5 ms·

I’ve said it before but the idea of secret courts trying to coerce people into doing things seems extremely backwards and regressive. Maybe I don’t understand t

I’ve said it before but the idea of secret courts trying to coerce people into doing things seems extremely backwards and regressive. Maybe I don’t understand this system but it doesn’t seem to be about getting justice. If there is testimony already given as well it seems doubly wrong, inconsistent and hateful.

causality0 7y ago
Courts have as much to do with justice as HR departments. Both exist only to protect the higher-ups. It's not about protecting people; it's about protecting power and those who wield it.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  That doesn’t make sense. Courts are independent (in theory) whereas HR is directly paid by and depending on the company.
  - komali2 7y ago
    > Courts are independent (in theory) In the last couple years the {in practice} part has made this independence completely untrue.
    - Angostura 7y ago
      > completely untrue. That would explain why the government never loses in court ever, ever, right?
      - CriticalCathed 7y ago
        One could argue that its merely lost to another government faction. Ala intra-aristocratic strife.
        denkmoon 7y ago
        Perhaps it could even be described as one part of the government applying checks and balances against another part.
    - blfr 7y ago
      Why, what changed in the last couple years?
  - saghm 7y ago
    I don't necessarily agree with GP, but don't judges get government salaries?
    - Ididntdothis 7y ago
      The government consists of three independent branches of which one is the judiciary. You can’t compare this to a company which is basically a dictatorship.
      - ClumsyPilot 7y ago
        I am not sure why you are being down voted, this is a perfectly accurate statement - and if viewed from a democratic perspectives, corporates are very dictatorial and mafia-like
  - cfqycwz 7y ago
    There _is_ a slightly looser coupling than an HR department, but the judges are still appointed and confirmed by politicians with pretty clear material interests. It's not so much a case of being "paid to rule the right way" as being chosen _because_ of an inclination to rule the right way
  - lostcolony 7y ago
    Independent in operation, but not able to perform their own hiring. The temptation to appoint sycophantic justices who have espoused opinions in line with the dominant party is high.
clairity 7y ago
> "Maybe I don’t understand this system..." sounds like you understand the system pretty well. the US is grounded in a limited federal government and the right to vigorously oppose it (short of, say, revolt) without persecution (see: bill of rights). holding manning in jail for so long was persecutory and unjust.
- sudoaza 7y ago
  Manning and Assange must eat the stick so the rest of the people learn not to mess with the Authority. Must make sure that no journalist dares to even touch any future leak. Dare I remind that Greenwald has a capture order in Brasil.
  - FpUser 7y ago
    Really? I thought the whole idea of free "free" was that people do mess with the Authority to keep it in check.
    - CiPHPerCoder 7y ago
      That is the idea. They're saying that, in practice, the Authority is anti-freedom, and freedom is the enemy.
- cultus 7y ago
  It's common practice to hold even low level offenders for a year or more to extract a confession. NYC has been particularly infamous for this.
  - atoav 7y ago
    Doesn't make it right tho.
LiquidSky 7y ago
>secret courts This was a normal public federal district court, not the FISA court or the like. Or did you mean the concept of grand juries? > trying to coerce people into doing things If people aren't voluntarily complying with orders and subpoenas, what would you suggest be done?
- andy_ppp 7y ago
  The concept of grand juries. I would actually say it’s almost impossible to compel people to be witnesses. If the witness believes the court to be politically motivated (which you can’t believe it isn’t) then morally of course it’s the correct decision not to testify. I for one wouldn’t give a shit at this point, I’d say just about anything to make these people leave me alone. Another problem with the coercion aspect of this, my testimony couldn’t be trusted...
  - rtkwe 7y ago
    > I for one wouldn’t give a shit at this point, I’d say just about anything to make these people leave me alone. Another problem with the coercion aspect of this, my testimony couldn’t be trusted... The punishment for that is a jail sentence for the actual crime of lying under oath they call it perjury... You're not actually getting out of prison doing that unless you can lie without ever messing up or contradicting something the state already knows. It's a tricky line subpoenas need some method of enforcement or they're basically toothless but there's definitely a line where contempt of court goes too far.
acqq 7y ago
I also don't understand. I've tried to find more material about what was going on, especially re. dismissal of Grand Jury mentioned: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15788218/united-states-v-doe-2010r03793/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15788218/united-states-... And I don't understand if it is actually accessible (the meaning of "sealed" there).
onenine 7y ago
You would prefer that prosecutors be able to indict people without any checks? Grand jury proceedings are secret to protect the innocent.

causality0 7y ago

Courts have as much to do with justice as HR departments. Both exist only to protect the higher-ups. It's not about protecting people; it's about protecting power and those who wield it.

