Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[wcw43921]

Unretired: Evan Bayh To Run For Indiana US Senate Seat

[megaplayboy]

Sanders officially endorsed Clinton today. I think pretty much the entire Congressional Progressive Caucus has as well. She went quite a ways towards meeting his concerns, apparently.

[Hermit]

Let's hope she stands by them.

[Old Man]

"Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth."

[CaptnStrawberry]

It's fairly bizarre, for me anyway, to see them standing shoulder to shoulder and smiling; she's pure status quo and he semi-successfully challenged that status quo.

 

Bernie takes deserved satisfaction in building a true progressive movement.  But as far as influencing the party platform?  I don't get it.  It's been compared to a New Year's resolution - nice to look at but completely non-binding and discarded as soon as it's convenient.  I can't for the life of me remember an instance in which a platform beat out political 'pragmatism', in either major party.

[megaplayboy]

When the "status quo" of the party is 2009-2010 Obama, that's not too shabby. Studies have shown that when political candidates make promises during campaigns, when in office they do actually make an effort to deliver on those promises. I seriously doubt that the Republican opposition will give Ms. Clinton the opportunity to triangulate that Mr. Clinton had. So she pretty much has to do whatever she can persuade a majority of her own party to do.

[Clonus]

You are correct, Dan. My apologies.

 

But it is interesting to note that the members of the military are held to a higher standard of conduct than the people that sit in positions of power in the government.

 

No it isn't because he wasn't.  Clinton was accused of sloppy storage of classified information, and was given a pass because it could not be established that she understood computer security well enough to grasp the security vulnerability of what she was doing.  General Petraeus on the other hand took actual physical top secret documents home and deliberately showed them to his uncleared girlfriend.  The two things are not the same.  Clinton risked a security leak.  Petraeus committed one.  Note, that that former attorney general Alberto Gonzales (not in the Obama administration) deliberately took top secret documents home and kept them there, before taking them back and putting them in a Justice Department safe that uncleared persons had access to. He was also not charged with anything even though the NSA were not happy campers.

[Starlord]

No it isn't because he wasn't.  Clinton was accused of sloppy storage of classified information, and was given a pass because it could not be established that she understood computer security well enough to grasp the security vulnerability of what she was doing. 

 

So I shouldn't get a speeding ticket because I didn't understand the speed limit in the area?

[Simon]

So I shouldn't get a speeding ticket because I didn't understand the speed limit in the area?

If the law for speed limits stated that you needed to show either intent to cause harm (modifying US C 793 here) or gross negligence, then no you shouldn't.

 

But that's not how the speed limit laws and regulations are written.

[Ranxerox]

So I shouldn't get a speeding ticket because I didn't understand the speed limit in the area?

 

Speeding tickets aren't felonies.  Most felonies involve some sort of intent.  You can flat out kill someone, and if it was done without intending to or at least gross negligence on your part, you probably haven't committed a felony.  It is just a tragic accident.  If some negligence was involved but not enough rise to the level of gross negligence, then you can be sued by the persons next of kin but you can't be criminally convicted.

[Starlord]

Ok, but US Code 798 says

 

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

(1)concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or

(2)concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or

(3)concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or

(4)obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

 

I'm not a lawyer, but this seems to suggest intent doesn't matter.

PS:  I bolded these parts for emphasis.

[Pattern Ghost]

It's possible "knowingly and willfully" might indicate some intent. IAANAL. (extra A for also)

[Clonus]

So I shouldn't get a speeding ticket because I didn't understand the speed limit in the area?

 

Only if it is reasonable for you to not know.  That would pretty much require the speed limits and especially the changes in the speed limits to not be posted and the speed limits to be something other than the default speeds for highway and city driving.  It is only a crime to speed at regular city driving speeds in a school zone if there are signs saying it's a school zone.  You will not be convicted of murder for using peanut sauce in your cooking if your guest didn't tell you he was deathly allergic and you didn't have another way to know.  

 

 

Ok, but US Code 798 says

 

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

(1)concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or

(2)concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or

(3)concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or

(4)obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

 

I'm not a lawyer, but this seems to suggest intent doesn't matter.

 

 

Unless you notice the words "knowingly and willfully", which are all about what you know and intend.  This is what actual lawyers call "mens rea".  Note that this doesn't mean knowing about the existence of the law, itself.  Just that you must know that you are making state secrets available to unauthorized persons.  

[Starlord]

Well its obvious "knowingly and willfully" fully indicate intent, but 'OR otherwise makes available' and 'OR uses IN ANY MANNER prejudicial..." are also there.  Obviously, basic grammer says the OR separates the other statements from the "knowingly and willfully" part.  Clearly "knowingly and willfully" are separate and don't apply to those parts...that's why I didn't bold them.

