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

Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

freedom.press

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 175 posts

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#161

Post by minot »

nicboobees wrote: post #49
JupiterMoon wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that their kids have better chances in life, their retirement is secure, they have a nice garden to relax in etc etc... Money well spent if you ask me.

I agree. I'm just saying that just because someone is a lawyer, and has a reasonably high salary, doesn't necessarily follow that they're swimming in money.

When I charged $45/hour before I quit to go back to school, I was nominally making $90k a year. According to the rich list website, that puts me at 0.09% worldwide. No, I am by no means wealthy. I have loans I am not done with!

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#162

Post by knodi123 »

wanderer2323 wrote: post #160
knodi123 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody says "stop trying to make it more fair". Pardon me for misinterpreting "deal with it". There are rules governing ethics for legal professionals. Those who break the rules risk their careers. This seems like a problem that could be addressed, or at least drastically mitigated. I'm not saying that a solution rattled off the cuff in a forum on HN is what should be enshrined in law. But there's a reason everyone…

My thesis is: unlimited money will always buy results. Money is a shadow of power and the point of power is influencing the world. Your solution of "reducing things to a common denominator" which you claimed to be "the only fair thing" will only make the application of power indirect. FWIW I think the gradual curbing of the limits of power and hoping for human nature changing (or an alien invasion) is the way to go.

I didn't actually say "reduce to a common denominator". I just said find a common denominator. I think the best solution will involve meeting in the middle- curbing excessive spending by whatever means are necessary, and also drastically increasing funding to public defenders to increase both their numbers and their prestige.

And regarding "whatever means necessary"- just because I can't invent something off-the-cuff to satisfy a random stranger on the internet, doesn't mean that human ingenuity, and well-thought-out legislation can't find a 90% solution. And no amount of cynical pessimism is going to change my mind about that.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#163

Post by wildmusings »

knodi123 wrote: post #159
wanderer2323 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody says "stop trying to make it more fair". But stop trying to force fairness. Side A picks a pair. Side B picks the representation. Both lawyers are equally mediocre. Side A's lawyer gets the materials analysis/arguments/speeches written by "Lawyer A", best in the country, now retired and working as the consultant. Do you know why "Layer A" is working as a consultant (for $$$) and the representation lawyers are…

> Nobody says "stop trying to make it more fair". Pardon me for misinterpreting "deal with it". There are rules governing ethics for legal professionals. Those who break the rules risk their careers. This seems like a problem that could be addressed, or at least drastically mitigated. I'm not saying that a solution rattled off the cuff in a forum on HN is what should be enshrined in law. But there's a reason everyone…

Not everyone agrees Citizen's United is an insult to democracy. Do you even know what actual case was about? The government was trying to stop an anti-Hillary movie from being publicized because they claimed it was illegal campaign spending. The Supreme Court did right by rejecting an absurd attempt to regulate political speech.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#164

Post by wildmusings »

knodi123 wrote: post #149
wildmusings wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm only taking your thinking to its logical conclusion. Lots of things about our society aren't fair, but trying to make them all fair would just make us all worse off. What's wrong with letting people pay for a better defense? How does what I spend on my lawyer affect the services that a public defender provides for someone else? Your argument is rooted in envy, not in an attempt to make anyone better off. All you…

> but trying to make them all fair would just make us all worse off Lots of ideas look ridiculous if you take them to ridiculous extremes. I'd feel silly if I had suggested a contitutional amendment requiring absolutely everything in the world to be absolutely fair in every way. Boy, I'd have egg on my face then. It's easy to mock a straw man for looking silly, but it says a lot more about the one doing the mocking.…

Your original argument was that lawyers on both sides of a criminal prosecution should be public employees. One side is already always a public employee, the prosecution. That's what I'm referring to here. The fact that one person can afford a better defense in one case doesn't do anything to hurt the defense of some guy that can't in another.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#165

Post by wildmusings »

knodi123 wrote: post #162
wanderer2323 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My thesis is: unlimited money will always buy results. Money is a shadow of power and the point of power is influencing the world. Your solution of "reducing things to a common denominator" which you claimed to be "the only fair thing" will only make the application of power indirect. FWIW I think the gradual curbing of the limits of power and hoping for human nature changing (or an alien invasion) is the way to go.

I didn't actually say "reduce to a common denominator". I just said find a common denominator. I think the best solution will involve meeting in the middle- curbing excessive spending by whatever means are necessary, and also drastically increasing funding to public defenders to increase both their numbers and their prestige. And regarding "whatever means necessary"- just because I can't invent something off-the-cuff…

You want to tell a man that he can't spend all of his money to hire the best lawyers he can afford to try to defend his freedom?

