Argonisi Hub:
I believe that there should be some kind of agreed-upon point where infinitesimal correlations of the argument are not included.
That's all well and good to
believe, but this is TNP. More annoying things than infinitesimal correlations have happened.
I'm actually being serious in pointing out that this potential interpretation could be a problem.
Ash:
SillyString:
Now, that out of the way, I'm not sure that this is going to work very well in practice.
Wrong. It
will work.
That's all very well to
assert, but you have no outright evidence of that - nor a strong case that the existing system is failing.
SillyString:
There are some situations where an individual must be involved in original redaction decision - for example, the delegate over executive content.
True.
So... you grant that my concern is entirely true, and offer no suggestion or alternative that would correct that issue? If the law is going to prevent someone from
being involved in the decision, that's going to cause a major problem in any case where they
have to be involved by law.
SillyString:
Even the act of naming someone to make the decision on their behalf could qualify as "being involved", under the hypothesis that they might be naming someone sympathetic to their position.
If this is how you interpret statutes, your approach to judicial philosophy is quite unnerving. Not only that, your hypothetical actually proves the point that such an amendment is necessary to guide the conduct of government officials.
If you'd prefer to attack me rather than answer my argument, you're free to do that, but it doesn't actually address the concern I raised.
TNP legal history is in no way immune from this kind of thinking - if you read over old threads, you'll see it pops up sometimes in absurd ways. Less absurdly, we still take the entirely reasonable step of not allowing a justice who has recused themself from a case to vote on who to appoint as a hearing officer to replace them. It's not that we think justices are untrustworthy, but that biasing an outcome in that case is
possible and thus that possibility needs to be avoided.
It's also not clear that it's a
legal solution for a delegate to appoint someone else to declassify things, as the law explicitly puts that responsibility on the delegate themself.
SillyString:
Alternatively, in the SC, matters are decided by discussion and vote. I think it's problematic to ban an SC member from voicing an opinion even if they abstain on the actual vote - do we really think the whole SC is so naive corruptible that they'll ignore or overlook an outright attempt of misfeasance?
You cleverly set up this argument as one that will infringe upon free speech. Not only is your right to free speech guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, but the government must actively
encourage it. That said, this bill would bar an individual from withholding or redacting the evidence while either acting as defense counsel or managing the prosecution of a criminal case. It is infringing on the actions you may take, not the opinions you may voice.
Here you are entirely wrong. The bill as proposed bans "involvement", not making the decision. For decisions made by vote - like in the SC - discussion and offering opinions
is involvement.
If that's not the intent, the language should have been - needs to be - clarified.
SillyString:
I really don't think this is necessary at all.
It is.
Again, nice assertion, but not backed up with fact, or by the current system failing.
SillyString:
The court's ruling sets up a sane and reasonable procedure for declassification, one which firmly establishes the court's power to make a final decision on the classification or declassification of evidence.
We're not talking about the court. But since you brought it up, decisions of the court are not outside the bounds of political considerations.
Of course we're talking about the court - this bill is directly following a court ruling that addresses exactly this issue, in a much more sane and balanced way than this.
But I look forward to seeing your proposal to amend FOIA, which - like the court ruling - gives the court the power to adjudicate classification disagreements. Obviously if the court cannot be trusted to handle the one, it should not be trusted to handle the other.
SillyString:
An independent, third-party review is really all that's required to ensure no government official is breaking the law or withholding evidence, and that's what we have.
Really? Is that
all that's required? What about an ethical code to guide government officials in the execution of their duties? Surely that would be helpful in clearly delineating what is and is not acceptable conduct.
[/quote]
An ethical code? You mean, like the oath all government officials must swear?
Thisisn't an ethical code, and it doesn't provide any guidelines for acceptable conduct outside of what it simply bans without flexibility. It's a poorly grammared overreach.
I will note that I have lodged a vote against - partly because of the poor phrasing of the bill, but also because nobody's actually made a case as to why this is better than the system already in place.
