5 ms·

The only conclusion I can draw from his life and the events leading up to his demise is that he must have upset someone deeply entrenched in the circles of powe

The only conclusion I can draw from his life and the events leading up to his demise is that he must have upset someone deeply entrenched in the circles of power. Otherwise the witch-hunt just doesn't make any sense. After all ask yourself what motive did the prosecutor possess for going after him like that?

andrewtbham 14y ago
Yeh I have thought the same thing. So, who could it be?
- todayiamme 14y ago
  I doubt it if we'll ever know. Where I'm from such influence is exercised discreetly in back rooms over bottles of blue label, and I have a feeling that the US isn't too different. It is not my intention to sound conspiratorial or expound conspiracy theories, I'm simply try to state the underlying truism that this world isn't as neat, fair or rational as we would like it to be. It feels very uncomfortable to admit this, but the harsh truth is that it isn't just about who you are, it's also about who you know. In a just, rational world, Aaron would have been lauded as a hero, but our world isn't that world. Our world is one where influence carries more weight than the power of ideas and even though ideas may win in the long term, the effect of power wielded by certain individuals is more immediate and almost always more corrosive.
rprasad 14y ago
No conspiracy, guys. The prosecutor was just doing her job. A simple case like Aaron's probably took up less than 1% of her week. It may have been a big case to Aaron, but compared to their normal cases, it was a relative vacation for the prosecutors working on it. The problem was not that Aaron "upset someone deeply entranched." The problem is that Aaron's activities fall into the definition of a particular form of electronic crime which may be overbroad. Federal prosecutors don't get to decide if laws are overbroad or unconstitutional and choose not to enforce the law (because this discretion was historically used to excuse many white defendants accused of lynching black men in the South). They enforce all of the laws on the books unless someone with legal discretion (i.e. ,the head of the DOJ or the president) issues an order telling them not to enforce a particular (set of) law(s).
- pekk 14y ago
  Federal prosecutors do have a lot of discretion. I don't disagree with much of what you say, but this is just out of control and the only way for it to even start to get fixed is for heads to roll.
- drzaiusapelord 14y ago
  So you're an up and coming prosecutor and handed the punk kid that took all those federal court documents and gave your colleagues a big middle finger when they tried to stop him. Then JSTOR tells you to knock it off, but you proceed anyway. And all this happens without Ortiz having any idea? Come on. No one is saying Obama would know about this, but a bureaucrat on Ortiz's level does because its her job.
  - erichocean 14y ago
    Ortiz not only knew about it, but was rather zealously in favor of prosecuting Aaron (see the NYT article for more details). She's at least as guilty as the actual prosecutors on the case.
- todayiamme 14y ago
  I think that the central assumption of your post is that I'm making the assumption that there was a systematic conspiracy to bring him to ruin. I am not alleging that. Neither am I stating anything towards the question whether or not his actions ran afoul of the spirit of the law. (indeed as this man asserts, there is reason to question that as well) I am simply stating an observation based upon the following; a) the prosecutor's office has limited, finite resources to pursue cases b) The prosecutor has discretion over the choice of cases c) The office is judged by its record when it comes to the number of convictions and the quality of the cases pursued d) It is reasonable to assume that the prosecutor acts as an agent, pursuing their own agenda versus the spirit of their duties. (the principal agent problem) e) The legalities in Aaron's case are complicated and understood by a few. f) It is also reasonable to assume that the case is inherently more risky than an open and shut guilty conviction, due to various factors such as, 1) the desire of MIT, JSTOR not to prosecute themselves, 2) expert witnesses such as the author of the article willing to provide testimony against the case, 3) the lack of a direct victim, and 4) questions over the inherent legality of the action itself. g) In the above context it is reasonable to assert that the prosecutor without their well established tricks may have indeed lost this one if Aaron had the resources to have his day in court. h) Aaron has a demonstrated previous track record of acting against the interests of the US govt. and the individuals it consists of. i) Those individuals within the government have a social network j) The said individuals are capable of and are willing to influence one another through this network k) The prosecutor is a part of such a network by her very position within the government. It is therefore reasonable to assume from the above assertions that it is likely the prosecutor was influenced to pursue the case with more rigour than necessary.
notatoad 14y ago
Does the US Federal Court count as 'someone deeply entrenched in the circles of power'? They tried to go after him for freeing documents from PACER and failed, so they had to find some other way to get at him. And then when he committed the same crime (freeing information) again, the government had the perfect opportunity.

