Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by DannyB2 | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

DannyB2

Secret Laws

Secret Interpretations of Laws

Secret Courts

Secret Warrants

Secret Court Orders

Secret Arrests

Secret Trials

Secret Evidence (not made available to the defense)

Secret Convictions

Secret Prisons

Secret "enhanced interrogation" programs

Gee, it sounds like we've become everything we were fighting against in the previous century.

But it keeps the money flowing.

Next after the military industrial complex is the for-profit prisons. Vacant cells mean lower revenue and thus degrade profits, executive bonuses and shareholder value. Our education system needs to be geared to produce just enough inmates to occupy the for profit prisons, and enough productive workers to pay for both the for profit prisons and military industrial complex.

View on HN

>The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions.

-JFK

And look what happened to him...

Authoritarianism comes in many guises...

everyone gets upset when i say that the US lives in fascism

but the facts do not disagree with my statement very frequently

Secret trials and convictions? Don't exist in the US. Also, evidence cannot be used in court but withheld from defense attorneys. You're just making this stuff up. There are no secret prisons either. If you're talking about battlefield prisons for captured combatants, that's obviously different than the criminal justice system, and is par for the course in warfare.

You can definitely have secret warrants. How could you not? Imagine if the cops had to publish the details of wiretaps. What use would they be? Nevertheless, the secrecy must be justified and approved by a judge every few months.

Frankly, if a warrant would be useless if it weren't kept secret, I'd rather there be no warrant at all. And yes, I'm prepared to accept the consequences of that.

You can only entertain such ridiculous thoughts because you live in a society that's not totally controlled by criminals. Try living in Mexico or Colombia and I bet you'd have a different opinion.

Or, YOU can only entertain such ridiculous thoughts because YOU live in a society that IS totally controlled by criminals. I don't want to live in a country optimized against the assumption of control by criminals.

> Try living in Mexico or Colombia and I bet you'd have a different opinion.

How did those criminals get to be that way, hmm?

It's not like they make all of that money off of ... kidnapping. Or robbery.

It's drugs. They make the money from selling substances that are illegal briefcase of our insane, failed drug policy. These criminals would not be so wealthy if drugs were legal. That's a simple, straight up, undeniable fact.

Okay, then Eastern Europe, Russia, or Southern Italy. Organized crime is not just about drugs.

Eastern Europe? It's fantastic here. Freer than I ever was growing up in Western Europe. You should try speaking out of the mouth on your face.

Evidence withheld from defense - State secrets privilege

Secret prisons - CIA black sites, Chicago detainment center

Secret warrants - FISA warrants are almost never rejected, and I'm not sure they need to be reapproved in general. They are almost never declassified, even after the wiretap is completed.

Wow... have you really not been paying attention to the news for the last decade and a half? Hell, the FISA court system and Civil Asset Forfeiture alone go so far beyond the oppression this country stood up for. Troops on the ground in sovereign nations without a declaration of war? As for evidence being used in court while being withheld, see "parallel reconstruction"... This is just the tip of the iceburg here. It's oppression and corruption of everything this country was founded on.

Congress has passed authorizations for all of those. The only difference between that and a declaration of war is the word "war", which makes no difference legally.

Edit: It's amazing that I'm being downvoted for a factual response to "Troops on the ground in sovereign nations without a declaration of war?"

How about a clear term of engagement, goal, resolution? I don't think we'd respond too well for France sending troops regarding Mexican citizens inside U.S. borders. We are not engaging state actors in foreign nations, and we are not engaging foreign actors within our own borders.

As it stands we have far more military engagements on foreign soil than we've seen since and maybe including WW2. We have a corrupt political system and state that is in ever excessive violation of our own constitution, and a people oppressed and divided.

We really need another JFK or Reagan in terms of charisma and general popular support, if not in somewhat similar political views. Another Truman or Eisenhower would probably be better, but could never get into office today.

Shame you've got yourselves a Trump.

I'm not voting for Trump or Hillary.

Congress has passed authorizations for a ton of unethical things, historically. "Legal" does not mean "morally right".

Most of NSA's warrantless surveillance was probably technically legal, or at least did not constitute mens rea, but that doesn't make it any better.

>>It's amazing that I'm being downvoted for a factual response

No, you are being downvoted because apparently you have been living in a hole for the past 15 years.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com