
Assange: US rule of law suffering 'calamitous collapse' - stfu
http://www.france24.com/en/20130608-assange-us-rule-law-suffering-calamitous-collapse
======
ihsw
One has to wonder how the world's governments will react to this, especially
since they won't be publishing blog posts in a similar manner to Google et al.

There are two major trade agreements[1][2] that are written and negotiated in
absolute secrecy, and we can only speculate what will be on them. The world's
governments may quietly support the surveillance systems the USG operates, and
the USG may use it to appease her opponents by adding stipulations to the
trade agreements that will grant them unfettered access (putting an end to any
and all state-sponsored opposition) just as the UK receives access.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAFTA](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAFTA)

[2] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-
Pacific_Strategic_Economi...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-
Pacific_Strategic_Economic_Partnership)

~~~
b0rsuk
Probably the same way governments all over the world do to inconvenient facts:
be silent and pretend it doesn't exist.

------
tptacek
All three branches of government agreed that the surveillance we found out
about this week was lawful. "Rule of law" is a feature of a just society, but
does not define it. "Rule of law" is also the vehicle we use to course-correct
society back towards justice.

~~~
jivatmanx
By all three branches, do you mean:

1\. A handful of the most senior (see also: most gerrymandered) members of the
intelligence committee informed of this.

2\. A secret ruling from a secret FISA court.

3\. Obama.

~~~
tptacek
There is no such thing as a gerrymandered Senator.

~~~
jivatmanx
And there are no senators in the House intelligence committee.

~~~
tptacek
But there obviously are on the Senate Select Committee On Intelligence.

------
GregBuchholz
I liked _THE MYTH OF THE RULE OF LAW_

"I believe that, much as Orwell suggested, it is the public's ability to
engage in this type of doublethink, to be aware that the law is inherently
political in character and yet believe it to be an objective embodiment of
justice, that accounts for the amazing degree to which the federal government
is able to exert its control over a supposedly free people. I would argue that
this ability to maintain the belief that the law is a body of consistent,
politically neutral rules that can be objectively applied by judges in the
face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, goes a long way toward
explaining citizens' acquiescence in the steady erosion of their fundamental
freedoms. To show that this is, in fact, the case, I would like to direct your
attention to the fiction which resides at the heart of this incongruity and
allows the public to engage in the requisite doublethink without cognitive
discomfort: the myth of the rule of law."

[http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm](http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm)

~~~
cinquemb
And the crux of it all…

"Our long-standing love affair with the myth of the rule of law has made us
blind to the latter possibility (We can continue the ideological power
struggle for control of the law in which the group that gains dominance is
empowered to impose its will on the rest of society, or we can end the
monopoly.). Like the Monosizeans, who after centuries of state control cannot
imagine a society in which people can buy whatever size shoes they wish, we
cannot conceive of a society in which individuals may purchase the legal
services they desire. The very idea of a free market in law makes us
uncomfortable. But it is time for us to overcome this discomfort and consider
adopting Socrates' approach. We must recognize that our love for the rule of
law is unrequited, and that, as so often happens in such cases, we have become
enslaved to the object of our desire. No clearer example of this exists than
the legal process by which our Constitution was transformed from a document
creating a government of limited powers and guaranteed rights into one which
provides the justification for the activities of the all-encompassing super-
state of today. However heart-wrenching it may be, we must break off this one-
sided affair. The time has come for those committed to individual liberty to
realize that the establishment of a truly free society requires the
abandonment of the myth of the rule of law."

------
GabrielF00
I don't think that Assange has much credibility on this issue. He's shown
repeatedly that he believes himself to be above scrutiny in both his personal
behavior and in the way that he operates WikiLeaks. I don't see how he can
demand that other people in power behave transparently when he refuses to be
transparent about how he uses his own power.

~~~
markdown
> I don't see how he can demand that other people in power behave
> transparently when he refuses to be transparent about how he uses his own
> power.

You don't know how he uses his power?

Here is how it works: People anonymously send him information, and he releases
it.

> I don't think that Assange has much credibility on this issue.

As I see it, he has more credibility than most on the issue. It's one he has
being fighting for all of his adult life, and what he and his sources have
risked their lives for.

~~~
FireBeyond
How has Assange, credibly, risked his life for this issue? There hasn't been
any documented attempt upon his life, and very few on his livelihood (what
serious attempts have been made to shut down Wikileaks)?

Hyperbole does nothing to help someone who, in the eyes of many, appears to be
increasingly a victim of his own ego.

~~~
naasking
> (what serious attempts have been made to shut down Wikileaks)?

Shutting down payments was a serious attempt [1]

[1] [http://rt.com/news/wikileaks-lieberman-king-mastercard-
visa-...](http://rt.com/news/wikileaks-lieberman-king-mastercard-visa-709/)

------
einhverfr
I think the fundamental problem is that "rule of law" is a convenient fiction,
which is basically a way of encouraging people to believe that we have more
limits on governmental abuses than we do. The problem though is that all
decisions have to be made by individuals, not laws, and laws are subject to
selective enforcement and so forth.

For example, mandatory sentencing takes power out of the hands of judges to
adjust sentences. It is argued that this makes the system more predictable and
fair, but what it really does is transfers that power to the hands of
prosecutors, and thus makes the system less predictable and fair.

What is happening right now is that this illusion is being ripped apart.

