of it. Refusing to comply with an NSA order will likely just end you up in jail on something else because the government has the power to lock you up. So we can't hold the companies who complied with them entirely responsible, as those companies are made up of individuals who have families to think of.

hga 11y ago
Refusing to comply with an NSA order will likely just end you up in jail on something else because the government has the power to lock you up. That's the thesis of Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent (http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229 http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/...), that: The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague.... He'll have a lot more examples, I'm sure. So we can't hold the companies who complied with them entirely responsible, as those companies are made up of individuals who have families to think of. Especially since the Feds have no compunctions against going after your family if they can't pin something on you. E.g. junk bond figure Michael Millikan, who's real crime was creating a market for poorly managed companies.

by exelius 11y ago

hga 11y ago

Refusing to comply with an NSA order will likely just end you up in jail on something else because the government has the power to lock you up. That's the thesis of Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent (http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229 http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/...), that: The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague.... He'll have a lot more examples, I'm sure. So we can't hold the companies who complied with them entirely responsible, as those companies are made up of individuals who have families to think of. Especially since the Feds have no compunctions against going after your family if they can't pin something on you. E.g. junk bond figure Michael Millikan, who's real crime was creating a market for poorly managed companies.