Witness In Secret WikiLeaks Grand Jury Hearing Posts Transcript of Questioning 184
Sparrowvsrevolution writes "A year ago, free information advocate and Bradley Manning supporter David House was subpoenaed to testify in the grand jury investigation of WikiLeaks that's taking place in Alexandria, Virginia. Now he's released a transcript of his interrogation that he produced by taking handwritten notes on a legal pad and handing pages to his lawyer during their consultations. Though House pled the fifth and didn't tell the prosecutors much, the notes show the prosecution attorneys focusing their questions on Boston-area hackers as well as Tor developer and WikiLeaks supporter Jacob Appelbaum."
Contempt of Court? (Score:5, Interesting)
Bob Wiechering: Mr. House, I notice you are taking notes. Attempting to create your own transcript is a violation of rule 6(e) of this grand jury. We have brought this to the attention of your counsel, and although he feels differently on the matter, we assert that you must stop taking notes at this time.
David House: Let me consult with my attorney.
[House leaves the grand jury room and returns one minute later]
David House: My lawyer asks that you refer all questions about notes to him.
It would seem that the rule in question [cornell.edu] now puts him in contempt of court? It appears to explicitly mention what is happening here. I wonder what his lawyer told him about taking these notes and then releasing them.
Re:Contempt of Court? (Score:5, Informative)
My reading of that doesn't seem to include the person actually being questioned.
Re:Contempt of Court? (Score:5, Interesting)
>>>Attempting to create your own transcript is a violation of rule 6(e) of this grand jury
They also claim we're not allowed to camera-record, audio-record, or pen-and-paper record our conversations with police/government officials. (And have arrested people for doing it and/or taking their property and erased them.) But the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in August 2011 that the Constitution is a higher law, and it clearly states the People have the inalienable right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press to record/discuss what the cops & government officials are doing to them.
Re:Contempt of Court? (Score:4, Funny)
There is a difference between a public street and a Grand Jury room.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure there should. There are legitimate reasons for security and privacy related to government proceedings. A grand jury session during which the existence of an active undercover operation (or where classified documents are discussed) should not necessarily be broadcast to the public. This is not to say that there shouldn't be proper checks and balances, with non-invested third parties auditing and/or overseeing such processes, but to make the argument that every Grand Jury should be 100% public is a bi
Re: (Score:2)
My reading of that doesn't seem to include the person actually being questioned.
Item (v) under Rule 6(E)(2)(b): "a person who transcribes recorded testimony".
It sounds like that was exactly what he was doing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Contempt of Court? (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder what his lawyer told him about taking these notes and then releasing them.
I'm sure the lawyer told him what the law is.. So that he can then make his own decision as to whether to comply with a restriction on his freedom.
I, for one, am glad that he followed what the constitution, and the basic principles of any truly free society, tells him instead.
Re:Contempt of Court? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm sure his lawyer told him not to.
Now as to if he'll get in trouble, well I don't know. Witnesses aren't part of the grand jury secrecy rule. The jurors themselves, the court recorder, the prosecution, they all have to keep their mouths shut (until after it is all done). However the witnesses, not so much.
However, he created a transcript, which may well put hi in violation. Though he wasn't the official recorder/transcriber, he was recording the proceedings. So that may have put him, or at least his notes, under the secrecy ruling.
I don't know if there is any case law on this. They probably could try and get him in trouble for this. If they'd be successful, who knows?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The transcript notes are for the purposes of accuracy. Those preventing him from doing so would be personally responsible and liable for any inaccuracy.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought secrecy was required afterwards, too, the reason being that people being investigated shouldn't be smeared by questions asked, should charges not be brought.
Also, just asking questions could tip off some other suspect.
Re:Contempt of Court? (Score:4, Interesting)
I thought secrecy was required afterwards, too, the reason being that people being investigated shouldn't be smeared by questions asked, should charges not be brought.
You and I both know that's not really why grand juries are held in secret.
Re:Contempt of Court? (Score:5, Informative)
IANAL but that seems to fail to name witnesses and defendents.
(A) No obligation of secrecy may be imposed on any person except in accordance with Rule 6(e)(2)(B).
Unless these rules provide otherwise, the following persons must not disclose a matter occurring before the grand jury:
(i) a grand juror;
(ii) an interpreter;
(iii) a court reporter;
(iv) an operator of a recording device;
(v) a person who transcribes recorded testimony;
(vi) an attorney for the government; or
(vii) a person to whom disclosure is made under Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) or (iii).
(ii) any government personnelâ"including those of a state, state subdivision, Indian tribe, or foreign governmentâ"that an attorney for the government considers necessary to assist in performing that attorney's duty to enforce federal criminal law; or
(iii) a person authorized by 18 U.S.C. Â3322.
is he fall into any of those catagories?
