GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
I'd never heard of Lynne Stewart, but the article you linked says she misused her meetings with a client (which she admitted) and committed perjury at her trial. I find it hard to see a champion of justice and legality in a woman who publicly praised Islamic fundamentalists: I doubt if the families of those executed for "blasphemy" would have much sympathy with her.
So why don't we kill her for that I guess is your opinion. Her original sentence has already expired.
Quote:
on October 16, 2006, Judge Koeltl sentenced Stewart to 28 months in prison.
Sounds fair I guess to some folks.
Quote:
In a letter to the court dated September 26, 2006, Stewart stated that her actions were consistent with how she had always represented her clients that she had failed to recognize the difference in a post-2001 America and, in hindsight, should have been more careful to avoid misinterpretation. Claiming that persons with 'other agendas' had misinterpreted her actions, she said: "I inadvertently allowed those with other agendas to corrupt the most precious and inviolate basis of our profession – the attorney-client relationship."
I agree that the re-sentencing in this case is not fair. However, maybe she shouldn't have defended so many "undesirables", as I am sure this affected the judge's decision.
Regardless of your opinion on Snowden, the reality is that he broke the law and violated his security clearance. "Traitor" can be thrown around with a lot of opinion involved, but the legal definition would certainly put him as a criminal. In addition, his motives seem suspect, as it appears he could have given state secrets to China.
However, maybe she shouldn't have defended so many "undesirables", as I am sure this affected the judge's decision.
Are you seriously suggesting that attorneys assisting clients in preparing a proper defense, a right guaranteed under the law, may expect retaliatory actions from a judge, no less, should these clients be considered "undesirables" by The Powers That Be?
Wow. If that is so, The US of A really has become a fascist police state.
Regardless of your opinion on Snowden, the reality is that he broke the law and violated his security clearance.
Question: If no-one can ever reveal any classified information under any circumstances without being labeled a criminal, what's to stop people in positions of power from abusing it with total impunity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by angryfirelord
In addition, his motives seem suspect, as it appears he could have given state secrets to China.
He was in Hong Kong, and he may very well have been in possession of classified material. But based on those facts, it's quite a leap to assume he's handed anything over to the Chinese government. Also, unless one wants to argue that Mr. Snowden somehow has an exceptionally low IQ, it's hard to see why anyone in their right mind would hand over state secrets to a foreign power in secret and at the same time out himself as a whistleblower for the whole world to see.
In the interview with The Guardian, Mr. Snowden did anticipate that all these allegations would surface. It would seem it's important for somebody, somebody with considerable power, to perform a brutal character assassination on Mr. Showden, having the media claim he's a "narcissist" and a "traitor", and making a big deal of his girlfriend being a pole dancer.
Strangely, little is said or written in mainstream media about Mr. Clappers admission of perjury before Congress, or the unconstitutional nature of the surveillance itself. Or the president blatantly overstepping his authority by authorizing these activities. No-one is being arrested, impeached or even questioned over any of this. I wonder why?
Edward Snowden released these documents, fully knowing that it would cost him his career, his home, his family, indeed his whole future. In return, he gets nothing. We should take a very close look at what he considered so important that he chose to do that to himself.
Since he is hiding out like a coward, we can't assume what his reasons were for all of this. We can't guess what was sold for what reason or what his reasons are at all. Can't say why a person making $200K a year would go nuts. He could have easily quite and leaked what he wanted to later.
People in many walks of life have to sign non-disclosure agreements. Millions of them in the tech world risk getting sued by former employers if they misuse information.
To be truthful. People claim was that NSA was spying on US communications. That is not really true. He said that NSA was collecting metadata NOT phone conversations. You might take note that SCOTUS has decades ago rules that to be a not protected part of your life.
I personally don't care if NSA is listening to overseas calls. If you are trying to blow up US interests and humans then what sort of right do you have?
Since he is hiding out like a coward, we can't assume what his reasons were for all of this. We can't guess what was sold for what reason or what his reasons are at all. Can't say why a person making $200K a year would go nuts. He could have easily quite and leaked what he wanted to later.
What about the information in the Guardian interview made you conclude he "went nuts"? I got quite the opposite impression.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jefro
People in many walks of life have to sign non-disclosure agreements. Millions of them in the tech world risk getting sued by former employers if they misuse information.
And corruption is rife in government as well as corporations, which is why we call people "whistleblowers" rather than criminals when they expose crimes. I assume you know about the Watergate scandal? And Jeffrey Wigand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jefro
To be truthful. People claim was that NSA was spying on US communications. That is not really true. He said that NSA was collecting metadata NOT phone conversations. You might take note that SCOTUS has decades ago rules that to be a not protected part of your life.
To be truthful, that's not actually correct at all. James Clapper has already admitted that he "misspoke" when he claimed the NSA wasn't "knowingly" collecting data on US citizens in the US. And of course, there's the fact that while the NSA can't legally spy on US citizens without a court order, and UK police can't use wiretaps without a court order, they are both free to spy on foreign nationals. And then exchange data. Which they do, in secret, when it suits their interests.
And "metadata", my... You see, that's not true either, and even if it were, do you consider people to "be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" when their every move is monitored and recorded? Should the NSA have full access to the phone logs of every journalist, doctor and attorney? Because that's what they currently have. On you and everybody else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jefro
I personally don't care if NSA is listening to overseas calls. If you are trying to blow up US interests and humans then what sort of right do you have?
