Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NSA “precomputed contact chaining” enhances phone-record tracking program

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 54 posts

Re: NSA “precomputed contact chaining” enhances phone-record tracking program

#41

Post by billme »

dragonwriter wrote: post #38
voxic11 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree that legally the authority of the president is limited. But in practice the president can order and see executed the torture of innocent people for years without any possibilty of justice for those victimized. This is because legally the president and anyone acting under his command are immune from prosecution if they acted according to legal guidance from the white house council and the supreme cour…

> legally the president and anyone acting under his command are immune from prosecution if they acted according to legal guidance from the white house council “Counsel”, and, no, they aren't (there'd be a stronger, but not ironclad because of the reasonableness proviso, case if they were acting under guidance from the Justice Department, and given the Constitutional structure of the government, from the President him…

>> “due to the general principal that the only case where ignorance of the law is an excuse under criminal law is when the mistake of law results from reasonable reliance on guidance from officials responsible for enforcing the law”

Request for relevant citation(s).

Re: NSA “precomputed contact chaining” enhances phone-record tracking program

#42

Post by billme »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #36
billme wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> “legally the president and anyone acting under his command are immune from prosecution if they acted according to legal guidance from the white house council“ Source? As far as I am able to tell, this is false; as in it is not that they are immune from prosecution, but that prosecution has never occurred. Clearly, if war crimes were ever brought, regardless of the laws, commands, etc - it would have not resulted i…

>Clearly, if war crimes were ever brought, regardless of the laws, commands, etc - it would have not resulted in being immune from prosecution Actually one of the areas they have the most immunity. Bush passed the "American Service-Members' Protection Act," authorizing unlimited use of force/resources to free any US personnel being detained by the ICC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...

All that act does is say the US will not cooperate. My statement still holds true, ICC has not given the any immunity for ignorance of the law for war crimes.

Re: NSA “precomputed contact chaining” enhances phone-record tracking program

#43

Post by boomboomsubban »

billme wrote: post #42
boomboomsubban wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Clearly, if war crimes were ever brought, regardless of the laws, commands, etc - it would have not resulted in being immune from prosecution Actually one of the areas they have the most immunity. Bush passed the "American Service-Members' Protection Act," authorizing unlimited use of force/resources to free any US personnel being detained by the ICC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...

All that act does is say the US will not cooperate. My statement still holds true, ICC has not given the any immunity for ignorance of the law for war crimes.

The ICC can't hold a trial in absentia unless the defendant is present or in ICC custody for the beginning of the trial. The ICC is thus unable to prosecute unless given consent by the US.

They don't need immunity from ignorance, they have a blanket immunity.

Re: NSA “precomputed contact chaining” enhances phone-record tracking program

#44

Post by dragonwriter »

billme wrote: post #41
dragonwriter wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> legally the president and anyone acting under his command are immune from prosecution if they acted according to legal guidance from the white house council “Counsel”, and, no, they aren't (there'd be a stronger, but not ironclad because of the reasonableness proviso, case if they were acting under guidance from the Justice Department, and given the Constitutional structure of the government, from the President him…

>> “due to the general principal that the only case where ignorance of the law is an excuse under criminal law is when the mistake of law results from reasonable reliance on guidance from officials responsible for enforcing the law” Request for relevant citation(s).

The foundational case on the relevant principal (which reversedas a matter of Constitutional law the common-law principal that mistake of law was never a defense) is Raley v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 423 (1959).

Re: NSA “precomputed contact chaining” enhances phone-record tracking program

#45

Post by salawat »

dragonwriter wrote: post #44
billme wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> “due to the general principal that the only case where ignorance of the law is an excuse under criminal law is when the mistake of law results from reasonable reliance on guidance from officials responsible for enforcing the law” Request for relevant citation(s).

The foundational case on the relevant principal (which reversedas a matter of Constitutional law the common-law principal that mistake of law was never a defense) is Raley v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 423 (1959).

Can you explain how someone is to hold the President accountable for an illegal act if it is committed in such a way where no citizen has standing to bring suit?

The way I understand it is that technically the fellow upthread is technically right in the eyes of the law; until a judge rules that something is illegal, it isn't. That's a staple of common law jurisprudence. Judges discover law. It is still possible even after the finding of illegality to continue to perpetuate the activity as well given that the legislature ends up too locked up to successfully convict the President for malfeasance, and there is still no means through which the sitting President's pardon power or executive discretion can be overcome.