~~~
ealloc
I wouldn't say the rule of law is an illusion - it's a social construct or a
social tradition. The rule of law has had real power in the past, and has
often given the minority power over the majority.

The problem is that as a social construct, it will break down if too few
people believe in it. And that's what is starting to happen here.

The rule of law is pretty similar to money actually - it only has power if
people believe it has power.

~~~
einhverfr
I don't think it merely a social construct, or that the problem is that too
few people believe in it. My point is that sometimes efforts to fulfil its
promises have resulted in the promises being further out of reach.

The thing about a convenient fiction or illusion of this sort is that the duty
to preserve it constrains abuses. In this way it is very different from, say,
the value of a US dollar. So I think you are discussing the rhetorical norm
(which is a social construct) while I am discussing the promise which is
forever out of reach.

------
yekko
The Democratic-Republican party rules the US, there are no other parties to
oppose them.

------
cletus
There are a couple of points worth highlighting here.

The first is that yes, the rule of law is illusory. It exists only because
people believe in it.

This is the major problem with imposing democracy on any other country and why
it seems doomed to failure: other countries don't have a citizenry that
believe in the rule of law. Many such countries are dictatorships and/or
corrupt so "democracy" means nothing. Elections only mean something if the
officials in charge of them respect the process and the outcome. Otherwise
they're just a charade.

There are actually two problems with the US that I see and they're probably
inter-related.

The first is that historically the US citizenry has distrusted its (or any)
government. It's why things like the Second Amendment exist (debate how you
like the exact meaning of "militia"; it's irrelevant to this point). It's why
the Constitution is enshrined in a form hard to modify. It's why there is a
dual-sovereignty system to hopefully balance the Federal government
(originally limited with enumerated powers) and the states. It's why there are
three branches of government.

But increasingly the government of the US has grown to distrust its citizens.
Perhaps this was always the way. Perhaps because I'm a foreigner here but I
feel the presumption of guilt in almost everything government related (eg just
look at ill-defined laws with potentially huge penalties like FBAR).

I see that same distrust behind mass surveillance efforts like these (whatever
form PRISM, etc ultimately takes).

But there's another aspect: politically and culturally the US is two nations
under one roof. That division seems to grow wider and more bitter with each
passing day. Nothing seems sacred in these scorched earth partisan battles to
the point where the belief has set in that the ends justify the means.

This is what I see as so dangerous about the "living document" judicial
philosophy in constitutional law. The idea is that the Constitution basically
says whatever you want it to say if you twist it far enough under the guise of
"the founders if they were here today would've intended..."

As important as, say, the right to privacy is there is no such right
enumerated in the Constitution. If you want one, there is a legislative
process for getting one (ie a constitutional amendment) but deciding one was
intended (by a judge or panel of judges) seems like a slippery slope no matter
how well-intended. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Take elections as an example of this. In the US elections are largely
organized by the states. Redistricting is a politically driven fiasco based on
maps of household political views.

The Republicans seem intent of disqualifying likely Democrat voters in the
guise of scrubbing electoral rolls of "felons".

The Democrats aren't above bribing the homeless to vote.

Both sides seek to make voting difficult in areas that traditionally vote the
other way by limiting polling places and times.

Now compare this to Australia, which has the AEC (Australian Electoral
Commission). The AEC is a Federal agency that doesn't seem subject to the same
partisan politics that US election agencies are.

Part of this I'm sure is because voting in Australia is (technically)
mandatory. This system means the AEC's ambit is how to give everyone access to
the ability to vote (a process that has never taken me more than 5-10 minutes)
rather than the partisan pull of getting the "right" people to vote (depending
on the particular leaning of its appointed leadership).

But part of it is that culturally the election process itself is not something
you politicize. That's simply way too dangerous.

So I see Assange's point: the rule of law is on shaky ground in the US.

I remember seeing an interview with Dick Morris (Clinton-era strategist) who
allegedly asked Clinton at one point (regarding the then upcoming 1996
election) "what's the point of winning if you don't have a mandate?" to which
Clinton replied "what's the point of having a mandate if you don't win?"

True or not, I think that sums up the problem: the ends now justify the means
in the bitter battle between left and right.

The scary part is I don't know how you turn this around at this point with the
citizenry largely complacent. If you gain enough support, the least you could
do is have a "vote against the incumbent" strategy since getting booted out of
office seems to be the only things politicians fear.

Obama I think should be a wake up call for many: there is a vast gulf between
Obama the candidate (eloquent and compelling) and Obama the president (who
seems to have doubled down on Bush-era policies and launched a war on "theft"
at the behest of the intellectual property industry).

~~~
einhverfr
> But there's another aspect: politically and culturally the US is two nations
> under one roof. That division seems to grow wider and more bitter with each
> passing day. Nothing seems sacred in these scorched earth partisan battles
> to the point where the belief has set in that the ends justify the means.