andrewtbham 14y ago

Yeh I have thought the same thing. So, who could it be?

todayiamme 14y ago
I doubt it if we'll ever know. Where I'm from such influence is exercised discreetly in back rooms over bottles of blue label, and I have a feeling that the US isn't too different. It is not my intention to sound conspiratorial or expound conspiracy theories, I'm simply try to state the underlying truism that this world isn't as neat, fair or rational as we would like it to be. It feels very uncomfortable to admit this, but the harsh truth is that it isn't just about who you are, it's also about who you know. In a just, rational world, Aaron would have been lauded as a hero, but our world isn't that world. Our world is one where influence carries more weight than the power of ideas and even though ideas may win in the long term, the effect of power wielded by certain individuals is more immediate and almost always more corrosive.

rprasad 14y ago

No conspiracy, guys. The prosecutor was just doing her job. A simple case like Aaron's probably took up less than 1% of her week. It may have been a big case to Aaron, but compared to their normal cases, it was a relative vacation for the prosecutors working on it. The problem was not that Aaron "upset someone deeply entranched." The problem is that Aaron's activities fall into the definition of a particular form of electronic crime which may be overbroad. Federal prosecutors don't get to decide if laws are overbroad or unconstitutional and choose not to enforce the law (because this discretion was historically used to excuse many white defendants accused of lynching black men in the South). They enforce all of the laws on the books unless someone with legal discretion (i.e. ,the head of the DOJ or the president) issues an order telling them not to enforce a particular (set of) law(s).

pekk 14y ago
Federal prosecutors do have a lot of discretion. I don't disagree with much of what you say, but this is just out of control and the only way for it to even start to get fixed is for heads to roll.
drzaiusapelord 14y ago
So you're an up and coming prosecutor and handed the punk kid that took all those federal court documents and gave your colleagues a big middle finger when they tried to stop him. Then JSTOR tells you to knock it off, but you proceed anyway. And all this happens without Ortiz having any idea? Come on. No one is saying Obama would know about this, but a bureaucrat on Ortiz's level does because its her job.
- erichocean 14y ago
  Ortiz not only knew about it, but was rather zealously in favor of prosecuting Aaron (see the NYT article for more details). She's at least as guilty as the actual prosecutors on the case.
todayiamme 14y ago
I think that the central assumption of your post is that I'm making the assumption that there was a systematic conspiracy to bring him to ruin. I am not alleging that. Neither am I stating anything towards the question whether or not his actions ran afoul of the spirit of the law. (indeed as this man asserts, there is reason to question that as well) I am simply stating an observation based upon the following; a) the prosecutor's office has limited, finite resources to pursue cases b) The prosecutor has discretion over the choice of cases c) The office is judged by its record when it comes to the number of convictions and the quality of the cases pursued d) It is reasonable to assume that the prosecutor acts as an agent, pursuing their own agenda versus the spirit of their duties. (the principal agent problem) e) The legalities in Aaron's case are complicated and understood by a few. f) It is also reasonable to assume that the case is inherently more risky than an open and shut guilty conviction, due to various factors such as, 1) the desire of MIT, JSTOR not to prosecute themselves, 2) expert witnesses such as the author of the article willing to provide testimony against the case, 3) the lack of a direct victim, and 4) questions over the inherent legality of the action itself. g) In the above context it is reasonable to assert that the prosecutor without their well established tricks may have indeed lost this one if Aaron had the resources to have his day in court. h) Aaron has a demonstrated previous track record of acting against the interests of the US govt. and the individuals it consists of. i) Those individuals within the government have a social network j) The said individuals are capable of and are willing to influence one another through this network k) The prosecutor is a part of such a network by her very position within the government. It is therefore reasonable to assume from the above assertions that it is likely the prosecutor was influenced to pursue the case with more rigour than necessary.

notatoad 14y ago

Does the US Federal Court count as 'someone deeply entrenched in the circles of power'? They tried to go after him for freeing documents from PACER and failed, so they had to find some other way to get at him. And then when he committed the same crime (freeing information) again, the government had the perfect opportunity.