5 ms·
I hope this story continues to be covered, I am very curious to see what the truth of this matter is. If the witness was truly put on the no-fly list it is hard
by TrevorJ 13y ago
I hope this story continues to be covered, I am very curious to see what the truth of this matter is. If the witness was truly put on the no-fly list it is hard to imagine how her testimony could have been more damaging than the action of putting her on the list to prevent it. That move would be insane, even for DHS.
- sitkack 13y agoThe government lawyers should face disbarment for lying to the judge about the DHS's actions. These aren't prosecutors, they don't have immunity and they have professional duties that _absolutely_ do not involve lying.
- MBlume 13y agoIf that's a possible response, the government probably would have lied to its lawyers for their own protection, not asked them to lie.
- chris_mahan 13y agoThen the lawyers should fire their client for lying to them.
- matteotom 13y agoUnless, you know, the money is too good.
- chris_mahan 13y agoThen they should quit rather than work for an unethical employer.
- nknighthb 13y agoIt's not. The lawyer who made the statement is Paul Freeborne. He's not outside counsel, he's a DOJ employee. His salary is unlikely to be surprising to, say, a Silicon Valley programmer. If he's been around a while, he's probably somewhere between $100-150k with locality adjustments. He'd be doing much better in the private sector, even as an associate in a law firm.
- sitkack 13y agoThe man is an assistant United States Attorney, he should and did know better. Dude shows up literally _everywhere_ www.google.com/search?q=Paul+G+Freeborne+attorney * https://www.eff.org/cases/jewel * DADT (don't ask don't tell) One could ask themselves, paul.freeborne@usdoj.gov
- a3n 13y agoI think the lawyers' client is also their employer.
- Crito 13y agoIf my employer was tricking or misleading me into giving false information in a courtroom, and I found out, I would quit.
- spinlock 13y agoOur government has a long history of abusing its power to prevent evidence from being admitted in court. In fact, the "State's Secrets" privilege granted to the executive branch was based on exactly that. The case that established the precedent is Reynolds vs. US Navy (definitely Reynolds not sure about Navy). I was finally declassified a couple of years ago and it came out that there were no secrets to be kept from the court other than government was at fault.
- nitrogen 13y agoI was finally declassified... Should that be "It was finally declassified"?
- wil421 13y agoRelax
- nitrogen 13y agoI'm not sure what's going on with my previous post. There is ambiguity in what was declassified. It's not clear if the commenter's own history was declassified, or if the aforementioned court case was declassified. My comment was a request for clarification.
- nkurz 13y agoThe reaction you are getting is because you appeared to be making a trivial grammar correction in a heavy-handed way. Others presumed that the word was definitely intended as 'it' and that the correction did not merit mention.
- nitrogen 13y agoSupposing I was making a grammatical comment, what would be a less heavy-handed way of phrasing it? I italicized the word "it" for the purpose of identifying that word as the part that changed. Is the italicization being interpreted as derogatory vocal stress?