On Jul 25, 2013, at 9:35 AM, Wojtek S wrote:
> Bill: " Not a right-wing corporate conspiracy, rather a hysterical
> over-reaction by a right-wing government that thinks it has a right to a
> monopoly on disclosure of information and even thinks it is entitled to
> torture and persecute whistle-blowers (like Bradley Manning). Let's not
> forget the hijacking of a plane carrying the President of a South American
> republic, merely on the faint suspicion that he might have been trying to
> aid in the escape of the whistle-blower."
>
> [WS:] I think you are conflating several different issues here -
> information gathering, information use, and prosecution of whistlelowers.
> There are altogether different issues in my mind.
>
> First, information gathering is a non-issue to me. Everything in the world
> is information, everything we do is giving off information that is or can
> be captured by the human senses - whether we like it or not. It is just a
> basic fact of life and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Recording
> this information on some medium does that alter this basic fact in any way
> except the lapsed time - it can be captured by the human sense not only as
> it happens but also afterwards. That fact in itself does not change
> anything.
>
> Second, what really matters is how the information is being used. If a cop
> sees me, say, exceeding the speed limit or doing some other prohibited
> activity while sitting in his cruiser or watching a recorded video does not
> matter that much as how this information is subsequently used. It makes
> all the difference in the world if that cop acts like the prosecutor, judge
> and executioner, pronounces me guilty and levies a fine or if all he can do
> is to report what he observed to court where I have a chance to tell my
> side of the story and an independent body - a jury or a judge - weighs the
> presented stories and makes a decision. In other words, it makes all the
> difference in the world if the use of any information collected about
> people is subjected to a due process that gives the involved people
> meaningful input how this information is being used.
>
> AFAIK, most information collected by all government agencies in the US and
> other democracies is subjected to such due process. Most information
> collected by private agencies - credit card companies, credit bureaus,
> marketing firms, etc - is not. What is more, I have no problems whatsoever
> using surveillance to catch people who break the law. The law should be
> obeyed, and if someone takes the risk of breaking them, he is fair game and
> has no right to complain that he was caught. What is more better
> surveillance means less targeted law enforcement. That is, better
> surveillance means that the scofflaws that usually get away because of
> their superficial characteristics have a lesser chance of escaping law
> enforcement than those scofflaws who are "targeted" because of their
> superficial characteristics.
>
> Third, whistle blowing is a very tricky business. People do it for
> different reasons, some of which are more noble than other. So each case
> of whistleblowing should be judged individually by weighing intentions,
> goods being sacrificed and goods being achieved or sought. The
> whistleblower knows or at least should have know the risk he or she is
> taking, and should be able to defend his actions in a due process. There
> should be some independent body - such as jury panel - that weighs all the
> evidence and makes a decision. While blanket persecution of whistleblowers
> amounts to totalitarianism, a blanket acquittal amounts to lawlessness. I
> do not think that the US falls into either of these extremes. Whistle
> blowers have a right to a due process, which typically means a jury trial
> (even in military courts), and nothing prevents the jury from "nullifying"
> the charges by refusing to pass a guilty verdict. I do not see better
> guarantees than that. We can of course criticize individual decisions made
> by juries, but that does not mean that the system is bad. People make
> mistakes or are swayed by bias - that is just a fact of life and no perfect
> system is possible. A collective decision by an independent body on two
> conflicting claims presented to them is the best we can do.
>
> Unlike Jordan, who thinks it should be made easy for people to kill other
> people under some circumstances, but difficult for law enforcement to
> enforce laws, I take the opposite view. It should be made difficult for
> people to break the law and easy for law enforcement to enforce it -
> provided of course that due process and fairness are carefully guarded.
> Laws are there for a reason and people should follow them, unless they
> have a very good reason not to, in which case they should be prepared to
> demonstrate that in a due process. The ability of lawbreakers to get away
> undermines the rule of law, and it is a very bad thing.
>
> With that in mind, Snowden is a fugitive who broke the law while under US
> jurisdiction and thus should stand a trail in the US, no matter what his
> intentions were. Defending his fugitive status on the grounds that he
> broke the law to achieve some greater good is no different than, say,
> harboring anti-abortion terrorists on the grounds that they tried to "save
> unborn babies." If you want the latter to be prosecuted to the full extent
> of the law, as I do, you should also accept the former getting the same
> treatment. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. As to
> Asanage, it is a very different story since I do not think US courts have
> jurisdiction over him. There are also some valid objections to whether due
> process was followed in his extradition to Sweden. This demonstrates that
> while both engaged in whistleblowing, each represents a very different case
> that should be viewed separately.
>
>
>
> --
> Wojtek
>
> "An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>