As for being able to come up with some "well-thought-out legislation", maybe you don't live in the same world as me, but the 20th century is strewn with the folly of those who think they can engineer society. I don't understand why so many of us are eager to repeat their mistakes.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#166

Post by wildmusings »

knodi123 wrote: post #162
wanderer2323 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My thesis is: unlimited money will always buy results. Money is a shadow of power and the point of power is influencing the world. Your solution of "reducing things to a common denominator" which you claimed to be "the only fair thing" will only make the application of power indirect. FWIW I think the gradual curbing of the limits of power and hoping for human nature changing (or an alien invasion) is the way to go.

I didn't actually say "reduce to a common denominator". I just said find a common denominator. I think the best solution will involve meeting in the middle- curbing excessive spending by whatever means are necessary, and also drastically increasing funding to public defenders to increase both their numbers and their prestige. And regarding "whatever means necessary"- just because I can't invent something off-the-cuff…

No post body was provided.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#167

Post by bshanks »

andrelaszlo wrote: post #11

I find it very disturbing that you need tens of thousands of dollars at your disposal to get a "fair" trial. I say "fair", because the output obviously changes with the amount of money you feed the system. Too little money and the outcome will be biased against you, too much money and the outcome will be biased in the other direction. Which amount will give an unbiased output? $50k? $100k? How can this be considered…

Here's a proposal:

1) At the beginning of the case, each party proposes how much money they would like to be spent on their side of the case.

2) The Spending Limit is set to the greater proposal. They then must pay the other party the difference between what they proposed and what the other party proposed (to be spent only on legal expenses for this case).

3) Both sides are prohibited sprom spending more than the Spending Limit on legal expenses for this case.

For example, if A and B are going to court, A proposes a $10k Limit and B proposes a $100k Limit; B has the larger number, so the cap is set at $100k, and B must pay for up to $90k legal expenses for A.

Clearly there are some details that must be worked out (eg what if someone wants to raise the limit halfway thru the case? What about money spent on preparation before going to court?) but i think this would be a good start. This proposal achieves substantive equality without sacrificing procedural equality and without preventing either party from spending as much as they want.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#168

Post by tsotha »

ekianjo wrote: post #32
bitJericho wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about you but I don't work for free, even for the noblest of causes, unless I can put food on the table (eg, the lawyers need to eat).

> (eg, the lawyers need to eat). At the price they are working at, it's not about eating anymore, it's about being able to afford 3 houses, an apartment in New York, Cocaine every Friday and the Tesla or a BMW to complete the picture. I have never seen a poor lawyer.

You don't know many lawyers, then. Only the creme of the creme get rich. The average lawyer makes about $40k/year and works around the clock.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#169

Post by tsotha »

fruzz wrote: post #81

I'm noticing in these posts that those who view Chelsea Manning's actions favourably use the right name and pronouns. Those who do not view her actions favourably use the wrong name and pronouns. That suggests that there's overlap between those who do not view her favourably and people who do not view transgender people favourably.

>I'm noticing in these posts that those who view Chelsea Manning's actions favourably use the right name and pronouns.

I don't see a moral obligation to use the pronouns people assign to themselves.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#170

Post by knodi123 »

wildmusings wrote: post #163
knodi123 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody says "stop trying to make it more fair". Pardon me for misinterpreting "deal with it". There are rules governing ethics for legal professionals. Those who break the rules risk their careers. This seems like a problem that could be addressed, or at least drastically mitigated. I'm not saying that a solution rattled off the cuff in a forum on HN is what should be enshrined in law. But there's a reason everyone…

Not everyone agrees Citizen's United is an insult to democracy. Do you even know what actual case was about? The government was trying to stop an anti-Hillary movie from being publicized because they claimed it was illegal campaign spending. The Supreme Court did right by rejecting an absurd attempt to regulate political speech.

What's the difference between money spent by the candidate and money spent by a super pac? If both pools are being managed by campaigning experts, there's not a single difference. Citizen's united established that there is absolutely no limit to the amount of money that a candidate can use to win an election, as long as there's a separate campaign manager for the PAC and they don't collude.

No, the hatred of CU is not absolutely unanimous. But it's pretty widespread, and no amount of word juggling will change the fact that it effectively allows unlimited amounts of anonymous untraceable money to influence elections.

Post reply on HN