4 ms·

No. It is up to the proponent of a proposition to offer evidence of its truth. Perhaps those with no legal training should be the ones Googling, since many her

No. It is up to the proponent of a proposition to offer evidence of its truth. Perhaps those with no legal training should be the ones Googling, since many here clearly have no idea what they're talking about.

chrischen 7y ago
There is no oxygen in space (any area reasonably far from a planet). My lack of citation does not make it any less true. And if I were to try to convince you of that fact it would be simply for your benefit. Think of any comment by anyone here as someone graciously providing you with free counsel out of the time of their day, with the big disclaimer that they are not your client, and that the information is under no warranty. This disclaimer is implicit on all internet comments. It is up to you to consider their claims, and verify them. If you’re not willing to research their claims yourself then it’s pretty clear that 1) you’re just here to argue for one side to the public (aka propaganda) 2) pursuit of the truth is not actually your goal Given that your profile states that you are both part of the military and also a government lawyer may indicate that both 1) and 2) are true. I think you’ll be hard pressed to convince people they are wrong simply by accusing them that they are wrong due to lack of evidence. There is no court here, no jury to decide you win or lose. You can contribute more to this discussion by offering your unique perspective given your background.
- torstenvl 7y ago
  It is impossible to engage with someone's mistaken position without clarifying that position. As a result, I asked which rule they thought was violated. Since they are unwilling to even explain their reasoning, it is simply not possible to engage with them productively. Instead, people make it personal (like you just did with your accusation of propaganda) and go completely off the rails instead of answering a very simple question. This entire thread has fallen well short of the expectations of intellectual curiosity and genuine good-faith debate expected on HN. Shame.
  - chuckgreenman 7y ago
    You claim to be a lawyer, so I would assume in good faith that you understand that ethics and laws are not an inclusive set. If we approach this honestly and openly we see the following: Adding a tracking image to an email takes work, and their needs to be a reason to undertake that work if we assume the prosecution is a rational actor. So, what are some reasonable hypotheses about why someone would undertake that work? 1. In a charitable reading of the situation the tracking image is just there to determine if the email has been opened. 2. The prosecutor is attempting to gain information about the composition of the defense team, journalists and their sources. Considering the inciting incident was that a confidential source reported that a lawyer was not doing their job, and that tracking pixels tend to be automatically added to all of your sent emails, it lends credence to the hypothesis that this out of the ordinary image was an attempt to gather information about someone. Why would someone in the legal arm of the Navy want to track down someone involved with reporting misconduct in the legal arm of the Navy? Possibly to preserve their job or the job of their colleague by conducting a reprisal, with in the judicial system or outside of it. There are reputations and careers on the line. Folks are known to be quite protective of those. Attempting to discourage reporting of misconduct inside the government is unethical. A reasonable person can follow this chain of logic and see what happens, you seem fixated on the letter of a regulation rather than the spirit of our defense of a press that holds people accountable for their actions. If you were actually engaging in an intellectually honest discussion, you may bring up points that show why you think tracking down the source of the leak was important, or that it is standard procedure for military lawyers or lawyers in general to track email opens. Instead you've chosen to focus on the lack of a written prohibition of pixel tracking in a code of conduct written for lawyers, enforced by state bars that don't have jurisdiction over military lawyers.
    - torstenvl 7y ago
      The leaks were not a protected communication about prosecutorial misconduct. Talk of reprisal is inapposite. The leaks were a violation of a protective order, concerning which the judge specifically told the prosecution that the government had "all the power to investigate." https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/02/13/military-judge-airs-concerns-about-navy-seals-war-crimes-case/ https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/02/13/military... An IP address is not privileged information. I do not see any ethical violation here, and literally nobody except wgj has even attempted to square this discussion with the ethics rules. If the Defense team doesn't want to be investigated for violating a court order, they should stop violating court orders.
- 8note 7y ago
  I think there is actually oxygen in space. maybe not as much as on Earth, but it's still there https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/msa/rimg/article-abstract/68/1/55/87574/oxygen-in-the-interstellar-medium?redirectedFrom=fulltext https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/msa/rimg/article-abstract/6...

