[deleted]
Panama Papers source issues statement
51–60 of 151 posts
Re: Panama Papers source issues statement
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's a lot to parse in that statement, but the call for whistleblower protections seems to be the single most important (and achievable) item. Most people are aware of Snowden and Manning One big difference between Snowden and the Panama Papers (and, to a degree, Manning) is that virtually all of what Snowden revealed is illegal action on the part of the government[0], or information directly tied to that (alleg…
"is that virtually all of what Snowden revealed is illegal action on the part of the government[0]" That's nonsense. Snowden revealed both legal and illegal behavior. In the U.S., as in most countries, it's totally legal to spy on foreign countries for political or economic intelligence. Whereas, it's illegal to spy on our own citizens in the U.S.. Snowden leaked both with full details on how they did it to point opp…
Keep in mind that legal vs illegal is a completely different question than right vs wrong. Whistleblower protections need to extend to cover more than just exposure of illegal activites.
Re: Panama Papers source issues statement
#53But most of all, the legal profession has failed. Democratic governance depends upon responsible individuals throughout the entire system who understand and uphold the law, not who understand and exploit it. Sigh. One of the most puzzling questions I have to deal with in my mind. Why is there so little moral left in this world?
Why should there have been any morals in the first place? Does nature by default have morals?
> Does nature by default have morals?
Define nature, and, particularly, what things are excluded from it.
Re: Panama Papers source issues statement
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's a lot to parse in that statement, but the call for whistleblower protections seems to be the single most important (and achievable) item. Most people are aware of Snowden and Manning One big difference between Snowden and the Panama Papers (and, to a degree, Manning) is that virtually all of what Snowden revealed is illegal action on the part of the government[0], or information directly tied to that (alleg…
"is that virtually all of what Snowden revealed is illegal action on the part of the government[0]" That's nonsense. Snowden revealed both legal and illegal behavior. In the U.S., as in most countries, it's totally legal to spy on foreign countries for political or economic intelligence. Whereas, it's illegal to spy on our own citizens in the U.S.. Snowden leaked both with full details on how they did it to point opp…
> Snowden revealed both legal and illegal behavior.
Pretty much all whistleblowing addressing illegal behavior will reveal legal behavior connected or related to, supporting, etc., the illegal behavior. So what?
Re: Panama Papers source issues statement
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that calling all lawyers unethical is a broad generalizing stroke that serves no purpose in garnering friends. I did think it might be interesting if you addressed this specific point: > Mossack Fonseca did not work in a vacuum—despite repeated fines and documented regulatory violations, it found allies and clients at major law firms in virtually every nation. If the industry’s shattered economics were not al…
The problem is that you can't define "loophole". It's a meaningless term. What one man perceives as a loophole, another man perceives as the correct functioning of the law as designed. Ultimately trying to second guess the law is a bad idea and lawyers, in particular, should not be in the business of saying "this is legal, but you shouldn't do it because it violates my own personal ethics". Lawyers are supposed to ad…
I don't know that I agree. Lawyers represent the interests of their client and sometimes apply the law to achieve it. Law is not machine code that operates a lawyer with no room for deviation; I would expect counsel to use discretion and ethics, and perhaps not use every law available to represent me in a way I do not prefer.
I don't think that's "politicking." I think that's jurisprudence. The law lets you do a lot but a lawyer has advice exceeding the law in many situations, and should advise you based upon your interests. I'm in a position to completely punish someone legally, for example, and the law is on my side; my attorney advised me of this but also illustrated some of the risks of doing so despite the legality. Another client might ride that lightning and be a dick, but she knows I'm not so she advised against doing it. That specific situation came down to just fairness and understanding me personally, not even ethics or law. Maybe I misinterpreted your comment, but it sounds like that's second guessing to you and she shouldn't have done it, in your opinion.
I would expect nothing less of counsel I retain, and I appreciate it. That's why we hire lawyers. Not law robots.
Re: Panama Papers source issues statement
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's a lot to parse in that statement, but the call for whistleblower protections seems to be the single most important (and achievable) item. Most people are aware of Snowden and Manning One big difference between Snowden and the Panama Papers (and, to a degree, Manning) is that virtually all of what Snowden revealed is illegal action on the part of the government[0], or information directly tied to that (alleg…
"is that virtually all of what Snowden revealed is illegal action on the part of the government[0]" That's nonsense. Snowden revealed both legal and illegal behavior. In the U.S., as in most countries, it's totally legal to spy on foreign countries for political or economic intelligence. Whereas, it's illegal to spy on our own citizens in the U.S.. Snowden leaked both with full details on how they did it to point opp…
Snowdens role in exposing the rubber stamp fisa courts may be exposing something legal, but clearly broken.
