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

N.S.A. Contractor Arrested in Possible New Theft of Secrets

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 148 posts

Re: N.S.A. Contractor Arrested in Possible New Theft of Secrets

#131

Post by dragonwriter »

tptacek wrote: post #130
joering2 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

good start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization... ... under the NDAA "an American citizen can be detained forever without trial, while the allegations against you go uncontested because you have no right to see them"

The 2012 NDAA policy you're citing requires the detainee to be a member of Al Qaeda.

> The 2012 NDAA policy you're citing requires the detainee to be a member of Al Qaeda.

No, they don't either in principal (the application in the text is much broader than specifically al-Qaeda -- it includes al-Qaeda, the Taliban, "associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners", and other who commit a belligerent act against the US or its coalition partners that is seen to be "in aid to" those organizations), nor in practice, because the specific allegations justifying the detention need not be disclosed, nor even the specific detention publicly disclosed, and detentions under the act, while they permit trial by military tribunal, do not require any juridical process or access to counsel to be provided -- that's rather the point of indefinite detention -- there's essentially no practical boundary to their application (if some sympathetic third party becomes aware of the detention, its possible they might be the subject of habeas corpus proceedings, which would require some showing that there was reason to believe that the person was within the fairly broad scope in the text of the act, but that's by no means a certainty in any particular detention.)

Re: N.S.A. Contractor Arrested in Possible New Theft of Secrets

#132

Post by tptacek »

dragonwriter wrote: post #131
tptacek wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 2012 NDAA policy you're citing requires the detainee to be a member of Al Qaeda.

> The 2012 NDAA policy you're citing requires the detainee to be a member of Al Qaeda. No, they don't either in principal (the application in the text is much broader than specifically al-Qaeda -- it includes al-Qaeda, the Taliban, "associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners", and other who commit a belligerent act against the US or its coalition partners tha…

You're responding to me as if I'm justifying the indefinite detention clause of the NDAA. I am not. I am saying it does not apply here, and none of the additional color you've provided changes that --- that there are other parties named in current live AUMF's doesn't make this doofus contractor a member of one of them.

You might also look at Obama's signing statement of the NDAA for more evidence for that argument.

Re: N.S.A. Contractor Arrested in Possible New Theft of Secrets

#133

Post by dragonwriter »

tptacek wrote: post #132
dragonwriter wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The 2012 NDAA policy you're citing requires the detainee to be a member of Al Qaeda. No, they don't either in principal (the application in the text is much broader than specifically al-Qaeda -- it includes al-Qaeda, the Taliban, "associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners", and other who commit a belligerent act against the US or its coalition partners tha…

You're responding to me as if I'm justifying the indefinite detention clause of the NDAA. I am not. I am saying it does not apply here, and none of the additional color you've provided changes that --- that there are other parties named in current live AUMF's doesn't make this doofus contractor a member of one of them. You might also look at Obama's signing statement of the NDAA for more evidence for that argument.

> You're responding to me as if I'm justifying the indefinite detention clause of the NDAA. I am not.

No, I'm respodning to you as if you were making an inaccurate fact claim about the NDAA, which you were, whether you refer to what the act says on its face or, even moreso, what the practical result of the authority in the act is.

> I am saying it does not apply here

No, that's not what you said that I responded to. Had you said that, I would not have responded as I did. In any case, theft of secrets in aid of an enemy is a belligerent act, so (even if subsequent investigation ruled out that the acts were done in support of al-Qaeda), were the Administration to, in good faith, believe that the acts were carried out on behalf of or in aid of al-Qaeda, the act here would fall within the ambit of the bare text of the NDAA.

(It wouldn't fall within the requirements of PPD-14, but PPD-14 by its own terms addresses only executive policy on the applicability military custody requirement of Section 1022 of the NDAA, a requirement which applies to a subset of the population for which indefinite detention is authorized by Section 1021 of the NDAA.)

Note I am not saying that the administration treated this as a detention under the NDAA, merely that the concept that the NDAA could -- consistent with the text of the Act -- have been applied here is not at all farfetched.

