4 ms·
It doesn't matter. Ignorance of the law and all that... but I suppose that only applies to us little people.
by dmfdmf 10y ago
It doesn't matter. Ignorance of the law and all that... but I suppose that only applies to us little people.
- archgoon 10y agoThe law is worded as "knowingly and willfully". This situation is a decent argument for incompetence, but in that case, she isn't criminal.
- jonah 10y agoThey laws that us little people are more likely to come up against aren't worded that way...
- archgoon 10y agoMaybe you should take ownership as a citizen of this country and actually work to change the injustice you see rather than whining about how you're powerless on Hacker News?
- jonah 10y agoOh, I'm not whining, I'm just stating things as I see them. But yes, of course, complaining online doesn't really do much to influence the ruling class.
- jsfhSfhsgnn 10y agoAnd what do you suggest, oh great bearer of condescension?
- archgoon 10y ago"Maybe you should take ownership as a citizen of this country and actually work to change the injustice you see" Reading comprehension for a start. Last I checked this was supposed to be a forum for people who thought they could change the world, and make it a better place. If you don't think you can handle that, or have no ideas, maybe you don't belong here. We don't need people who's only contribution is "We're all completely helpless, there's nothing we can do!". You' re an engineer, you solve problems. Act the fuck like it. Cynicism at this point is nothing but laziness. You want a clue though? Maybe you should look locally and understand the problems there. If you're in San Francisco, there's plenty of things to do to get your feet wet.
- dmfdmf 10y agoI'm doing everything in my power to save Capitalism.
- SCAQTony 10y agoThere you have it, de facto testimony (by her own admission) that she was incompetent to do her job and one should wonder if she should be granted a more complicated position as President.
- dmfdmf 10y agoWhat "law" are you talking about? Because I was referring to the general, long established rule that ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking the law. Try your "knowingly and willfully" argument with a cop or with the IRS and see how far that gets you. It doesn't work that way and you know it, they proceed with the ticket or the tax + penalties and the courts back this procedure up. The point of my comment is that Clinton broke the law and mishandled classified information. Anyone who accepts that responsibility has to accept the consequences, even if they "didn't mean it", of failing to protect the info.
- archgoon 10y agoThe laws that would be used to classify Clinton as a criminal for leaking classified information. What other laws would be relevant? The one I've heard cited is this one: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798
- djur 10y agoSome crimes are defined by intent. Look up "mens rea". It's what distinguishes manslaughter from murder, for instance. Federal law distinguishes between accidental mishandling and intentional leaking of classified material. The former is what Hillary Clinton did. The latter is what Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning did.
- dmfdmf 10y agoI am aware of such distinctions but these legal classifications are defined to determine the appropriate punishment not to let someone off the hook. If you killed someone because you lost control of your car in the rain on bald tires you don't get a pass because you "didn't mean it". Comey made a recent speech and basically said the evidence shows that Clinton violated the laws regarding the handling of classified material but we aren't going to charge her. If it was due to incompetence or brain seizures or an honest mistake or selling out her country for financial gain, these are separate questions apart from the fact that a crime was committed and that she did it (or was complicit).