Re: Panama Papers source issues statement
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it is a bullshit indictment. I'm a corporate lawyer who does a lot of cross borders work. I'm ethical - the lawyers I work with are ethical. The vast majority of lawyers are ethical. If anything, the Panama Papers should be an object lesson that one firm or group of lawyers can be responsible for a huge proportion of activity in a given sector. Do you think, for a minute, that other firms have this astounding…
I agree that calling all lawyers unethical is a broad generalizing stroke that serves no purpose in garnering friends. I did think it might be interesting if you addressed this specific point: > Mossack Fonseca did not work in a vacuum—despite repeated fines and documented regulatory violations, it found allies and clients at major law firms in virtually every nation. If the industry’s shattered economics were not al…
> I agree that castigating all attorneys is going to far, but this comes dangerously close to two fallacies; that because it's legal, it's moral (namely that you can divorce your moral responsibility because you're acting in the letter of the law) and that you were just "following orders." If the consequence of failing to take advantage of loopholes is lawsuits for malpractice then that indicates a problem in itself. As a corporate lawyer you have to put yourself as an ethical person first, a lawyer second.
"If it's legal it's moral" is fallacious in general, but not as applied to lawyers. Their role in the system is not to assert their independent moral judgment, but to represent their client while staying within the letter of the law and protecting the integrity of the process.
You've actually got the "following orders" hypothetical backward. A soldier should not follow an illegal order. But he is not empowered to pass moral judgment and ignore a legal one. Lawyers are the same way.
I just watched the People v. OJ Simpson. Here's a man who was clearly guilty of a heinous crime. Yet, his lawyers' job was not to pass moral judgment on him, but to represent him. It was their ethical obligation to try and exonerate their client by exploiting every shred of doubt so long as they did nothing to undermine the integrity of the process (lying to the Court, etc).
Re: Panama Papers source issues statement
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should there have been any morals in the first place? Does nature by default have morals?
Nature by default doesn't have nuclear weapons, stock exchanges, global supply chains, industrial manufacturing, central banks, etc. Humans need morals (and norms more generally) in order to ensure that the above serve us rather than hurt us. Morals are a cultural technology like language or counting, and like those they may be (at least in their strong form) uniquely human.
Morals are a intellectual shortcuts designed to help circumvent our natural proclivity for short term thinking over of long term thinking. As such, they change to some degree depending on the culture and society they arise in, to better suit the long (or medium, depending on your scale) goals of that society. Ancient Mongols were not immoral, fist differently moral than many of their contemporaries (and probably not as much as you would think), but that propelled them to the apex of human nations (based on what that meant at the time) for a while.
Re: Panama Papers source issues statement
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
"is that virtually all of what Snowden revealed is illegal action on the part of the government[0]" That's nonsense. Snowden revealed both legal and illegal behavior. In the U.S., as in most countries, it's totally legal to spy on foreign countries for political or economic intelligence. Whereas, it's illegal to spy on our own citizens in the U.S.. Snowden leaked both with full details on how they did it to point opp…
Snowdens role in exposing the rubber stamp fisa courts may be exposing something legal, but clearly broken.
Lol what you talking about? That the only leak you read?
I'm clearly talking about all the foreign, classified operations that were both legal in US and whole reason NSA exists. He had no need to leak them to protect Americans' Constitutional rights.
Re: Panama Papers source issues statement
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's a lot to parse in that statement, but the call for whistleblower protections seems to be the single most important (and achievable) item. Most people are aware of Snowden and Manning One big difference between Snowden and the Panama Papers (and, to a degree, Manning) is that virtually all of what Snowden revealed is illegal action on the part of the government[0], or information directly tied to that (alleg…
"is that virtually all of what Snowden revealed is illegal action on the part of the government[0]" That's nonsense. Snowden revealed both legal and illegal behavior. In the U.S., as in most countries, it's totally legal to spy on foreign countries for political or economic intelligence. Whereas, it's illegal to spy on our own citizens in the U.S.. Snowden leaked both with full details on how they did it to point opp…
He's not a traitor because a subset of the things he leaked were actually legal. In fact, the legal stuff may be more damning for the government, since there's even less justification for the government to avoid transparency and accountability for things are are legal.
Say the CIA spied on, oh, I don't know, Toyota. And they got some good designs for a new engine or fuel injector or something. Legal, possibly? OK.. now what happens to that information? Let's they give it to Ford, but not GM. One could rightly ask "why?" Was it because somebody at the CIA owns Ford stock? Or did somebody receive some under the table kickbacks? Other??? The public has a right to demand accountability in regards to these things as well.
And never mind the fact that the State shouldn't be engaging in industrial espionage for economic benefit in the first place. If Ford wants to hire spies, let them hire their own spies.