8 ms·

Obama DOJ’s New Abuse of State-Secrets Privilege Revealed

80 points by t0dd 13y ago

puppetmaster3 13y ago
He is an accomplished liar. Catch him if you can.
LocalPCGuy 13y ago
Why is this on Hacker News?
itbeho 13y ago
A by-product of all the big government so many people seem enamored with lately: big bureaucracy. Expect more nameless and blameless officials "checking the wrong box" in the future.
- superuser2 13y ago
  Have you ever dealt with a large private health insurance, telecom, airline, banking, or other company? They don't care about you either unless you're large enough that losing your business would actually matter. They don't care about you at all if it's impossible to lose your business (i.e. employer-provided health insurance, cable companies). This is a ridiculous claim.
  - vishaldpatel 13y ago
    The US gov't is much bigger than all these corps combined. And they have multiple police forces. Oh, whats that? You don't like our service? Too bad, because there's no other game in town. And no, you're not allowed to disrupt the government.
    - AlexMax 13y ago
      > And no, you're not allowed to disrupt the government. What do you call voting?
      - vishaldpatel 13y ago
        Like owning a single share in a very large monopoly. Except you're both the shareholder and the customer. The share loses value everyday and the service could be better.
  - pdeuchler 13y ago
    This sounds like a knee-jerk reaction to someone talking down on "big government". The choice between "big government" and "big business" is a false dichotomy, if that's what you're getting at.
    - AlexMax 13y ago
      > The choice between "big government" and "big business" is a false dichotomy, if that's what you're getting at. What is the third choice? Anarchy? What if I prefer not to be dragged out of my house and beaten to death by a mob?
  - garfelnagel 13y ago
    Not ridiculous at all: a company can't send an armed drone after you. Or a soldier. Or an FBI agent. Get the drift?
sitkack 13y ago
Holder claims that exposing the reason for denial of entry to the US > "could reasonably be expected to cause significant harm to national security." Which on the face of it is true, because: > The bogus national security claims invoked were even more outrageous because they were used to continue the persecution of someone the government knew to be innocent. Exposing the truth makes us look bad. Making us look bad puts our bullshit, freedom harming programs at risk. We serve those programs, those programs are the most important thing (and not looking bad).

80 points by t0dd 13y ago

puppetmaster3 13y ago

He is an accomplished liar. Catch him if you can.

LocalPCGuy 13y ago

Why is this on Hacker News?

itbeho 13y ago

A by-product of all the big government so many people seem enamored with lately: big bureaucracy. Expect more nameless and blameless officials "checking the wrong box" in the future.

superuser2 13y ago
Have you ever dealt with a large private health insurance, telecom, airline, banking, or other company? They don't care about you either unless you're large enough that losing your business would actually matter. They don't care about you at all if it's impossible to lose your business (i.e. employer-provided health insurance, cable companies). This is a ridiculous claim.
- vishaldpatel 13y ago
  The US gov't is much bigger than all these corps combined. And they have multiple police forces. Oh, whats that? You don't like our service? Too bad, because there's no other game in town. And no, you're not allowed to disrupt the government.
  - AlexMax 13y ago
    > And no, you're not allowed to disrupt the government. What do you call voting?
    - vishaldpatel 13y ago
      Like owning a single share in a very large monopoly. Except you're both the shareholder and the customer. The share loses value everyday and the service could be better.
- pdeuchler 13y ago
  This sounds like a knee-jerk reaction to someone talking down on "big government". The choice between "big government" and "big business" is a false dichotomy, if that's what you're getting at.
  - AlexMax 13y ago
    > The choice between "big government" and "big business" is a false dichotomy, if that's what you're getting at. What is the third choice? Anarchy? What if I prefer not to be dragged out of my house and beaten to death by a mob?
- garfelnagel 13y ago
  Not ridiculous at all: a company can't send an armed drone after you. Or a soldier. Or an FBI agent. Get the drift?

sitkack 13y ago

Holder claims that exposing the reason for denial of entry to the US > "could reasonably be expected to cause significant harm to national security." Which on the face of it is true, because: > The bogus national security claims invoked were even more outrageous because they were used to continue the persecution of someone the government knew to be innocent. Exposing the truth makes us look bad. Making us look bad puts our bullshit, freedom harming programs at risk. We serve those programs, those programs are the most important thing (and not looking bad).