Hacker News Reader

Comment by alimov | Hacker News Reader

While the methods may differ, is this not true of any governments intelligence agencies? Whether or not there is press/courts/rule of law. For press to report on an event they have to be aware of it, for courts to intervene they also have to be aware of it, for rule of law to matter then no part of a government can operate outside of it in any manner, so no extrajudicial actions either.

View on HN

The point of press/courts/rule of law is that at least you have a chance. Without those, no chance. That matters.

The US is not some monolithic entity. It's almost weirdly schizophrenic. Yes, the government will e.g. use some super-shaky legal arguments to justify torture ahem "enhanced interrogation", but on the other hand Freedom of Information Act requests still get processed. Yes, the NSA will spy on US citizens, but even they feel the need to come up with some legalistic / procedural cover.

Even as the US's checks and balances are tested, and structural inequalities are examined, there is a broad and deep tradition of fighting the government and not going to jail like Navalny.

The traditions and norms of a country's populace, and its institutions really really matter, especially when their institutions are being tested.

Corruption is everywhere, but this is too simplistic a pattern-match.

EDIT> Knight-Ridder did some fantastic and courageous investigative journalism debunking the US casus belli in the run-up to the Iraq Invasion. It didn't stop the invasion, but they were recognized later. Can we imagine that happening in Russia?

> Knight-Ridder did some fantastic and courageous investigative journalism debunking the US casus belli in the run-up to the Iraq Invasion. It didn't stop the invasion, but they were recognized later. Can we imagine that happening in Russia?

This type of thing is something I wish people would recognize more. In Russia right now, the simple act of participating in a peaceful protest against the war in Ukraine could easily land you in jail. While the US government has at times had a sketchy anti-protest track record, can we really imagine the US federal government attempting to pass a law today that makes it a jail-able offense to speak out against a US military action? (Hint: the answer is, unequivocally, no.)

> This type of thing is something I wish people would recognize more. In Russia right now, the simple act of participating in a peaceful protest against the war in Ukraine could easily land you in jail.

It's even worse than that: merely calling a war a war can land you in jail:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/crisis-in-ukraine-to-russia-it-...:

> Russia insists that it is not at “war” in Ukraine, instead referring to its violent campaign as a “special military operation.” Under a harsh new law, Russians now face up to 15 years in prison if they spread “fake” reports and call the conflict what it is: a “war” and “invasion.”

> The point of press/courts/rule of law is that at least you have a chance. Without those, no chance. That matters.

I agree with you.

Thanks I’ll check it out

“there is a broad and deep tradition of fighting the government and not going to jail like Navalny.”

Guess the 98% Federal conviction rate isn’t accounted for when talking about the deep tradition of citizens fighting the government.

Personal opinion, all governments are corrupt, including the US

Dude it's 98% because the feds only take slam dunk cases to trial, and they're extremely professional. Seriously, read up on bad convictions, it's nearly always state or local judicial systems. Frequently it is federal prosecutors that break open the corruption.

All governments are corrupt, but is it remotely plausible they are equally corrupt? Are they not comparable?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com