3 ms·

The government does not persecute itself. That is how it is able to continuously break the law.

by gccs 5y ago

bobthepanda 5y ago
Government persecuting former officials is a tricky problem, because it‘s hard to strike a balance between * government officials should be held accountable for legitimate issues of legality * government officials should not be totally paralyzed by fear of being on the wrong side of the law * government officials should not be targeted for prosecution by vindictive successors just based on disagreement
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  Government prosecuting citizens is a tricky problem because: * citizens should be held accountable for legitimate issues of legality * citizens should not be totally paralyzed by fear of being on the wrong side of the law * citizens should not be targeted for prosecution by vindictive bureaucrats just based on disagreement None of these issues, however, are particular to citizens who happen to also be government officials at the time of the alleged incident provoking the prosecution.
  - wahern 5y ago
    FWIW, the "parliamentary audit committee found that there was no legal grounding for the criminal complaint" against Crypto International (previously Crypto AG)]. https://web.archive.org/web/20201111022708/https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-intelligence-benefited-from-cia-crypto-spying-affair/46153706 https://web.archive.org/web/20201111022708/https://www.swiss... The audit also found that the "collaboration was in principle in accordance with the law in force." https://web.archive.org/web/20201111085259/https://www.parlament.ch/press-releases/Pages/mm-gpdel-2020-11-10.aspx https://web.archive.org/web/20201111085259/https://www.parla... And, notably, that the "fact that this collaboration could have been concealed from the Federal Council for so long also highlights shortcomings in the management and supervision exercised by the latter." "Therefore, the Federal Council bears part of the responsibility that the company Crypto AG has exported 'vulnerable' encryption devices for years." Switzerland has a somewhat unique structure where the presidency rotates yearly among a seven member Federal Council. I can easily believe that some highly sensitive, long-term intelligence matters (particularly operational matters) were effectively and complicitly shared with the president (not to mention the entire council) only on a need-to-know basis. The audit report also notes that the intelligence cooperation was, at least initially, to the benefit of Switzerland. IOW, that at inception it would have been not particularly contentious and thus (if my above hypothesis about complicit need-to-know status is correct), arguably something that the intelligence department would have thought within its license. I would expect the President to always be aware of a close relationship with a foreign intelligence agency and the potential for a situation like Crypto AG, but wouldn't be surprised in this context if such specifics were left unstated. You can see a somewhat similar dynamic in the U.S., where for legitimate reasons the Attorney General is sometimes given license to keep many often explosive matters confidential. The reasons are different, but on the other hand the Swiss Federal Council has unique characteristics from an intelligence perspective. Certainly in both cases it would be typically be understood that the President still controls policy by their selection of and delegation to department officials. Which is what the audit report seems to be getting at--that the Federal Council may have been delegating too much, hypocritical in its astonishment. In general, though, I agree that government agents are given too much benefit of a doubt. See, e.g., qualified immunity. We all live under the thumb of the law. Rightly so. Some amount of anxiety and fear are a natural consequence, and we don't normally consider that fact alone excessively burdensome--at least, not when we're talking about other people, especially people with whom we don't identify.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> The government does not persecute itself Government isn’t supposed to persecute anybody. (Prosecute is a different issue.)

The government does not persecute itself. That is how it is able to continuously break the law.

by gccs 5y ago

The government does not persecute itself. That is how it is able to continuously break the law.

Government persecuting former officials is a tricky problem, because it‘s hard to strike a balance between * government officials should be held accountable for legitimate issues of legality * government officials should not be totally paralyzed by fear of being on the wrong side of the law * government officials should not be targeted for prosecution by vindictive successors just based on disagreement

dragonwriter 5y ago
Government prosecuting citizens is a tricky problem because: * citizens should be held accountable for legitimate issues of legality * citizens should not be totally paralyzed by fear of being on the wrong side of the law * citizens should not be targeted for prosecution by vindictive bureaucrats just based on disagreement None of these issues, however, are particular to citizens who happen to also be government officials at the time of the alleged incident provoking the prosecution.
- wahern 5y ago
  FWIW, the "parliamentary audit committee found that there was no legal grounding for the criminal complaint" against Crypto International (previously Crypto AG)]. https://web.archive.org/web/20201111022708/https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-intelligence-benefited-from-cia-crypto-spying-affair/46153706 https://web.archive.org/web/20201111022708/https://www.swiss... The audit also found that the "collaboration was in principle in accordance with the law in force." https://web.archive.org/web/20201111085259/https://www.parlament.ch/press-releases/Pages/mm-gpdel-2020-11-10.aspx https://web.archive.org/web/20201111085259/https://www.parla... And, notably, that the "fact that this collaboration could have been concealed from the Federal Council for so long also highlights shortcomings in the management and supervision exercised by the latter." "Therefore, the Federal Council bears part of the responsibility that the company Crypto AG has exported 'vulnerable' encryption devices for years." Switzerland has a somewhat unique structure where the presidency rotates yearly among a seven member Federal Council. I can easily believe that some highly sensitive, long-term intelligence matters (particularly operational matters) were effectively and complicitly shared with the president (not to mention the entire council) only on a need-to-know basis. The audit report also notes that the intelligence cooperation was, at least initially, to the benefit of Switzerland. IOW, that at inception it would have been not particularly contentious and thus (if my above hypothesis about complicit need-to-know status is correct), arguably something that the intelligence department would have thought within its license. I would expect the President to always be aware of a close relationship with a foreign intelligence agency and the potential for a situation like Crypto AG, but wouldn't be surprised in this context if such specifics were left unstated. You can see a somewhat similar dynamic in the U.S., where for legitimate reasons the Attorney General is sometimes given license to keep many often explosive matters confidential. The reasons are different, but on the other hand the Swiss Federal Council has unique characteristics from an intelligence perspective. Certainly in both cases it would be typically be understood that the President still controls policy by their selection of and delegation to department officials. Which is what the audit report seems to be getting at--that the Federal Council may have been delegating too much, hypocritical in its astonishment. In general, though, I agree that government agents are given too much benefit of a doubt. See, e.g., qualified immunity. We all live under the thumb of the law. Rightly so. Some amount of anxiety and fear are a natural consequence, and we don't normally consider that fact alone excessively burdensome--at least, not when we're talking about other people, especially people with whom we don't identify.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> The government does not persecute itself Government isn’t supposed to persecute anybody. (Prosecute is a different issue.)