chrischen 7y ago

There is no oxygen in space (any area reasonably far from a planet). My lack of citation does not make it any less true. And if I were to try to convince you of that fact it would be simply for your benefit. Think of any comment by anyone here as someone graciously providing you with free counsel out of the time of their day, with the big disclaimer that they are not your client, and that the information is under no warranty. This disclaimer is implicit on all internet comments. It is up to you to consider their claims, and verify them. If you’re not willing to research their claims yourself then it’s pretty clear that 1) you’re just here to argue for one side to the public (aka propaganda) 2) pursuit of the truth is not actually your goal Given that your profile states that you are both part of the military and also a government lawyer may indicate that both 1) and 2) are true. I think you’ll be hard pressed to convince people they are wrong simply by accusing them that they are wrong due to lack of evidence. There is no court here, no jury to decide you win or lose. You can contribute more to this discussion by offering your unique perspective given your background.

torstenvl 7y ago
It is impossible to engage with someone's mistaken position without clarifying that position. As a result, I asked which rule they thought was violated. Since they are unwilling to even explain their reasoning, it is simply not possible to engage with them productively. Instead, people make it personal (like you just did with your accusation of propaganda) and go completely off the rails instead of answering a very simple question. This entire thread has fallen well short of the expectations of intellectual curiosity and genuine good-faith debate expected on HN. Shame.
- chuckgreenman 7y ago
  You claim to be a lawyer, so I would assume in good faith that you understand that ethics and laws are not an inclusive set. If we approach this honestly and openly we see the following: Adding a tracking image to an email takes work, and their needs to be a reason to undertake that work if we assume the prosecution is a rational actor. So, what are some reasonable hypotheses about why someone would undertake that work? 1. In a charitable reading of the situation the tracking image is just there to determine if the email has been opened. 2. The prosecutor is attempting to gain information about the composition of the defense team, journalists and their sources. Considering the inciting incident was that a confidential source reported that a lawyer was not doing their job, and that tracking pixels tend to be automatically added to all of your sent emails, it lends credence to the hypothesis that this out of the ordinary image was an attempt to gather information about someone. Why would someone in the legal arm of the Navy want to track down someone involved with reporting misconduct in the legal arm of the Navy? Possibly to preserve their job or the job of their colleague by conducting a reprisal, with in the judicial system or outside of it. There are reputations and careers on the line. Folks are known to be quite protective of those. Attempting to discourage reporting of misconduct inside the government is unethical. A reasonable person can follow this chain of logic and see what happens, you seem fixated on the letter of a regulation rather than the spirit of our defense of a press that holds people accountable for their actions. If you were actually engaging in an intellectually honest discussion, you may bring up points that show why you think tracking down the source of the leak was important, or that it is standard procedure for military lawyers or lawyers in general to track email opens. Instead you've chosen to focus on the lack of a written prohibition of pixel tracking in a code of conduct written for lawyers, enforced by state bars that don't have jurisdiction over military lawyers.
  - torstenvl 7y ago
    The leaks were not a protected communication about prosecutorial misconduct. Talk of reprisal is inapposite. The leaks were a violation of a protective order, concerning which the judge specifically told the prosecution that the government had "all the power to investigate." https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/02/13/military-judge-airs-concerns-about-navy-seals-war-crimes-case/ https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/02/13/military... An IP address is not privileged information. I do not see any ethical violation here, and literally nobody except wgj has even attempted to square this discussion with the ethics rules. If the Defense team doesn't want to be investigated for violating a court order, they should stop violating court orders.
8note 7y ago
I think there is actually oxygen in space. maybe not as much as on Earth, but it's still there https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/msa/rimg/article-abstract/68/1/55/87574/oxygen-in-the-interstellar-medium?redirectedFrom=fulltext https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/msa/rimg/article-abstract/6...