6 ms·

The Federal government in the US can pretty much screw people it wants to screw. I think that's fairly well established. The same is true in every other country

The Federal government in the US can pretty much screw people it wants to screw. I think that's fairly well established. The same is true in every other country I can think of -- at least in the US the fact remains that if you're genuinely innocent you can have your day in court. If anything characters like Conrad Black get away with -- figuratively -- murder. The question is -- do we have someone more sympathetic than a guy who looted his own companies and a serial killer to serve as an example of this kind of thing being done to genuinely innocent victims? Forbes may regard Conrad Black as a sympathetic victim, but I don't think most reasonable people would. What the writer of this article doesn't like is that the Federal government will do some very nasty things -- in court -- to people it knows are guilty but hard to convict of their actual crimes. In most other countries if the government hates you that much you'll have much worse to worry about.

gyardley 14y ago
See, this is the problem - thanks to a decade's worth of state-sponsored smear campaigns, you think Conrad Black 'looted his own companies', when that's just not borne by the facts at all. I wish you luck finding someone who looks more sympathetic after the government finishes up with them. And while I agree with your statement about 'most other countries', Americans should hold their government to a higher standard.
- foobarqux 14y ago
  Can you set the record straight with respect to the Black case?
  - gyardley 14y ago
    I'd have to write a book, it's a long and complex case. (If you do want to read a book, Conrad Black's own book on it is very good.) Perhaps start with some of Mark Steyn's writing for the Canadian news magazine Macleans? http://www.macleans.ca/columnists/article.jsp?content=20070730_107322_107322&id=7&page=1 http://www.macleans.ca/columnists/article.jsp?content=200707...
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - tptacek 14y ago
      Mark Steyn is not exactly a neutral party in the Black case, which has strong political overtones. The article we're commenting on also puts a fair bit of gloss on the affair; Conrad Black may very well be a well-regarded "historian", but what most reasonable people would call him is "one of the richest people in all of media"; he went into his legal troubles with something close to half a billion dollars in assets. The dubious and controversial theory used against Black was "honest services fraud". The statute enforcing it does seem to have been perilously vague. But the moral/ethical/pragmatic reasoning behind it isn't; it boils down to maintaining a fiduciary duty to your shareholders or, in Rod Blagojevich's case, to the citizens of the state you govern. Also, Black wasn't merely charged with honest services fraud, but also with charges like obstructing justice and theft, charges that Richard Posner upheld.
  - helmut_hed 14y ago
    Another perspective worth reading is that of the mutual fund company that originally pushed for a special board committee to investigate Black's compensation and other off-the-books financial arrangements with Hollinger. That committee (of the company's own board of directors) uncovered a number of questionable actions that eventually resulted in the criminal probe described in the Forbes article: http://www.tweedy.com/resources/library_docs/reports/BAN03312004Letter.pdf http://www.tweedy.com/resources/library_docs/reports/BAN0331... (starting on page 11)
- jeremyarussell 14y ago
  I gave you a round of applause for stating that Americans should hold their government to a higher standard. Last time I checked we Americans walk around thinking we are the best and most free place in the world. Sometime's it feels like that's a facade though, because when things like feds reading all our emails for little to no reason occur they throw their hands up and say two things, first "I have nothing to hid so I'm not worried about this." followed by "at least we have freedom at all, in insert country name here women don't even have the right to vote." That's all fine and dandy, I'm glad we as a country are better in that regards. How much longer will it last like this though? With our rights eroding away like Niagara falls.
tomsaffell 14y ago
> the Federal government will do some very nasty things -- in court -- to people it knows are guilty but hard to convict of their actual crimes The government can presume the guilt of a party they put on trial. But acting as if that presumption is in fact knowledge, and that such an ends justifies whatever means they require to get there, that is a subversion of justice, IMO. I would rather they didnt do that.
- podperson 14y ago
  They couldn't get Al Capone on criminal charges so they screwed him for tax evasion. Was that the "right thing" to do? In the end, we have to hold people accountable rather than expect a perfect set of rules to lead to a perfect set of outcomes -- there's no perfect set of rules, and even if there were people would interpret them and create imperfect outcomes. Speaking as someone with a logical mind, I used to get worked up about the imperfection of rules until it finally dawned on me that they're all socially constructed, and it's the people you need to worry about. Do you recall the scene in Catch-22 when Nately flies his plane into the ground after accidentally killing someone, and the doctor who is listed as being on the plane doesn't bail out because he isn't actually on the plane, he's just collecting "flight time" to satisfy some idiotic bureaucratic rule. Despite the fact he's on the ground next to all the other people watching the disaster unfold, they decide he's dead and ignore him afterwards. My point is: the world is not actually like this.
  - tomsaffell 14y ago
    I fully appreciate that perspective, and agree with they're all socially constructed, and it's the people you need to worry about/ I was thinking through similar issues as I wrote my own comment. If I was a victim of one of these crimes I might even be swayed to subscribe to that view. But on balance, I think the damage done to the system as a whole (see angersock's comment for one example) outweighs the upside of getting one or two bad guys that wouldn't otherwise be caught. tldr: I'd choose system integrity/reputation over catching 100% of the bad guys. Loved Catch-22 btw.
    - 14y ago
maratd 14y ago
> at least in the US the fact remains that if you're genuinely innocent you can have your day in court Innocent of what? With a complex and convoluted legal structure, we are all criminals. You are guilty of something. And guess what? Even if you're not guilty of 99 of the 100 counts they bring against you, you're guilty of that one. Hello jail time! > do we have someone more sympathetic than a guy who looted his own companies and a serial killer to serve as an example of this kind of thing being done to genuinely innocent victims That's the government's take on things. They can describe you that same way tomorrow and you can scream "I'm innocent!" all you want ... everyone will still think you're a piece of garbage who deserves it. > In most other countries if the government hates you that much you'll have much worse to worry about. It is truly a sad day when "other countries" becomes the standard. When the United States of America was born, it was the sole country that elected its leaders and had a constitution that was written specifically to restrict government. Even now, that constitution is in the minority, even though it is the oldest constitution in use to date. Our standard shouldn't be "better than the rest" but rather "better than before". What I want is an America that is better than it ever was, without regard to anything else.
- rayiner 14y ago
  > Innocent of what? With a complex and convoluted legal structure, we are all criminals. You are guilty of something. And guess what? Even if you're not guilty of 99 of the 100 counts they bring against you, you're guilty of that one. Hello jail time! Drug convictions aside, are people actually going to federal prison for made up things? > That's the government's take on things. They can describe you that same way tomorrow and you can scream "I'm innocent!" all you want ... everyone will still think you're a piece of garbage who deserves it. This is what happens to people accused of blue-collar crimes, not white collar crimes. White collar crimes carry almost no stigma unless a conviction happens. > When the United States of America was born, it was the sole country that elected its leaders and had a constitution that was written specifically to restrict government. What a bunch of historically revisionist bullshit. The Constitution initially restricted the federal government, not the government in general. The states had unlimited power, inherited from the British sovereign, except that which they ceded to the federal government. They could lock you up without trial, take your property, deny you free speech, etc.