Re: N.S.A. Contractor Arrested in Possible New Theft of Secrets

#134

Post by tptacek »

dragonwriter wrote: post #133
tptacek wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're responding to me as if I'm justifying the indefinite detention clause of the NDAA. I am not. I am saying it does not apply here, and none of the additional color you've provided changes that --- that there are other parties named in current live AUMF's doesn't make this doofus contractor a member of one of them. You might also look at Obama's signing statement of the NDAA for more evidence for that argument.

> You're responding to me as if I'm justifying the indefinite detention clause of the NDAA. I am not. No, I'm respodning to you as if you were making an inaccurate fact claim about the NDAA, which you were, whether you refer to what the act says on its face or , even moreso, what the practical result of the authority in the act is. > I am saying it does not apply here No, that's not what you said that I responded to.…

From what reporting anywhere are you generating the notion that this guy stole secrets in the aid of Al Qaeda or some other enemy named in a current AUMF? You're dodging.

Again, also, please take a moment to read Obama's NDAA signing statement. He is still the President.

Re: N.S.A. Contractor Arrested in Possible New Theft of Secrets

#136

Post by dragonwriter »

tptacek wrote: post #134
dragonwriter wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're responding to me as if I'm justifying the indefinite detention clause of the NDAA. I am not. No, I'm respodning to you as if you were making an inaccurate fact claim about the NDAA, which you were, whether you refer to what the act says on its face or , even moreso, what the practical result of the authority in the act is. > I am saying it does not apply here No, that's not what you said that I responded to.…

From what reporting anywhere are you generating the notion that this guy stole secrets in the aid of Al Qaeda or some other enemy named in a current AUMF ? You're dodging. Again, also, please take a moment to read Obama's NDAA signing statement. He is still the President.

> From what reporting anywhere are you generating the notion that this guy stole secrets in the aid of Al Qaeda

I'm not. I'm saying if, at some stage of the investigation it was believed that he did, then even if that was later determined not to be true and regular criminal charges in the civilian justice system were determined to be appropriate, the NDAA detention provisions could have been applied at that earlier stage. Since the whole NDAA discussion was about what the "secret arrest" that preceded the publicly-revealed charges means, while I absolutely don't believe the NDAA was applied or that that was what was actually referred to, nevertheless, its not a categorically implausible interpretation.

> Again, also, please take a moment to read Obama's NDAA signing statement.

I have. If you'd like to make an argument about its specific relevance (as you have so far, notably, not done, despite vaguely waving your hand in its general direction), please feel free to do so.

The signing statement says basically two things of significance: (1) That Section 1021 authorizing indefinite detention is unnecessary and duplicative of the authority already existing in inherent executive powers and the 9/11 AUMF, and (2) That Section 1022, seeking to mandate military custody for certain of those detained under the power referred to in Section 1021 seeks to impose an inappropriate constraint on executive discretion as to how detainees are held, but that its text provides enough flexibly for a minimally-acceptable interpretation which preserves substantial executive discretion (which Obama that implemented as the executive interpretation through PPD-14, which I've referenced earlier, and which, in any case, is irrelevant since, whether or not 1021 could have applied in this case, its clear that 1022 -- and thus Obama's reservations about the NDAA beyond that it restates existing authority, and the interpretations in PPD-14 -- would not apply.)

Re: N.S.A. Contractor Arrested in Possible New Theft of Secrets

#137

Post by Grishnakh »

sqeaky wrote: post #74
OscarCunningham wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So there have been at least three leaks from the NSA? That's ridiculous; they need some drastic changes and urgently.

People enforce all security physical and digital. If people don't believe in the mission there will be leaks. The biggest change might simply be that they need to start doing unambiguous good or their workers will keep leaking stuff.

>The biggest change might simply be that they need to start doing unambiguous good or their workers will keep leaking stuff.

Didn't James Earl Jones address this idea in "Sneakers"?

"We're the US government: we don't do that sort of thing!"