Are you trying to blow up US interests? I'm asking because extremely few people are, and it would be truly remarkable to find one of them here on LQ.
And if you're not, is it OK if a few thousand random people have access to your phone logs, GPS data from your smartphone, all your emails, your shopping list, TV and Internet habits, and information about where your car is at all times?
There's no way anybody could abuse that information, right? Especially not people in power who are willing to do whatever it takes to stay in power? In a country where the average citizen unknowingly commits a few felonies every week? And where anybody can be held in detention for an unspecified and unlimited period of time without charges, citizen or not?
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with LFS.
Posts: 2,900
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H
I agree that the re-sentencing in this case is not fair. However, maybe she shouldn't have defended so many "undesirables", as I am sure this affected the judge's decision.
In some Common Law jurisdictions you don't have a choice who you defend. If you are given the job you do it regardless of who the person is or what they allegedly did.
Regardless of your opinion on Snowden, the reality is that he broke the law and violated his security clearance. "Traitor" can be thrown around with a lot of opinion involved, but the legal definition would certainly put him as a criminal. In addition, his motives seem suspect, as it appears he could have given state secrets to China.
Sorry, but you don't go out of the county with 4 laptops of confidential information just for light reading.
He is a traitor, and he should be punished to the full extent of the law. However, this isn't gonna happen. He did what he was told.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD
In that case the judge should be removed from his position, since he is not able to do his job.
I agree, but it is not likely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy
Are you seriously suggesting that attorneys assisting clients in preparing a proper defense, a right guaranteed under the law, may expect retaliatory actions from a judge, no less, should these clients be considered "undesirables" by The Powers That Be?
Wow. If that is so, The US of A really has become a fascist police state.
You just have to read the Powers That Be and act accordingly to stay out of trouble. You know there is something wrong when a poor man robs a convenience store to feed his family and gets 20 years, while a CEO steals billions and gets house arrest for 6 months. There was a newspaper with something like this on the same page, but I can't find it right now.
You just have to read the Powers That Be and act accordingly to stay out of trouble. You know there is something wrong when a poor man robs a convenience store to feed his family and gets 20 years, while a CEO steals billions and gets house arrest for 6 months. There was a newspaper with something like this on the same page, but I can't find it right now.
Oh? So you are saying that if you lived in the U.S.S.R., Red China, North Korea etc. etc. etc. you would do whatever they told you to do just to stay out of trouble??? So you are saying that you would help to kill millions of Jews, Cossacks, Russians and all of the other groups that these governments killed, just to stay out of trouble? That is the philosophy of a mindless sheeple. Who will do anything to stay out of trouble.
We should resist the government when we see it breaking the law. Even if we get into trouble. However, I don't think that it is wrong to flee from that trouble.
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with LFS.
Posts: 2,900
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nbiser
Oh? So you are saying that if you lived in the U.S.S.R., Red China, North Korea etc. etc. etc. you would do whatever they told you to do just to stay out of trouble??? So you are saying that you would help to kill millions of Jews, Cossacks, Russians and all of the other groups that these governments killed, just to stay out of trouble? That is the philosophy of a mindless sheeple. Who will do anything to stay out of trouble.
Even though I, personally, understand your point I seriously doubt mixing historical fact with popular fiction will help what you are trying to say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nbiser
We should resist the government when we see it breaking the law. Even if we get into trouble. However, I don't think that it is wrong to flee from that trouble.
I agree totally. Many people have resisted governments even when they don't break the law but are just plain unfair and brutal to enforce that unfairness (Ghandi, Mandela, etc.) This is where people power comes to the fore and governments should understand the people have a right to peaceful protest (peaceful revolution if need be) when things like this are exposed.
Oh? So you are saying that if you lived in the U.S.S.R., Red China, North Korea etc. etc. etc. you would do whatever they told you to do just to stay out of trouble??? So you are saying that you would help to kill millions of Jews, Cossacks, Russians and all of the other groups that these governments killed, just to stay out of trouble? That is the philosophy of a mindless sheeple. Who will do anything to stay out of trouble.
We should resist the government when we see it breaking the law. Even if we get into trouble. However, I don't think that it is wrong to flee from that trouble.
I would stay out of trouble or flee. I have lived in a Communist country, and I do know what it means. Keeping my mouth shut and fleeing is why I am still alive and not in a gulag. If things turn Communist elsewhere, I will do the same. Seems I always have to be on the run from oppressive regimes. And people wonder why I tend to be paranoid about govm'nt actions.
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with LFS.
Posts: 2,900
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H
I would stay out of trouble or flee. I have lived in a Communist country, and I do know what it means. Keeping my mouth shut and fleeing is why I am still alive and not in a gulag. If things turn Communist elsewhere, I will do the same. Seems I always have to be on the run from oppressive regimes. And people wonder why I tend to be paranoid about govm'nt actions.
Genuine question and not one intended to nit pick. How old are you?
Now to your comment. You call someone like Snowden a traitor for exposing an action by a government that is morally wrong not to mention illegal, yet when confronted by something like this yourself you would stay quiet (meaning you are complicit by your own actions) or flee (which is what Snowden has done). How does this make him a traitor deserving execution? Maybe if more people stood up to tyranny then governments would understand it is not acceptable.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.