gyardley 14y ago

See, this is the problem - thanks to a decade's worth of state-sponsored smear campaigns, you think Conrad Black 'looted his own companies', when that's just not borne by the facts at all. I wish you luck finding someone who looks more sympathetic after the government finishes up with them. And while I agree with your statement about 'most other countries', Americans should hold their government to a higher standard.

foobarqux 14y ago
Can you set the record straight with respect to the Black case?
- gyardley 14y ago
  I'd have to write a book, it's a long and complex case. (If you do want to read a book, Conrad Black's own book on it is very good.) Perhaps start with some of Mark Steyn's writing for the Canadian news magazine Macleans? http://www.macleans.ca/columnists/article.jsp?content=20070730_107322_107322&id=7&page=1 http://www.macleans.ca/columnists/article.jsp?content=200707...
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Mark Steyn is not exactly a neutral party in the Black case, which has strong political overtones. The article we're commenting on also puts a fair bit of gloss on the affair; Conrad Black may very well be a well-regarded "historian", but what most reasonable people would call him is "one of the richest people in all of media"; he went into his legal troubles with something close to half a billion dollars in assets. The dubious and controversial theory used against Black was "honest services fraud". The statute enforcing it does seem to have been perilously vague. But the moral/ethical/pragmatic reasoning behind it isn't; it boils down to maintaining a fiduciary duty to your shareholders or, in Rod Blagojevich's case, to the citizens of the state you govern. Also, Black wasn't merely charged with honest services fraud, but also with charges like obstructing justice and theft, charges that Richard Posner upheld.
- helmut_hed 14y ago
  Another perspective worth reading is that of the mutual fund company that originally pushed for a special board committee to investigate Black's compensation and other off-the-books financial arrangements with Hollinger. That committee (of the company's own board of directors) uncovered a number of questionable actions that eventually resulted in the criminal probe described in the Forbes article: http://www.tweedy.com/resources/library_docs/reports/BAN03312004Letter.pdf http://www.tweedy.com/resources/library_docs/reports/BAN0331... (starting on page 11)
jeremyarussell 14y ago
I gave you a round of applause for stating that Americans should hold their government to a higher standard. Last time I checked we Americans walk around thinking we are the best and most free place in the world. Sometime's it feels like that's a facade though, because when things like feds reading all our emails for little to no reason occur they throw their hands up and say two things, first "I have nothing to hid so I'm not worried about this." followed by "at least we have freedom at all, in insert country name here women don't even have the right to vote." That's all fine and dandy, I'm glad we as a country are better in that regards. How much longer will it last like this though? With our rights eroding away like Niagara falls.

