5 ms·

Likely illegal doesn't mean anything. It's the judicial branch that decides whether it is or is not legal. It's not until that point. For some reason there's a

Likely illegal doesn't mean anything. It's the judicial branch that decides whether it is or is not legal. It's not until that point. For some reason there's a lot of leeway for the government to push boundaries in this regard. The running outcome is that if something was not expressly illegal then there's no prosecution but a slap on the wrist. The judicial branch should start taking a much harder line against overreach; they should begin operating the other way: if it's a case of citizen rights and privacy then it's not legal unless it's expressly legal.

Karunamon 11y ago
Likely illegal Doesn't mean anything This kind of statement has always bothered me - some actions are clearly against a plain reading of a law long before a court has anything to say on the matter.
- matt_wulfeck 11y ago
  That's the problem though. The courts haven't said anything related to these types of operations. It's not like drunk driving with clearly defined tests and much precedent law.
- ipsin 11y ago
  Right, but you being bothered doesn't have any legal weight. It's kind of like the torture thing (excuse me, "enhanced interrogation"). It's plainly against the law, but your counsel has a novel legal theory about how black is actually white, up is down, etc. The person who would prosecute you for violating that law is the one you appointed, or possibly Congress if they felt like impeaching you. But... nothing happens. People argue about whether what you did is really right, or if torture is actually torture, and life goes on.
beambot 11y ago
"Likely illegal" means a lot! A guy kills his wife; his actions are "likely illegal"... it's just that we have a "innocent until proven guilty" system (thank goodness!). It isn't until the judicial branch rules that we know for sure that it was illegal, and that there was sufficient evidence to prove that it was illegal.
- matt_wulfeck 11y ago
  There's tons of precedent for murder. There's no precedent for massive surveillance. We may have some precedent with this case. Thank goodness for Snowden or we'd probably have none of these cases going to trial. In many ways you can see agencies stopping the <shady thing> instead of taking it to court. They do that because if they lose then it becomes actually illegal and the power grab gets harder.
  - scrollaway 11y ago
    > There's no precedent for massive surveillance But there is precedent for just "surveillance". In your own words, there's precedent for murder - would I be fine if I were the first "mass murderer"?
    - matt_wulfeck 11y ago
      That's a good point. I actually think that point would make a good argument in court.
x5n1 11y ago
The entire common legal system is set up in a way that is the exact opposite of this. Everyone is breaking the law all the time. It's suppose to be the case that unless someone complains about something expressly, that the government is suppose to mind its own business. This is no longer the case in the United States. The State has created many different departments to go after people when no reported crime has been committed. And then it continues to overreach on this using totalitarian information systems. The logic of the system keeps becoming more totalitarian. It makes sense that if some harm keeps getting committed then someone should do something about it. But if that's not the case, then it does not justify any action from the government. Like in Mexico the drug war, sure go after the major drug kingpins using totalitarian systems. But to put this on petty criminals, small time crooks, etc. that's just horrible.
- rayiner 11y ago
  > But to put this on petty criminals, small time crooks, etc. that's just horrible. Petty criminals and small time crooks are often the ones that make life hardest for people, especially the poor who live in the neighborhoods where these guys operate. When I lived in Wilmington, DE (a pretty run down post-industrial city), our favorite restaurant was run by an elderly Indian couple. But it was in a terrible neighborhood, and one day their house was broken into. These sweet, hard-working people were violated, and by who? Not some kingpin. By some "small time crook." Should he not be prosecuted to the full extent of the law?
  - x5n1 11y ago
    > unless someone complains about something expressly Would cover your case.
    - rayiner 11y ago
      You don't think people complain about people dealing drugs out of their neighborhood? 80-90% of people support keeping all drugs besides marijuana illegal.
talmand 11y ago
I'm not sure I agree. I would think that an act can be considered illegal upon committing that act. The part that the judicial branch covers is whether you should be punished for it. A simple example is running a red light; it's clearly illegal with or without the judicial's opinion on the matter, but they may or may not decide to punish you for the act based on circumstances. For instance, you ran the red light due to a medical emergency and you saving a life may convince a judge to dismiss the fine. That doesn't suddenly make running red lights legal, even in other cases of emergency. But, I would agree that there is lots of leeway with this because of things that seem illegal under an interpretation of the law but the judicial may aid in reversing that thinking. Which would likely end up affecting the related law in some way. Your last few sentences I totally agree with.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
zanethomas 11y ago
Q: So what in a sense you’re saying is that there are certain situations…where the president can decide that it’s in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal. NIXON: Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal. Q: By definition. NIXON: Exactly, exactly.
- barsonme 11y ago
  In case you were interested and wanted the (mostly) full quote[0]: David Frost[1]: ...Would you say that there are certain situations - and the Huston Plan was one of them - where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation, and do something illegal? Richard Nixon[2]: Well, when the president does it, that means it is not illegal. Frost: By definition. Nixon: Exactly, exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they're in an impossible position. Frost: The point is: the dividing line is the president's judgment? Nixon: Yes, and, so that one does not get the impression that a president can run amok in this country and get away with it, we have to have in mind that a president has to come up before the electorate. We also have to have in mind that a president has to get appropriations from the Congress. We have to have in mind, for example, that as far as the CIA's covert operations are concerned, as far as the FBI's covert operations are concerned, through the years, they have been disclosed on a very, very limited basis to trusted members of Congress. [0] - http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2007/sep/07/greatinterviews1 http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2007/sep/07/greatinte... [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Frost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Frost [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon
  - techdragon 11y ago
    Yep... Love that phrase "the FBI's covert operations" ... Nothing makes the police sound like fascist paramilitary thugs faster than "covert operations".