And again, the lack of standing issue is also alarming in that... Well, maybe you can see something is clearly wrong, but if the wronged can't file a suit in their own defense, and no one else has standing...

I don't know, I feel like I fell off a wagon after reading that post. There's a vague sense of possible loophole there.

Re: NSA “precomputed contact chaining” enhances phone-record tracking program

#46

Post by dragonwriter »

salawat wrote: post #45
dragonwriter wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The foundational case on the relevant principal (which reversedas a matter of Constitutional law the common-law principal that mistake of law was never a defense) is Raley v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 423 (1959).

Can you explain how someone is to hold the President accountable for an illegal act if it is committed in such a way where no citizen has standing to bring suit? The way I understand it is that technically the fellow upthread is technically right in the eyes of the law; until a judge rules that something is illegal, it isn't. That's a staple of common law jurisprudence. Judges discover law. It is still possible even…

> Can you explain how someone is to hold the President accountable for an illegal act if it is committed in such a way where no citizen has standing to bring suit.

Impeachment. Criminal prosecution by a subsequent administration. Civil prosecution by public authority if the particular illegal act is one for which their is a public cause of action. Failing all that, retaliation by a subsequent, similarly difficult-to-punish President. (The last of which, obviously, is obviously fraught, but it's there...)

Re: NSA “precomputed contact chaining” enhances phone-record tracking program

#47

Post by billme »

salawat wrote: post #45
dragonwriter wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The foundational case on the relevant principal (which reversedas a matter of Constitutional law the common-law principal that mistake of law was never a defense) is Raley v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 423 (1959).

Can you explain how someone is to hold the President accountable for an illegal act if it is committed in such a way where no citizen has standing to bring suit? The way I understand it is that technically the fellow upthread is technically right in the eyes of the law; until a judge rules that something is illegal, it isn't. That's a staple of common law jurisprudence. Judges discover law. It is still possible even…

Curious as well, dragonwriter clearly has deep understanding of US law.

Re: NSA “precomputed contact chaining” enhances phone-record tracking program

#48

Post by ColanR »

ColanR wrote: post #40
PaulHoule wrote: post #11

Around that time (2013) I knew a European defense contractor was trying to build a triple store that could inject a trillion or so triples a day without purging any; they went to an RDF specialist and a columnar database pro and they said "are you kidding me?" I told them that they were not. See also Mark Lombardi an artist who died under mysterious circumstances after hanging meticulously designed linkages between f…

> See also Mark Lombardi an artist who died under mysterious circumstances after hanging meticulously designed linkages between folks like G Gordon Liddy, GHW Bush, Oliver North, A Kasshogi, BCCI inked by French curve in MOMA and many other art galleries. I have no idea what you just said. What do you mean by "meticulously designed linkages between folks"?

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Lombardi

Nevermind. Makes sense now; that was the weirdest sentence that turned out to make sense that I'd ever read.

Re: NSA “precomputed contact chaining” enhances phone-record tracking program

#49

Post by voxic11 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #39
voxic11 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Under recent Supreme Court law, however, we are compelled to conclude that, regardless of the legality of Padilla's detention and the wisdom of Yoo's judgments, at the time he acted the law was not "sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he [wa]s doing violate[d]" the plaintiffs' rights. Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2074, 2083, 179 L.Ed.2d 1149 (2011) (inte…

That deals with immunity to civil liability, not immunity to criminal prosecution. There's no necessary relationship between them.

The president has the power to fire any federal prosecutor, there should be no expectation that any action he approves of will ever result in criminal prosecution. Civil liability is the only mechanism for holding those in the executive accountable besides impeachment.

Re: NSA “precomputed contact chaining” enhances phone-record tracking program

#50

Post by voxic11 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #39
voxic11 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Under recent Supreme Court law, however, we are compelled to conclude that, regardless of the legality of Padilla's detention and the wisdom of Yoo's judgments, at the time he acted the law was not "sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he [wa]s doing violate[d]" the plaintiffs' rights. Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2074, 2083, 179 L.Ed.2d 1149 (2011) (inte…

That deals with immunity to civil liability, not immunity to criminal prosecution. There's no necessary relationship between them.

The president has the power to fire any federal prosecutor, there should be no expectation that any action he approves of will ever result in criminal prosecution. Civil liability is the only mechanism for holding those in the executive accountable besides impeachment. Many violations of rights are not criminally prosecutable anyways.
Post reply on HN