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

101–110 of 144 posts

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

#101

Post by twoodfin »

tptacek wrote: post #34
miked wrote: post #28

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. The Entitled Party had complete control of the House and a 60 senator supermajority in the Senate for the first year of Obama's presidency, not to mention near complete control of the "news" media, Hollywood, television, the arts, the unions, etc, etc. If they wanted to introduce habeas rights fo…

I can't tell if this is a markov generator trolling me or not. All I can tell you is: I'm glad the questions are being asked, but don't go assuming John Cornyn is a friend to hackers.

What does requiring (as miked points out, essentially unprecedented) habeas rights for prisoners of war have to do with being a "friend to hackers"?

You should probably respond to his point that if Cornyn's position were so radical, surely President Obama would have acted in opposition. Otherwise, you can call the position deeply immoral, but surely it's bipartisan by now.

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

#102

Post by [deleted] »

miked wrote: post #28
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…

This is the same hyperpartisan Senator who was at the forefront of the effort to deny habeas rights to Guantanamo inmates. The Entitled Party had complete control of the House and a 60 senator supermajority in the Senate for the first year of Obama's presidency, not to mention near complete control of the "news" media, Hollywood, television, the arts, the unions, etc, etc. If they wanted to introduce habeas rights fo…

[deleted]

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

#103

Post by elwin »

AnIrishDuck wrote: post #24
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…

> 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…

> The only question that seems silly to me is the last one. Of course a DoJ prosecutor is aware of the concept of prosecutorial discretion. To be fair, it's also a good counterpoint to the current silly "Congress made us be mean" line the prosecution is taking. It's just more of a statement than a question.

Keep in mind, the question is coming from a Senator on the Judiciary Committee. It could be a preemptive objection to having the blame sent back at him, perhaps also a threat to alter the law to reduce the "discretion to charge defendents".

You're right that is is more of a statement than a question. Political letters like this are often calculated more to produce effects than answers.

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

#104

Post by MtotheThird »

TWAndrews wrote: post #95

Regardless of eventual outcome, I think it's probably safe to say that Ortiz's post-Justice department political career is probably done. I don't see how she could win a democratic primary in Massachusetts anymore--too many other ambitious Dems who'd have field day with this, and Republican opposition will keep her from being appointed to anything requiring confirmation. It's a lot less than she deserves, but there's…

I wouldn't be so sure of that. Try reading the comments on any Boston globe article about this affair. Ortiz has strong support from law-and-order voters and many people in Massachusetts outside of tech; in addition to Swartz, she's been very aggressive in her prosecution of corruption and misconduct in the state government. She has a compelling back story and (at least before this) was blessed by Deval Patrick.

I think she could definitely replace Martha Coakley as state Attorney General, at minimum (Coakley also did many odious things as a prosecutor and has never, to my knowledge, paid a political price for it). And a decade from now, long after Aaron has disappeared from the press cycle, she'll make a run for Senate or Governor and his prosecution will likely be nothing more than a subsection of her Wikipedia bio. These are the sad realities of politics in Massachusetts.

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

#105

Post by temphn »

rayiner wrote: post #18
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…

The Swartz case aside, nobody likes the DOJ. Liberals don't like them because they're tasked with defending laws like DOMA (until recently), drug laws, etc, and people like John Yoo, etc, that are unpopular with their contingent. Conservatives don't like them because they are tasked with defending laws like the Sherman Act, etc, that are unpopular with their contingent. But each side likes the laws that are unpopular…

This is very true and your next comment is also excellent as well (re: weed vs. drug traffickers, or antitrust vs. mergers). People want the DOJ's force to be used in causes they approve of and not in causes they don't approve of. Another option, of course, is to agree that there are some things that might be worthy of a penalty like shame rather than a legal penalty, and demilitarize more of human behavior.

That is: a better alternative is to convince people you disagree with, even lead boycotts if you must, but don't use your time in power to increase the power of the government ...because soon that power will be used on you.

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

#106

Post by pekk »

webXL wrote: post #90
tptacek wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Congress is THE body which has say in the matter. Obama's attempts to move suspects to the continental US from Guantanamo were suppressed by Congress. If you are going to excuse Congress, then who are you going to hold responsible?

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

#107

Post by crag »

MtotheThird wrote: post #104
TWAndrews wrote: post #95

Regardless of eventual outcome, I think it's probably safe to say that Ortiz's post-Justice department political career is probably done. I don't see how she could win a democratic primary in Massachusetts anymore--too many other ambitious Dems who'd have field day with this, and Republican opposition will keep her from being appointed to anything requiring confirmation. It's a lot less than she deserves, but there's…

I wouldn't be so sure of that. Try reading the comments on any Boston globe article about this affair. Ortiz has strong support from law-and-order voters and many people in Massachusetts outside of tech; in addition to Swartz, she's been very aggressive in her prosecution of corruption and misconduct in the state government. She has a compelling back story and (at least before this) was blessed by Deval Patrick. I th…

"These are the sad realities of politics in Massachusetts."

This is the sad reality of America. But the trouble is us (the people). The average American has the attention span of a gnat.

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

#108

Post by spinlocked »

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…

Your views are consistent with a paid or otherwise incentivized "shill" with vested interests in taking the opposite view of any positive legislative action regarding the Swartz case. You knocked the earlier legislative proposal, now you are knocking this.

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

#109

Post by sophacles »

jacoblyles wrote: post #65
pemulis wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If he was advocate for more open access to government records, why is it surprising that he would be concerned about the Aaron Swartz case? I agree that this letter could be seen as part a larger battle between Republicans and the Obama DoJ, but does that mean that questions about Aaron Swartz' prosecution are only valid if they come from Democrats?

I think tptacek's point is that he hates Republicans.

This is silly and disingenuous partisanship. It isn't at all a "anti-republicans" thing in his comment. It is a "hey this guy may be doing this good thing, but don't go about declaring him 'a good guy strictly on our side' (for whatever side that happens to be), he's done these other things that a lot of people are against". Its a sanity check.

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

#110

Post by SilasX »

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.

Ban = not apply federal funds toward, right?
Post reply on HN