Karunamon 11y ago

Likely illegal Doesn't mean anything This kind of statement has always bothered me - some actions are clearly against a plain reading of a law long before a court has anything to say on the matter.

matt_wulfeck 11y ago
That's the problem though. The courts haven't said anything related to these types of operations. It's not like drunk driving with clearly defined tests and much precedent law.
ipsin 11y ago
Right, but you being bothered doesn't have any legal weight. It's kind of like the torture thing (excuse me, "enhanced interrogation"). It's plainly against the law, but your counsel has a novel legal theory about how black is actually white, up is down, etc. The person who would prosecute you for violating that law is the one you appointed, or possibly Congress if they felt like impeaching you. But... nothing happens. People argue about whether what you did is really right, or if torture is actually torture, and life goes on.

beambot 11y ago

"Likely illegal" means a lot! A guy kills his wife; his actions are "likely illegal"... it's just that we have a "innocent until proven guilty" system (thank goodness!). It isn't until the judicial branch rules that we know for sure that it was illegal, and that there was sufficient evidence to prove that it was illegal.

matt_wulfeck 11y ago
There's tons of precedent for murder. There's no precedent for massive surveillance. We may have some precedent with this case. Thank goodness for Snowden or we'd probably have none of these cases going to trial. In many ways you can see agencies stopping the <shady thing> instead of taking it to court. They do that because if they lose then it becomes actually illegal and the power grab gets harder.
- scrollaway 11y ago
  > There's no precedent for massive surveillance But there is precedent for just "surveillance". In your own words, there's precedent for murder - would I be fine if I were the first "mass murderer"?
  - matt_wulfeck 11y ago
    That's a good point. I actually think that point would make a good argument in court.

x5n1 11y ago

The entire common legal system is set up in a way that is the exact opposite of this. Everyone is breaking the law all the time. It's suppose to be the case that unless someone complains about something expressly, that the government is suppose to mind its own business. This is no longer the case in the United States. The State has created many different departments to go after people when no reported crime has been committed. And then it continues to overreach on this using totalitarian information systems. The logic of the system keeps becoming more totalitarian. It makes sense that if some harm keeps getting committed then someone should do something about it. But if that's not the case, then it does not justify any action from the government. Like in Mexico the drug war, sure go after the major drug kingpins using totalitarian systems. But to put this on petty criminals, small time crooks, etc. that's just horrible.

rayiner 11y ago
> But to put this on petty criminals, small time crooks, etc. that's just horrible. Petty criminals and small time crooks are often the ones that make life hardest for people, especially the poor who live in the neighborhoods where these guys operate. When I lived in Wilmington, DE (a pretty run down post-industrial city), our favorite restaurant was run by an elderly Indian couple. But it was in a terrible neighborhood, and one day their house was broken into. These sweet, hard-working people were violated, and by who? Not some kingpin. By some "small time crook." Should he not be prosecuted to the full extent of the law?
- x5n1 11y ago
  > unless someone complains about something expressly Would cover your case.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    You don't think people complain about people dealing drugs out of their neighborhood? 80-90% of people support keeping all drugs besides marijuana illegal.

talmand 11y ago

I'm not sure I agree. I would think that an act can be considered illegal upon committing that act. The part that the judicial branch covers is whether you should be punished for it. A simple example is running a red light; it's clearly illegal with or without the judicial's opinion on the matter, but they may or may not decide to punish you for the act based on circumstances. For instance, you ran the red light due to a medical emergency and you saving a life may convince a judge to dismiss the fine. That doesn't suddenly make running red lights legal, even in other cases of emergency. But, I would agree that there is lots of leeway with this because of things that seem illegal under an interpretation of the law but the judicial may aid in reversing that thinking. Which would likely end up affecting the related law in some way. Your last few sentences I totally agree with.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

zanethomas 11y ago

Q: So what in a sense you’re saying is that there are certain situations…where the president can decide that it’s in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal. NIXON: Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal. Q: By definition. NIXON: Exactly, exactly.

barsonme 11y ago
In case you were interested and wanted the (mostly) full quote[0]: David Frost[1]: ...Would you say that there are certain situations - and the Huston Plan was one of them - where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation, and do something illegal? Richard Nixon[2]: Well, when the president does it, that means it is not illegal. Frost: By definition. Nixon: Exactly, exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they're in an impossible position. Frost: The point is: the dividing line is the president's judgment? Nixon: Yes, and, so that one does not get the impression that a president can run amok in this country and get away with it, we have to have in mind that a president has to come up before the electorate. We also have to have in mind that a president has to get appropriations from the Congress. We have to have in mind, for example, that as far as the CIA's covert operations are concerned, as far as the FBI's covert operations are concerned, through the years, they have been disclosed on a very, very limited basis to trusted members of Congress. [0] - http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2007/sep/07/greatinterviews1 http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2007/sep/07/greatinte... [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Frost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Frost [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon
- techdragon 11y ago
  Yep... Love that phrase "the FBI's covert operations" ... Nothing makes the police sound like fascist paramilitary thugs faster than "covert operations".