4 ms·

I find it interesting that "perjury" isn't mentioned. The chastening by the court means little if the government suffers no ill effects from lying under oath.

anigbrowl 15y ago
At a guess, this is because may not be immediately obvious who committed perjury. Not everyone on the government side is necessarily on the same page, and over the 5-year lifetime of this case several of the people involved may have changed jobs. The US attorney representing the FBI in court might have been acting in good faith, for example, because someone within the FBI had decided that neither the court nor the attorney had a 'need to know' about the existence of other documents. Establishing exactly who made that decision and how many other people knew about it and when they knew etc. etc. will require a separate investigation. (I have only read the opinion so far, and not looked at the procedural history of the case which might answer some of those questions.) My understanding is that there are a few costs to the government when this happens. There's an investigation as mentioned above, which can take years. In the short term, the government may have to pay some or all of the plaintiff's legal costs - that can also take years, but it has an immediate effect on agencies' budget planning. Lastly, either the government appeals or the decision will be cited in existing or future litigation about similar issues. I have a hunch that there will be a huge amount of information- and security-related litigation against the government for the next 5-10 years. Now that Osama bin Laden is gone there will be increasing domestic pressure to reassess foreign policy, military commitments, and the role of security in public life. People are tired of the war on terror and the security theater that goes with it, and bin Laden's death is a sufficiently large milestone that legal and legislative debates will broaden considerably. 'But al qaeda' will no longer substitute for an actual argument as it has for most of the last 10 years.
- Joakal 15y ago
  http://i.imgur.com/0QIIb.jpg http://i.imgur.com/0QIIb.jpg Like this? Edit: I'm probably downvoted for lack of information; it's Obama's speech announcing the death of Osama and changes to USA policies similar to that of parent's last paragraph.
  - anigbrowl 15y ago
    Yes, just like that. Inertia, rent-seeking and reflexive thinking are probably bigger threats to freedom than any latent imperialist tendencies in DC.
  - Groxx 15y ago
    that looks nothing like this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-dead-obama-speech-video-transcript_n_856122.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-dea...
    - Joakal 15y ago
      Indeed, in fact Obama actually said that more security is needed.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
rdtsc 15y ago
Exactly. Oh no! Somebody got a stern talking-to. I am sure they learned their lesson. This is akin to a cop that murders an innocent bystander and gets a 10 day suspension with pay as punishment instead of 25 years in jail.

anigbrowl 15y ago

At a guess, this is because may not be immediately obvious who committed perjury. Not everyone on the government side is necessarily on the same page, and over the 5-year lifetime of this case several of the people involved may have changed jobs. The US attorney representing the FBI in court might have been acting in good faith, for example, because someone within the FBI had decided that neither the court nor the attorney had a 'need to know' about the existence of other documents. Establishing exactly who made that decision and how many other people knew about it and when they knew etc. etc. will require a separate investigation. (I have only read the opinion so far, and not looked at the procedural history of the case which might answer some of those questions.) My understanding is that there are a few costs to the government when this happens. There's an investigation as mentioned above, which can take years. In the short term, the government may have to pay some or all of the plaintiff's legal costs - that can also take years, but it has an immediate effect on agencies' budget planning. Lastly, either the government appeals or the decision will be cited in existing or future litigation about similar issues. I have a hunch that there will be a huge amount of information- and security-related litigation against the government for the next 5-10 years. Now that Osama bin Laden is gone there will be increasing domestic pressure to reassess foreign policy, military commitments, and the role of security in public life. People are tired of the war on terror and the security theater that goes with it, and bin Laden's death is a sufficiently large milestone that legal and legislative debates will broaden considerably. 'But al qaeda' will no longer substitute for an actual argument as it has for most of the last 10 years.

Joakal 15y ago
http://i.imgur.com/0QIIb.jpg http://i.imgur.com/0QIIb.jpg Like this? Edit: I'm probably downvoted for lack of information; it's Obama's speech announcing the death of Osama and changes to USA policies similar to that of parent's last paragraph.
- anigbrowl 15y ago
  Yes, just like that. Inertia, rent-seeking and reflexive thinking are probably bigger threats to freedom than any latent imperialist tendencies in DC.
- Groxx 15y ago
  that looks nothing like this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-dead-obama-speech-video-transcript_n_856122.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-dea...
  - Joakal 15y ago
    Indeed, in fact Obama actually said that more security is needed.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

rdtsc 15y ago

Exactly. Oh no! Somebody got a stern talking-to. I am sure they learned their lesson. This is akin to a cop that murders an innocent bystander and gets a 10 day suspension with pay as punishment instead of 25 years in jail.