tomsaffell 14y ago

> the Federal government will do some very nasty things -- in court -- to people it knows are guilty but hard to convict of their actual crimes The government can presume the guilt of a party they put on trial. But acting as if that presumption is in fact knowledge, and that such an ends justifies whatever means they require to get there, that is a subversion of justice, IMO. I would rather they didnt do that.

podperson 14y ago
They couldn't get Al Capone on criminal charges so they screwed him for tax evasion. Was that the "right thing" to do? In the end, we have to hold people accountable rather than expect a perfect set of rules to lead to a perfect set of outcomes -- there's no perfect set of rules, and even if there were people would interpret them and create imperfect outcomes. Speaking as someone with a logical mind, I used to get worked up about the imperfection of rules until it finally dawned on me that they're all socially constructed, and it's the people you need to worry about. Do you recall the scene in Catch-22 when Nately flies his plane into the ground after accidentally killing someone, and the doctor who is listed as being on the plane doesn't bail out because he isn't actually on the plane, he's just collecting "flight time" to satisfy some idiotic bureaucratic rule. Despite the fact he's on the ground next to all the other people watching the disaster unfold, they decide he's dead and ignore him afterwards. My point is: the world is not actually like this.
- tomsaffell 14y ago
  I fully appreciate that perspective, and agree with they're all socially constructed, and it's the people you need to worry about/ I was thinking through similar issues as I wrote my own comment. If I was a victim of one of these crimes I might even be swayed to subscribe to that view. But on balance, I think the damage done to the system as a whole (see angersock's comment for one example) outweighs the upside of getting one or two bad guys that wouldn't otherwise be caught. tldr: I'd choose system integrity/reputation over catching 100% of the bad guys. Loved Catch-22 btw.
  - 14y ago

maratd 14y ago

> at least in the US the fact remains that if you're genuinely innocent you can have your day in court Innocent of what? With a complex and convoluted legal structure, we are all criminals. You are guilty of something. And guess what? Even if you're not guilty of 99 of the 100 counts they bring against you, you're guilty of that one. Hello jail time! > do we have someone more sympathetic than a guy who looted his own companies and a serial killer to serve as an example of this kind of thing being done to genuinely innocent victims That's the government's take on things. They can describe you that same way tomorrow and you can scream "I'm innocent!" all you want ... everyone will still think you're a piece of garbage who deserves it. > In most other countries if the government hates you that much you'll have much worse to worry about. It is truly a sad day when "other countries" becomes the standard. When the United States of America was born, it was the sole country that elected its leaders and had a constitution that was written specifically to restrict government. Even now, that constitution is in the minority, even though it is the oldest constitution in use to date. Our standard shouldn't be "better than the rest" but rather "better than before". What I want is an America that is better than it ever was, without regard to anything else.

rayiner 14y ago
> Innocent of what? With a complex and convoluted legal structure, we are all criminals. You are guilty of something. And guess what? Even if you're not guilty of 99 of the 100 counts they bring against you, you're guilty of that one. Hello jail time! Drug convictions aside, are people actually going to federal prison for made up things? > That's the government's take on things. They can describe you that same way tomorrow and you can scream "I'm innocent!" all you want ... everyone will still think you're a piece of garbage who deserves it. This is what happens to people accused of blue-collar crimes, not white collar crimes. White collar crimes carry almost no stigma unless a conviction happens. > When the United States of America was born, it was the sole country that elected its leaders and had a constitution that was written specifically to restrict government. What a bunch of historically revisionist bullshit. The Constitution initially restricted the federal government, not the government in general. The states had unlimited power, inherited from the British sovereign, except that which they ceded to the federal government. They could lock you up without trial, take your property, deny you free speech, etc.