4 ms·

> As was noticed in some other thread (possibly by you) courts are not in the business of finding the truth. So any kind of defence is fair game, including stal

> As was noticed in some other thread (possibly by you) courts are not in the business of finding the truth. So any kind of defence is fair game, including stalling, misdirection and so on. I don't see the logical connection between these two sentences. Could you expand?

jacquesm 12y ago
The justice system seems to have become an instrument of revenge in some cases, bringing little or no reason to the way offenders are charged and punished. With a system that far off the rails it is perfectly ok for defendants to stop playing by the rules as well. That, I suspect is a good part of why Snowden is now living in Russia rather than taking his chances with the judicial arm of the USA, not because he's a coward. Cowards don't take action in the first place.
- saraid216 12y ago
  Which cases are you thinking of, specifically? Is it specific to ones that are politically motivated?
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    It seems to be mostly limited to those cases where the DOJ as an institution or some powerful individual in it has been made to look stupid, incompetent or both. I suspect the Aaron Swartz case was in part pushed as hard as it was because of the PACER stunt he pulled earlier, that Manning was not in solitary confinement for his own protection but as a means of exacting revenge and that there are other cases like these if you really start to look for them (which I didn't, two that I find plausible are enough for me). The fact that Thomas raises the emotion flag in the top post in this thread makes the human element in the DOJ shine through quite a bit, to me that is a total-loss, if anything justice should be meted out with restraint and compassion. Not anger, revenge and furiousness. Those have no place in the justice department of a well organized society. Sure it is all people, but those people have a lot of power and should act accordingly.
    - fit2rule 12y ago
      > there are other cases like these if you really start to look for them Good luck with that. The US Government has its own firewall against control of this form, by its people. Or, is there some reality TV show about Guantanamo and other associated criminal operations of the US around the world that I've missed? In an environment where the government can remove the truth at will (with its formidable NSL weaponry), the battle is no longer about fair and equal society. Its a battle for justice, instead - and when all legal means of obtaining justice have been tied down by the "OMG! Terrorism!" crowd, the gloves need to come off. Citizens need to reign in their out of control government - otherwise they will become the (rightful) targets of the enemies that government is making ..
    - saraid216 12y ago
      AFAIK, the Manning case was and has been prosecuted entirely under military procedure, rather than involving the DOJ. I just woke up, so I am fuzzy and may have gotten that wrong. > Those have no place in the justice department of a well organized society. I'm not really sure what a "well organized society" means in this case. I don't get a general sense that we are a well-organized society, but I never have, so maybe that's just me. While I agree that "revenge and furiousness" are wrong, I also see much less problem in anger. Anger has to be tempered by reason, sure, but that's what procedure is for, why good judges don't watch the news.

jacquesm 12y ago

The justice system seems to have become an instrument of revenge in some cases, bringing little or no reason to the way offenders are charged and punished. With a system that far off the rails it is perfectly ok for defendants to stop playing by the rules as well. That, I suspect is a good part of why Snowden is now living in Russia rather than taking his chances with the judicial arm of the USA, not because he's a coward. Cowards don't take action in the first place.

saraid216 12y ago
Which cases are you thinking of, specifically? Is it specific to ones that are politically motivated?
- jacquesm 12y ago
  It seems to be mostly limited to those cases where the DOJ as an institution or some powerful individual in it has been made to look stupid, incompetent or both. I suspect the Aaron Swartz case was in part pushed as hard as it was because of the PACER stunt he pulled earlier, that Manning was not in solitary confinement for his own protection but as a means of exacting revenge and that there are other cases like these if you really start to look for them (which I didn't, two that I find plausible are enough for me). The fact that Thomas raises the emotion flag in the top post in this thread makes the human element in the DOJ shine through quite a bit, to me that is a total-loss, if anything justice should be meted out with restraint and compassion. Not anger, revenge and furiousness. Those have no place in the justice department of a well organized society. Sure it is all people, but those people have a lot of power and should act accordingly.
  - fit2rule 12y ago
    > there are other cases like these if you really start to look for them Good luck with that. The US Government has its own firewall against control of this form, by its people. Or, is there some reality TV show about Guantanamo and other associated criminal operations of the US around the world that I've missed? In an environment where the government can remove the truth at will (with its formidable NSL weaponry), the battle is no longer about fair and equal society. Its a battle for justice, instead - and when all legal means of obtaining justice have been tied down by the "OMG! Terrorism!" crowd, the gloves need to come off. Citizens need to reign in their out of control government - otherwise they will become the (rightful) targets of the enemies that government is making ..
  - saraid216 12y ago
    AFAIK, the Manning case was and has been prosecuted entirely under military procedure, rather than involving the DOJ. I just woke up, so I am fuzzy and may have gotten that wrong. > Those have no place in the justice department of a well organized society. I'm not really sure what a "well organized society" means in this case. I don't get a general sense that we are a well-organized society, but I never have, so maybe that's just me. While I agree that "revenge and furiousness" are wrong, I also see much less problem in anger. Anger has to be tempered by reason, sure, but that's what procedure is for, why good judges don't watch the news.