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

U.S. Senator Questions Attorney General about Aaron Swartz

cornyn.senate.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 144 posts

Re: U.S. Senator Questions Attorney General about Aaron Swartz

#81

Post by newbie12 »

michael_nielsen wrote: post #68
tptacek wrote: post #3

This is the same hyperpartisan Senator who was at the forefront of the effort to deny habeas rights to Guantanamo inmates; he was also involved in the Bush wiretapping scandal. Expect to see lots of superficial genuflection from Republicans towards the Swartz case; the GOP is in a constant low-grade conflict with the Democratic DoJ. Here, let me put it this way: what do you honestly think Aaron Swartz would think abo…

Cornyn has for many years been a leader on open access to science. Together with Joe Lieberman he introduced the Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA) into Congress in 2006. This Act would, if passed, make almost all scientific publications funded by the US Govt openly accessible within 6 months of publication: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Research_Public_Access_... The act has not yet passed. It was re-…

Sen. Cornyn is also the former Attorney General for Texas and a former judge. He's a serious guy on these issues and one of the top thinkers on judiciary issues for the GOP.

Re: U.S. Senator Questions Attorney General about Aaron Swartz

#82

Post by tptacek »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #78
tptacek wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

John Cornyn and science get along great, as long as the science doesn't involve stem cell research (which he has casted Senate votes to ban) or climate change.

A discussion, let alone a democracy, cannot function if one requires everyone to agree with them on every sub-point of every item related to the topic of question.

I agree completely. I'm not suggesting that people can't applaud overtures towards open science or open access or an accountable DOJ. I'd just hope to maybe shape and direct the applause, so we're clear what its real target is.

I like Richard Posner, for instance, but I'm disquieted by how quickly the Reddit/HN crowd decided to lionize him once he came to a conclusion they liked regarding patents. Posner for SCOTUS! from people who understand the abstract from one case he worked on. Sheesh!

Re: U.S. Senator Questions Attorney General about Aaron Swartz

#83

Post by adventured »

tptacek wrote: post #3

This is the same hyperpartisan Senator who was at the forefront of the effort to deny habeas rights to Guantanamo inmates; he was also involved in the Bush wiretapping scandal. Expect to see lots of superficial genuflection from Republicans towards the Swartz case; the GOP is in a constant low-grade conflict with the Democratic DoJ. Here, let me put it this way: what do you honestly think Aaron Swartz would think abo…

There aren't very many politicians in DC that aren't hyper partisan. A funny thing to hit someone with given the current environment.

A Senator involved in a wiretapping scandal?

You mean the one where the government has been illegally reading every email for a decade? Or the one where the Obama Administration has done everything in its power to evade constitutional protections on privacy? Or the one where the government is illegally storing as much private communication data as they can?

You're going to have to indict nearly every politician in DC, including the President, if that's your standard. And I think that you should (indict them all), but it's ridiculous to use that as some kind of example of terrible behavior: it's the sad status quo in Washington, where privacy violations are now 'legal' and illegal torture is now legal 'enhanced interrogation' etc etc etc etc.

Re: U.S. Senator Questions Attorney General about Aaron Swartz

#84

Post by detst »

tptacek wrote: post #29
AnIrishDuck wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is the same hyperpartisan Senator who was at the forefront of the effort to deny habeas rights to Guantanamo inmates; he was also involved in the Bush wiretapping scandal. This is poisoning the well. There are some good questions in the posted letter. Unfortunately, we are unlikely to get good answers. Whatever their political stripes or past failings, at least someone is willing to press the issue instead of…

I'm happy the questions are being asked, but Cornyn's no friend of civil liberties and I suggest you keep that in mind.

But you've completely derailed this post. I think you could have raised awareness about this man while also keeping the discussion on the positive aspect of these questions being asked at all.

Re: U.S. Senator Questions Attorney General about Aaron Swartz

#85

Post by Aqueous »

gyardley wrote: post #69
Aqueous wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where in the rulebook does it state that doing the right > thing must be completely devoid of agenda or beneficial > byproducts? When every policy he supports is, both in effect and in spirit, nearly diametrically opposed to the beliefs of the dead person whose name he's using to score political points?