[Old Man]

I see what you're saying, but the fact is that the Supreme Court sees it differently, and has for decades.  That's why virtually no one actually goes to jail under the Espionage Act.  Seriously, I don't think there is enough prison space to hold all the nitwits who left a classified laptop in the back seat of their car, or accidentally posted a classified fact on NIPR, or mixed up a sensitive folder with some other trash.  In order to commit treason, you pretty much have to hand information that you know is classified to a person that you know is working for the enemy when you know that that enemy is going to use the information to hurt the United States.  Petraeus flat out handed TS/SCI info to a biographer for sex, no jail.  Scooter Libby flat out outed an active CIA agent in the field for political gain, no jail. 

[Ranxerox]

Well its obvious "knowingly and willfully" fully indicate intent, but 'OR otherwise makes available' and 'OR uses IN ANY MANNER prejudicial..." are also there.  Obviously, basic grammer says the OR separates the other statements from the "knowingly and willfully" part.  Clearly "knowingly and willfully" are separate and don't apply to those parts...that's why I didn't bold them.

 

It would be hard for a prosecutor to argue that Secretary Clinton "otherwise made available" the classified information that was present in some of her emails when there is no evidence at all that her server were ever hacked.  

 

Keeping information encrypted, behind firewalls on a server with up to date anti-viral software is not making it available.  Moving something from one safe to a slightly less secure safe (or possibly more secure safe in this case) isn't the same as making it available, unless you do so with the intent of the having the less secure safe broken into. 

[Clonus]

I see what you're saying, but the fact is that the Supreme Court sees it differently, and has for decades.  That's why virtually no one actually goes to jail under the Espionage Act.  Seriously, I don't think there is enough prison space to hold all the nitwits who left a classified laptop in the back seat of their car, or accidentally posted a classified fact on NIPR, or mixed up a sensitive folder with some other trash.  In order to commit treason, you pretty much have to hand information that you know is classified to a person that you know is working for the enemy when you know that that enemy is going to use the information to hurt the United States.  Petraeus flat out handed TS/SCI info to a biographer for sex, no jail.  Scooter Libby flat out outed an active CIA agent in the field for political gain, no jail. 

 

The only reason why Petraeus didn't go to prison was because the President at that time pardoned him.  (Partially, he still had to pay a fine.)  He was sentenced to a year in prison.  But then, as I mentioned, he wasn't just careless.  

 

Well its obvious "knowingly and willfully" fully indicate intent, but 'OR otherwise makes available' and 'OR uses IN ANY MANNER prejudicial..." are also there.  Obviously, basic grammer says the OR separates the other statements from the "knowingly and willfully" part.  Clearly "knowingly and willfully" are separate and don't apply to those parts...that's why I didn't bold them.

 

Grammar doesn't really work like that.   And even if it did, the requirement for mens rea still exists regardless of whether the law explicitly mentions it.  You have to know what you are doing.  "in any manner" is intended to cover situations where, let's say, you use classified information for insider trading or take DARPA's blueprints for power armour and build one of your own and take it out to fight crime.  

[Marcus Impudite]

Hillary vs Trump: whoever wins, we lose.

[Badger]

Essentially.

[womble]

Well its obvious "knowingly and willfully" fully indicate intent, but 'OR otherwise makes available' and 'OR uses IN ANY MANNER prejudicial..." are also there.  Obviously, basic grammer says the OR separates the other statements from the "knowingly and willfully" part.  Clearly "knowingly and willfully" are separate and don't apply to those parts...that's why I didn't bold them.

No it doesn't. It separates them from the "furnishes, transmits or otherwise..." parts. The intent section applies to all of the subsequent clauses.

[Old Man]

Hillary vs Trump: whoever wins, we lose.

 

Meh.  I'm okay with Hillary. 

[Badger]

i'd be ok with Clint Eastwood's empty chair at this point, in comparison with current 2.

[Simon]

A couple of things that continue to bug me about the arguments regarding Clinton's email server:

 

1. The issue was over her use of a personal email server vs. an email server maintained by the State Department. Any discussion of the emails sent is meaningless from this perspective -- they would have been the same from a State Department server.  The State Department's email server is not connected to protected networks (they're air-gapped). The only thing you're dealing with is ease of audit and backup.

 

2. The emails that were recovered from Clinton's server(s) that contained classified information were sent by others.  Clinton replied to them. In particular, they apparently contained classified information which was designated by © in the text - making it entirely within reason that Clinton either did not see the designator or grok its significance (particularly when going through things on her blackberry). Regardless your feelings on the previous statement, I find it difficult to see how you can even consider faulting Clinton and wanting to see prosecution but not looking to the originator of the email chain. Even when looking at the originator of the email chain, you lack required demonstration of either intent to harm the US or "gross negligence".  Which means that you're left with the option of disciplinary action (which is taken by that person's superior and presumes that they are still with the State Department).

[Simon]

The auto-formatting performed by the server on the ( C ) designator (spaces inserted to prevent it in this case) brings up still more issues with the "she should have known before replying" arguments.

[death tribble]

Thanks Simon, I had seen nothing that said Mrs Clinton was the recipient rather than the originator of mails containing classified information.