4 ms·

Really, I don't know that anyone expected anything different from the current administration.

by jscheel 11y ago

hackuser 11y ago
Would any administration act differently? Would any institution? Think of any institution you've been part of: * Part of the President's role is to lead and manage the Executive Branch. He can't set the precedent for his millions of employees that blatent breaches of authority are an option. * Like any manager, the President also is an advocate for and loyal to his subordinates. The President is only one person; the priorities of the nation depend on his effectiveness as a manager and therefore on the loyalty and support of all those in the Exectuive Branch. * Notice that my first point referred breaches of "authority", not of law or rules. In every institution, the priority is not the rules or laws, but loyalty. That might not be good, but it's true. Egregiously break the law but be loyal to the institution and authority (e.g., torture, various corruption scandals), and you'll be protected. Be disloyal, and you'll never work in the city again and will be prosecuted if possible. Unfortunately this is true in almost every institution, in my observations and experience (and this is hardly a novel or controversial statement). I'd be fascinated in research on this issue and its solutions, if anyone here knows about it.
- jscheel 11y ago
  "Current administration" may have been the wrong phrase. I meant, whatever administration would be currently in office. It's easier for candidates to say something to the contrary, this was the only response I would have expected from any current administration.
- angrybits 11y ago
  Administrations often change their tunes to maintain a populist backing. They could have just said plainly, "Look, he did the crime and we are required by the rule of law to bring him to trial." and left it at that. But they didn't. They subtilely drilled home the "he's a traitor and a coward" ideas, and I am honestly not sure why. They have nothing substantial to gain by it, other than maybe to discourage future acts of subversion. Apparently, whatever the aim, they're willing to use the language of tyrants to achieve it.
  - dllthomas 11y ago
    They are not required by the rule of law to bring him to trial. The law grants the President the option to pardon, and that is precisely what was being explicitly asked for in this petition.
- dllthomas 11y ago
  "He can't set the precedent for his millions of employees that blatent breaches of authority are an option." He can, and he should have, not that I expected it. He doesn't have to (and shouldn't) establish that all breaches of authority are an option. But the most credible signal the President could send that the US government is not authoritarian and evil is to pardon those who, in good conscience and motivated by concerns about whether secret actions are authoritarian and evil, raise those concerns to the public awareness. If we're going to have secret programs carried out while blatantly lying to the American people about what is and is not done, and about what is and is not allowed, then we lose a good deal of democratic control over what is done in our name. Such programs may be necessary, but if they are then ensuring that at least those working on them believe them to be a good idea helps re-establish some check on the likely distance between what we want and what happens behind the scenes.

Really, I don't know that anyone expected anything different from the current administration.

by jscheel 11y ago

Really, I don't know that anyone expected anything different from the current administration.

Would any administration act differently? Would any institution? Think of any institution you've been part of: * Part of the President's role is to lead and manage the Executive Branch. He can't set the precedent for his millions of employees that blatent breaches of authority are an option. * Like any manager, the President also is an advocate for and loyal to his subordinates. The President is only one person; the priorities of the nation depend on his effectiveness as a manager and therefore on the loyalty and support of all those in the Exectuive Branch. * Notice that my first point referred breaches of "authority", not of law or rules. In every institution, the priority is not the rules or laws, but loyalty. That might not be good, but it's true. Egregiously break the law but be loyal to the institution and authority (e.g., torture, various corruption scandals), and you'll be protected. Be disloyal, and you'll never work in the city again and will be prosecuted if possible. Unfortunately this is true in almost every institution, in my observations and experience (and this is hardly a novel or controversial statement). I'd be fascinated in research on this issue and its solutions, if anyone here knows about it.

jscheel 11y ago
"Current administration" may have been the wrong phrase. I meant, whatever administration would be currently in office. It's easier for candidates to say something to the contrary, this was the only response I would have expected from any current administration.
angrybits 11y ago
Administrations often change their tunes to maintain a populist backing. They could have just said plainly, "Look, he did the crime and we are required by the rule of law to bring him to trial." and left it at that. But they didn't. They subtilely drilled home the "he's a traitor and a coward" ideas, and I am honestly not sure why. They have nothing substantial to gain by it, other than maybe to discourage future acts of subversion. Apparently, whatever the aim, they're willing to use the language of tyrants to achieve it.
- dllthomas 11y ago
  They are not required by the rule of law to bring him to trial. The law grants the President the option to pardon, and that is precisely what was being explicitly asked for in this petition.
dllthomas 11y ago
"He can't set the precedent for his millions of employees that blatent breaches of authority are an option." He can, and he should have, not that I expected it. He doesn't have to (and shouldn't) establish that all breaches of authority are an option. But the most credible signal the President could send that the US government is not authoritarian and evil is to pardon those who, in good conscience and motivated by concerns about whether secret actions are authoritarian and evil, raise those concerns to the public awareness. If we're going to have secret programs carried out while blatantly lying to the American people about what is and is not done, and about what is and is not allowed, then we lose a good deal of democratic control over what is done in our name. Such programs may be necessary, but if they are then ensuring that at least those working on them believe them to be a good idea helps re-establish some check on the likely distance between what we want and what happens behind the scenes.