3 ms·

Even soldiers (with guns, while under fire) are expected to act legally, and ethically where those standards differ, and we need to hold everyone - public serva

by wnight 14y ago

Even soldiers (with guns, while under fire) are expected to act legally, and ethically where those standards differ, and we need to hold everyone - public servant or not, to the same standard. Not only does such a law (making challenging a gag a crime) clearly require authority the people would not and did not grant to the government, but applying such a law to stifle oversight of your actions is criminal - especially when in a sensitive position over so many.

anigbrowl 14y ago
The thing is it takes time to establish exactly what the right standards are, and it's not necessarily settled after today; there might be a circuit split or appeals to confuse the issue in the coming years. Where national security is concerned, the standards are different from those we're familiar with in criminal cases, for example in not requiring a warrant for issuance. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter Now, you say that these require authority that the people 'would not and did not grant to the government.' I'd agree that they should not, but as I recall there was quite a lot of popular support for the PATRIOT act when it first passed, and the concerns of civil libertarians (including mine) were pretty much sidelined.
- wnight 14y ago
  No, the time being used to establish the right standard was being spent in Plato's day. Now we know that this is a bad way to act, AND a bad way to run a country. You can never let the watcher watch themselves. Any attempts must be punished as heavily the crimes they could start to cover up. I go further in saying that these are powers people COULD NOT grant to government. Our legal philosophy (not just current laws) hold that there are things we cannot "agree" to - to be killed for instance, and we can't agree to something on someone else's behalf except in very limited circumstances, and until they are available to confirm those decisions themselves. Using a NSL letter to gag an otherwise legitimate court proceeding for a period of time wouldn't remove the checks and balances of society - but making seeking redress in court illegal altogether, does. And it effectively makes us slaves - having no power to control or petition our government. As above, we couldn't agree to that. As for support for the patriot act, 1) Bush knowingly lied about the perpetrators and circumstances of the 9/11 attacks, and the potential remedies. If this was a civilian action he'd be known as a criminal. Many people were convinced by his lies, but ultimately it was pushed through regardless of popular support. 2) It doesn't matter because you can't agree to take someone else's rights away and any government that pretends you can isn't a legitimate representative of any people. After all, we (The citizens of UN signatories) wouldn't let India end its current "rape crisis" by simply removing women's rights to complain about being raped.

by wnight 14y ago

anigbrowl 14y ago

The thing is it takes time to establish exactly what the right standards are, and it's not necessarily settled after today; there might be a circuit split or appeals to confuse the issue in the coming years. Where national security is concerned, the standards are different from those we're familiar with in criminal cases, for example in not requiring a warrant for issuance. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter Now, you say that these require authority that the people 'would not and did not grant to the government.' I'd agree that they should not, but as I recall there was quite a lot of popular support for the PATRIOT act when it first passed, and the concerns of civil libertarians (including mine) were pretty much sidelined.

wnight 14y ago
No, the time being used to establish the right standard was being spent in Plato's day. Now we know that this is a bad way to act, AND a bad way to run a country. You can never let the watcher watch themselves. Any attempts must be punished as heavily the crimes they could start to cover up. I go further in saying that these are powers people COULD NOT grant to government. Our legal philosophy (not just current laws) hold that there are things we cannot "agree" to - to be killed for instance, and we can't agree to something on someone else's behalf except in very limited circumstances, and until they are available to confirm those decisions themselves. Using a NSL letter to gag an otherwise legitimate court proceeding for a period of time wouldn't remove the checks and balances of society - but making seeking redress in court illegal altogether, does. And it effectively makes us slaves - having no power to control or petition our government. As above, we couldn't agree to that. As for support for the patriot act, 1) Bush knowingly lied about the perpetrators and circumstances of the 9/11 attacks, and the potential remedies. If this was a civilian action he'd be known as a criminal. Many people were convinced by his lies, but ultimately it was pushed through regardless of popular support. 2) It doesn't matter because you can't agree to take someone else's rights away and any government that pretends you can isn't a legitimate representative of any people. After all, we (The citizens of UN signatories) wouldn't let India end its current "rape crisis" by simply removing women's rights to complain about being raped.