3 ms·

I think he means the people who bugged attorney-client calls, and the judge who put a good man in jail for not helping them do that. Why aren't those people be

• kbenson 9y ago
  Oh, I see. I think those are somewhat separate issues, but I do agree they need more attention and investigation. I'm not sure there are criminals in them or not, as a legal distinction. I do agree it's morally repugnant and goes against America's core values though.
  • mindslight 9y ago
    As-written legal distinction isn't very meaningful - legislators have written out the system's actors' culpability in the same manner that judges give it a free pass. A general sense of morality/values isn't very productive for making an argument either, as that basically reduces to "gut feeling" and rationalization. Many people are scared of the 21st century bogeyman, and will kowtow to whatever thugs are purporting to ward it off. Instead I would appeal to very basic concepts, like symmetry. For instance, if the defense team had carried out similar surveillance, would they be facing the same (lack of) consequences?
    • kbenson 9y ago
      > Instead I would appeal to very basic concepts, like symmetry. For instance, if the defense team had carried out similar surveillance, would they be facing the same (lack of) consequences? Well, to be clear, that's a big part of what I find morally repugnant and against (professed) American values, the hypocrisy and inequality present in this situation.