The partisanship though is largely manufactured. The financial sector and a
few others have bought off both parties. The Occupy Wall St and Tea Party
groups have more in common than they do with the established parties. The
people are remarkably united as to the huge issues but we are distracted by
issues like SSM and abortion so the financial sector can take it all.

~~~
rdtsc
> The Occupy Wall St and Tea Party groups have more in common than they do
> with the established parties.

That maybe true objectively, but either camp would swear up and down and fight
tooth and nail against any such comparisons. And propaganda is a science of
perceptions. If people on either side believe they are on two different sides
and the other side is evil then mission is accomplished.

Chomsky I believe made this point and used an example of how sports are a
proxy or an instance of such mentality. The sports fans of opposing teams hate
each other with passion but it turns out they have more in common between
themselves than they have in common with the players they are rooting for.
Players probably all like to gather in expensive country clubs and talk about
yachts and sports cars they are planning on buying.

~~~
einhverfr
> Chomsky I believe made this point and used an example of how sports are a
> proxy or an instance of such mentality.

Yep. But Chomsky's points go further, in that this is a way of ensuring that
any arguments over policy are remarkably narrow. This also makes the cultural
variations remarkably narrow. We really have two nations, rural and urban, but
this division strikes perhaps deeper within the Republican Party itself than
it does so between higher levels of the two parties.

------
Symmetry
I'd say that rule of law has mostly been damaged by the increasing number of
every vaguer federal statutes that let prosecutors find a felony for any
person they set their sites on. And all the tools prosecutors have to force
persuade defendants to plea bargain, meaning that criminal cases very seldom
come to trial any more.

------
anuraj
Nation states have grown bigger for anybody's comfort. It is time to rethink
the organization of states and go for alternate arrangements that will 1)
Ensure individual freedom 2) Human Dignity 3) Sustainable Development - This
is the big human challenge for the 21st century to solve.

------
lizzard
I felt that was happening during the Bush election and recall Al Gore's voice
cracking a little as he gave his speech about the rule of law.

------
ktd
Does anyone else find it darkly funny that an international fugitive hiding in
a South American embassy to prevent his arrest and extradition thinks he can
lecture people on the rule of law?

~~~
davidjairala
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)

~~~
ktd
One thing that many people don't realize about the Hierarchy of Disagreement
is that going up the hierarchy takes more and more effort. If someone makes
claims that are so hypocritical that they instantly fail the laugh test,
there's no need to move up the hierarchy and develop more sophisticated
arguments against their main points.

Now, the obvious rebuttal to this would be to claim that I'm only saying this
because I can't rebut Assange's points on their own merits, so I have to
attack his character. This is an appealing but dangerous line of reasoning,
because it forces you to engage with trolls. The appropriate response to a
troll is not to examine their argument and point out its weaknesses, but to
classify them as a troll and ignore them. Is this ad hominem reasoning? Sure,
but _ad hominem reasoning isn 't necessarily bad._

I _can_ rebut Assange's points on their own merits, but I choose not to
because I think doing so gives Assange attention and credibility that he does
not deserve. Don't feed the trolls.

~~~
skore
> I _can_ rebut Assange's points on their own merits, but I choose not to

Yes. Instead, you chose an ad hominem attack, which is pretty much the
definition of feeding the trolls.

> Is this ad hominem reasoning? Sure, but _ad hominem reasoning isn 't
> necessarily bad_.

No, ad hominem reasoning is simply _meritless_. The opposite of engaging in a
discussion is remaining silent, not scoffing and walking off stage.

~~~
ktd
>Yes. Instead, you chose an ad hominem attack, which is pretty much the
definition of feeding the trolls.

Are you _really_ claiming that saying "don't feed the trolls" is feeding the
trolls?

~~~
skore
And where did I say that?

------
mpyne
Is Assange claiming this is a bad thing? He doesn't seem very fond of the the
'rule of law' himself, just ask Sweden.

~~~
PavlovsCat
Okay, I'll humour you and assume he's totally a rapist on the run. _Yes, and?_
How is this relevant to adults talking about something that affects billions
of people?

~~~
pekk
Whether Assange is legally a rapist depends on two things. First, which
country's legal definition of rape is relevant (e.g., Sweden's might not be
the same as yours, e.g. if you think that it is not rape to get sex on some
false premise but Sweden does). Second, what the facts of the case are - but
Assange does not submit to the legal process in Sweden so this really hasn't
been evaluated.

The issue isn't that people are assuming "he's totally a rapist on the run"
but rather that he refuses to allow a legitimate judicial process to evaluate
that. Well, OK, but simply avoiding judicial process does not mean you are
already proven innocent.

~~~
PavlovsCat
That is not "the issue", that is "an issue". And to bring it up in this
context is a red herring. Oh yeah, it technically has to do with the law so
blah blah blah.... NO.

Oh, and I actually do think that was kind of fucked up, if the allegiations
are true, I don't shrug that off at all; but this matters only for drinking
beer or giving him the hand of my daughter in marriage or something, not for
talking politics, where, to me, he clearly has "the heart in the right spot".

