3 ms·

Is there anyone who believes the various branches of the military, nsa, cia etc. are subject to the same law interpreted the same way and would face prosecution

by harry8 7y ago

Is there anyone who believes the various branches of the military, nsa, cia etc. are subject to the same law interpreted the same way and would face prosecution for doing exactly what is accused here? I really don't and that's the thing that bothers me the most. Giving up equality before the law is huge. It's really quite revolutionary, no? Clapper is clearly as guilty as sin by his own admission but the law doesn't apply to him at all. Without talking about what is right and wrong morally, that loss of what is and isn't legal and has consequence to be decided on court no matter who you are is deeply and profoundly worrying to me. A novel interpretation and prosecution for one man (right or wrong) while not pursuing a very well trodden prisecution path for another. It's no light thing.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> Is there anyone who believes the various branches of the military The point of the rule of law is one doesn’t have to. This comment is orthogonal to the article.
- harry8 7y ago
  The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. The point is the rule of law is worth standing up for when it is threatened, surely. The rule of law isn't gravity, it doesn't continue to exist if nobody cares. Without it, life looks quite different.
colechristensen 7y ago
Is your position that because the US engages in espionage that we can't prosecute foreign spies? (otherwise we should hold our own spy agencies guilty of espionage?)
- harry8 7y ago
  The point is someone doing exactly what has been accused here, exactly, but to leak stories in support of whoever is in charge of various military branches. Would that same law apply for exactly the same thing? I strongly doubt it. "Unnamed official sources" Perjury is not exactly a novel prosecution to run, nor would be something setting precedent. This (right or wrong) sets precedent in it's interpretation and effect and will create case law either way it goes. Do you see the point I'm making? I can't see prosecution hesitating for a second to prosecute someone like Assange for perjury if there was even a hint of a case for it. That doesn't make Assange right and Clapper wrong or indeed say anything at all about that. It's just a worrying thing.
  - nabla9 7y ago
    > Would that same law apply for exactly the same thing Absolutely not.

by harry8 7y ago

JumpCrisscross 7y ago

> Is there anyone who believes the various branches of the military The point of the rule of law is one doesn’t have to. This comment is orthogonal to the article.

harry8 7y ago
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. The point is the rule of law is worth standing up for when it is threatened, surely. The rule of law isn't gravity, it doesn't continue to exist if nobody cares. Without it, life looks quite different.

colechristensen 7y ago

Is your position that because the US engages in espionage that we can't prosecute foreign spies? (otherwise we should hold our own spy agencies guilty of espionage?)

harry8 7y ago
The point is someone doing exactly what has been accused here, exactly, but to leak stories in support of whoever is in charge of various military branches. Would that same law apply for exactly the same thing? I strongly doubt it. "Unnamed official sources" Perjury is not exactly a novel prosecution to run, nor would be something setting precedent. This (right or wrong) sets precedent in it's interpretation and effect and will create case law either way it goes. Do you see the point I'm making? I can't see prosecution hesitating for a second to prosecute someone like Assange for perjury if there was even a hint of a case for it. That doesn't make Assange right and Clapper wrong or indeed say anything at all about that. It's just a worrying thing.
- nabla9 7y ago
  > Would that same law apply for exactly the same thing Absolutely not.