Re: N.S.A. Contractor Arrested in Possible New Theft of Secrets

#138

Post by tptacek »

dragonwriter wrote: post #136
tptacek wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what reporting anywhere are you generating the notion that this guy stole secrets in the aid of Al Qaeda or some other enemy named in a current AUMF ? You're dodging. Again, also, please take a moment to read Obama's NDAA signing statement. He is still the President.

> From what reporting anywhere are you generating the notion that this guy stole secrets in the aid of Al Qaeda I'm not. I'm saying if, at some stage of the investigation it was believed that he did, then even if that was later determined not to be true and regular criminal charges in the civilian justice system were determined to be appropriate, the NDAA detention provisions could have been applied at that earlier s…

This is a lot of text, but I'm not sure what the real argument is. It seems like you're saying, "sure, he's not helping Al Qaeda, but they could say he was".

Well, they could say he was a member of Al Qaeda, too. What couldn't they do? If we want to stipulate a lawless government, why bother mentioning the NDAA at all? They could just drone strike him.

The NDAA has nothing to do with this story. I don't know why you're so diligently trying to make the case that it does.

Re: N.S.A. Contractor Arrested in Possible New Theft of Secrets

#139

Post by dragonwriter »

tptacek wrote: post #138
dragonwriter wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> From what reporting anywhere are you generating the notion that this guy stole secrets in the aid of Al Qaeda I'm not. I'm saying if, at some stage of the investigation it was believed that he did, then even if that was later determined not to be true and regular criminal charges in the civilian justice system were determined to be appropriate, the NDAA detention provisions could have been applied at that earlier s…

This is a lot of text, but I'm not sure what the real argument is. It seems like you're saying, "sure, he's not helping Al Qaeda, but they could say he was". Well, they could say he was a member of Al Qaeda, too. What couldn't they do? If we want to stipulate a lawless government, why bother mentioning the NDAA at all? They could just drone strike him. The NDAA has nothing to do with this story. I don't know why you'…

> It seems like you're saying, "sure, he's not helping Al Qaeda, but they could say he was".

Mostly, I'm saying that "sure, they may have determined now that is theft was not to aid al-Qaeda, but they may have initially believed it was for that purpose; an NDAA detention on that basis would be supported by the text of the NDAA -- and uncontradicted by any public executive policy -- and consistent with the 'secret arrest' description, and not inconsistent with a later determination that that status did not apply accompanied by a decision to pursue normal criminal charges in the civilian justice system."

(I did mention further upthread that the procedural nature of the NDAA detention also practically makes pretextual ascription of association with al-Qaeda or other groups covered within the NDAA a real risk, but that wasn't my primary contention.)

> The NDAA has nothing to do with this story.

I've actually explicitly said that that is most likely the case.

> I don't know why you're so diligently trying to make the case that it does.

I'm not. I only got into the NDAA because of your factually inaccurate description of its requirements in your overzealous attempt to support your equally factually incorrect claim that there is no statutory basis for federal law enforcement to detain U.S. citizens without counsel in "secret arrests".

Had you merely argued that the circumstances here made it appear unlikely that the statutory authority authorizing such detention would either be strictly applicable or invoked by the administration, the character of my response (if I even saw a point to responding) would have been very different.

Re: N.S.A. Contractor Arrested in Possible New Theft of Secrets

#140

Post by tptacek »

dragonwriter wrote: post #139
tptacek wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a lot of text, but I'm not sure what the real argument is. It seems like you're saying, "sure, he's not helping Al Qaeda, but they could say he was". Well, they could say he was a member of Al Qaeda, too. What couldn't they do? If we want to stipulate a lawless government, why bother mentioning the NDAA at all? They could just drone strike him. The NDAA has nothing to do with this story. I don't know why you'…

> It seems like you're saying, "sure, he's not helping Al Qaeda, but they could say he was". Mostly, I'm saying that "sure, they may have determined now that is theft was not to aid al-Qaeda, but they may have initially believed it was for that purpose; an NDAA detention on that basis would be supported by the text of the NDAA -- and uncontradicted by any public executive policy -- and consistent with the 'secret arr…

I think you read a little bit too much into my original comment and have gone on tilt.
Post reply on HN