Good lord, you don't have to agree with Aaron's left-wing politics to be concerned about federal abuse of power. Seeing justice done isn't a partisan issue.

If that's what this is, then John Cornyn has been very selectively concerned about federal abuse of power.

Re: U.S. Senator Questions Attorney General about Aaron Swartz

#86

Post by IWentToTheWoods »

thoughtcriminal wrote: post #20
chc wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This hardly seems worth asking for. Do they not have Google in your neck of the woods?

No, I'd say that's a fair request. This Senator is asking some important questions in a very succinct way that could bring reform, and tptacek is publicly trying to discredit and undermine him. tptacek should support that statement.

I think chc's point is that it takes less time to google "Cornyn Guantanamo" and "Cornyn wiretapping" than it does to post the question here, and will produce a better answer to boot.

Re: U.S. Senator Questions Attorney General about Aaron Swartz

#87

Post by _delirium »

newbie12 wrote: post #81
michael_nielsen wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cornyn has for many years been a leader on open access to science. Together with Joe Lieberman he introduced the Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA) into Congress in 2006. This Act would, if passed, make almost all scientific publications funded by the US Govt openly accessible within 6 months of publication: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Research_Public_Access_... The act has not yet passed. It was re-…

Sen. Cornyn is also the former Attorney General for Texas and a former judge. He's a serious guy on these issues and one of the top thinkers on judiciary issues for the GOP.

Speaking as a Texan, I do not recall seeing any evidence that, in his former role as Attorney General for Texas, he was serious about reigning in prosecutorial abuse. He didn't really make any effort to reduce the prosecutorial overreach and over-imprisonment perpetrated by his own office when he had that opportunity, and he hasn't made any effort at reform in the Senate, either. If anything, his main efforts over the years have been in the opposite direction: to imprison more people, for longer sentences, with fewer procedural safeguards and less court oversight.

I blame the "tough on crime" prosecutors and politicians (and the people who vote for them) for a large part of our current mess.

Re: U.S. Senator Questions Attorney General about Aaron Swartz

#88

Post by rhizome »

tptacek wrote: post #70
michael_nielsen wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cornyn has for many years been a leader on open access to science. Together with Joe Lieberman he introduced the Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA) into Congress in 2006. This Act would, if passed, make almost all scientific publications funded by the US Govt openly accessible within 6 months of publication: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Research_Public_Access_... The act has not yet passed. It was re-…

John Cornyn and science get along great, as long as the science doesn't involve stem cell research (which he has casted Senate votes to ban) or climate change.

In politics, ignoring distasteful aspects of a person's politics in favor of a shared goal is called, "building a coalition."

Re: U.S. Senator Questions Attorney General about Aaron Swartz

#89

Post by michael_nielsen »

jacoblyles wrote: post #71
michael_nielsen wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cornyn has for many years been a leader on open access to science. Together with Joe Lieberman he introduced the Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA) into Congress in 2006. This Act would, if passed, make almost all scientific publications funded by the US Govt openly accessible within 6 months of publication: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Research_Public_Access_... The act has not yet passed. It was re-…

Well I learned something from this discussion. Advocacy for Open Access is a new side project of mine, and now I know that Cornyn will be a strong ally.

If you're interested in Open Access advocacy, I recommend following Peter Suber on Google Plus:

https://plus.google.com/109377556796183035206/posts

Suber is one of the world's leading advocates for open access to science.

For even more complete coverage, you can follow Suber's Open Access Tracking project. The project can be followed in several ways, including on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/oatp

Re: U.S. Senator Questions Attorney General about Aaron Swartz

#90

Post by webXL »

tptacek wrote: post #47
spigoteater wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only a small percentage of Congress are friends to civil liberties. This is the august body that gave us the Patriot Act, after all.

Funny you should mention that: Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps. (Feb 2011) Voted NO on requiring FISA court warrant to monitor US-to-foreign calls. (Feb 2008) Voted YES on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007) Voted NO on implementing the 9/11 Commission report. (Mar 2007) Voted NO on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. (Sep 2006) Voted NO on requiri…

Senator Obama voted the opposite on a few of those, but as president seems to have few problems with the Patriot Act and Guantanamo.

So let's not kid ourselves that Congress has much say in the manner.

Post reply on HN