Ididntdothis 7y ago
That doesn’t make sense. Courts are independent (in theory) whereas HR is directly paid by and depending on the company.
- komali2 7y ago
  > Courts are independent (in theory) In the last couple years the {in practice} part has made this independence completely untrue.
  - Angostura 7y ago
    > completely untrue. That would explain why the government never loses in court ever, ever, right?
    - CriticalCathed 7y ago
      One could argue that its merely lost to another government faction. Ala intra-aristocratic strife.
      - denkmoon 7y ago
        Perhaps it could even be described as one part of the government applying checks and balances against another part.
  - blfr 7y ago
    Why, what changed in the last couple years?
- saghm 7y ago
  I don't necessarily agree with GP, but don't judges get government salaries?
  - Ididntdothis 7y ago
    The government consists of three independent branches of which one is the judiciary. You can’t compare this to a company which is basically a dictatorship.
    - ClumsyPilot 7y ago
      I am not sure why you are being down voted, this is a perfectly accurate statement - and if viewed from a democratic perspectives, corporates are very dictatorial and mafia-like
- cfqycwz 7y ago
  There _is_ a slightly looser coupling than an HR department, but the judges are still appointed and confirmed by politicians with pretty clear material interests. It's not so much a case of being "paid to rule the right way" as being chosen _because_ of an inclination to rule the right way
- lostcolony 7y ago
  Independent in operation, but not able to perform their own hiring. The temptation to appoint sycophantic justices who have espoused opinions in line with the dominant party is high.

clairity 7y ago

> "Maybe I don’t understand this system..." sounds like you understand the system pretty well. the US is grounded in a limited federal government and the right to vigorously oppose it (short of, say, revolt) without persecution (see: bill of rights). holding manning in jail for so long was persecutory and unjust.

sudoaza 7y ago
Manning and Assange must eat the stick so the rest of the people learn not to mess with the Authority. Must make sure that no journalist dares to even touch any future leak. Dare I remind that Greenwald has a capture order in Brasil.
- FpUser 7y ago
  Really? I thought the whole idea of free "free" was that people do mess with the Authority to keep it in check.
  - CiPHPerCoder 7y ago
    That is the idea. They're saying that, in practice, the Authority is anti-freedom, and freedom is the enemy.
cultus 7y ago
It's common practice to hold even low level offenders for a year or more to extract a confession. NYC has been particularly infamous for this.
- atoav 7y ago
  Doesn't make it right tho.

LiquidSky 7y ago

>secret courts This was a normal public federal district court, not the FISA court or the like. Or did you mean the concept of grand juries? > trying to coerce people into doing things If people aren't voluntarily complying with orders and subpoenas, what would you suggest be done?

andy_ppp 7y ago
The concept of grand juries. I would actually say it’s almost impossible to compel people to be witnesses. If the witness believes the court to be politically motivated (which you can’t believe it isn’t) then morally of course it’s the correct decision not to testify. I for one wouldn’t give a shit at this point, I’d say just about anything to make these people leave me alone. Another problem with the coercion aspect of this, my testimony couldn’t be trusted...
- rtkwe 7y ago
  > I for one wouldn’t give a shit at this point, I’d say just about anything to make these people leave me alone. Another problem with the coercion aspect of this, my testimony couldn’t be trusted... The punishment for that is a jail sentence for the actual crime of lying under oath they call it perjury... You're not actually getting out of prison doing that unless you can lie without ever messing up or contradicting something the state already knows. It's a tricky line subpoenas need some method of enforcement or they're basically toothless but there's definitely a line where contempt of court goes too far.

acqq 7y ago

I also don't understand. I've tried to find more material about what was going on, especially re. dismissal of Grand Jury mentioned: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15788218/united-states-v-doe-2010r03793/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15788218/united-states-... And I don't understand if it is actually accessible (the meaning of "sealed" there).

onenine 7y ago

You would prefer that prosecutors be able to indict people without any checks? Grand jury proceedings are secret to protect the innocent.