Re: (Score:2)
I pasted that badly:
the section starting "Unless these rules provide otherwise" is
6(e)(2)(B)
the section starting "any government personnel" is 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) and (iii)
Re: (Score:2)
They'll argue he's bound by subsection (v).
Of course, as powerful people keep learning: you can ruin a man's life over something he discloses, but there are no take-backsies.
Re:Contempt of Court? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless the notes he took were as detailed as this:
Re: (Score:3)
And thankfully there are a never ending stream of people willing to do so. When the that stops, we're doomed.
Re: (Score:2)
He's recording, not transcribing from a record, and I'm not sure if anything he wrote could honestly be considered actual "testimony". They might choose to consider writing on paper "operating a recording device" though.
Re: (Score:3)
He's not an official court transcriber, nor is he transcribing the recording. If they try to argue that he is (and prosecute him), then that means anyone can transcribe any case they are simply in the courtroom for. So either they let him go or acknowledge 1st amendment. I don't see any ways around that.
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt a judge would uphold that argument if it's based only on semantics. That whole spirit of the law is pretty big nowadays.
Re:Contempt of Court? (Score:4, Informative)
This is correct. I used to be a court reporter. The section regarding "a person who transcribes recorded testimony" exists to cover the independent contractors who take audio recordings from the court reporter and do all the boring typing stuff for us. We have to proofread it against the audio again when we get it back before it can be certified as an official transcript.
The contention that a witness can't take notes or can't share them afterwards is pretty remarkable.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect he falls into the category of "a person who transcribes recorded testimony"
Re: (Score:3)
It seems from the wording used, that they were trying to claim that his notepad and pen were "a recording device". This of course is complete bullshit, and would go nowhere fast if they actually tried such.
Re:Contempt of Court? (Score:4, Insightful)
Seeing as how subsection iv uses the same language:
Clearly the "recording device" in 6(e)(2)(B)(iv) mentioned is the same as the one in 6(e)(1). It should be pretty clear that (iv) was meant to apply to the person running the audio or video recorder when the proceedings are recorded instead of (or in addition to) using a court reporter.
Re: (Score:2)
Constitutional Right (Score:2, Interesting)
IANAL either, but imagine a proceeding in which anything that the prosecution writes down or records is considered evidence while anything that the defense writes down is considered contempt of court.
If the prosecution revealed secrets to Mr House, he is not under any obligation to keep them. If Mr. House is found to be breaking the law at the level of the Supreme Court by taking notes at his own interrogation, then the US has just passed into the domain of a fascist state. Similarly, the prosecution has
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Try 236 years old - nowhere close to 'barely' 200 years old.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Alright - I admire Assange. I despise Manning. House? He's on the positive end of that scale. Anyone with the balls to tell a grand jury to go screw themselves deserves some respect. So - on a scale of 1 to 10, House deserves at least a 4, and probably more.
Re:Contempt of Court? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why despise Manning. Sure, he didn't do as he was told and leave all the things in secrecy, but if somebody requests something bad of you, sometimes you really shouldn't do as told. Requesting you keep your mouth shut when you find a whole lot of things that are wrong is wrong. Ignoring something bad is nearly as bad as doing something bad. If we all ignore the wrong things because its our job we are doomed.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You are assuming Manning was completely aware of the content he was distributing. As in he reviewed it and found things that he felt should not be secret. I cannot imagine this course of action because the volume of material was just too great. What I'm sure he did was grab a huge pile of stuff he had no knowledge about and dumped it on someone else with the thought "there must be something juicy in here".
If, however, he had picked out three or ten or even fifty documents and disclosed them he might have
Re: (Score:2)
How can it be both blind and malicious? The two are mutually exclusive.
Re:Contempt of Court? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're probably right, but on the flipside if it wasn't for Manning various families would still think their fathers/husbands were "missing" somewhere in Iraq. They would never have known that the U.S. military was covering-up the fact they killed those journalists and were hiding the evidence. I think any person who exposes a coverup of that magnitude deserves to be thanked. Just as we thank the people who exposed Watergate, Irangate, and the government guns being shipped to druglords in Mexico.
Re: (Score:2)
Uhhhh - let's just check in with reality, alright? How many "journalists" were "disappeared"?
I'm aware of only one. That one dude, the subject of the helicopter attack, who was EMBEDDED in an insurgent unit.
If you have a list of journalists, I'd sure like to see that list.
Re: (Score:3)
The most likely scenario is that Manning HAD seen a few things of note in the small % of the data that he did review. And released the whole thing assuming there was more to be found in a pile of data that one man could not review himself in any reasonable time frame. The amount of data involved was huge. It would literally have taken months or years for 1 man to review it all in his spare time.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
I'll expand on that, a little.
Given a half dozen incidents that indicated a trend on the government's part, Manning could have (and should have) contacted a congress critter. If Congress gave him no satisfaction, a "whistle blower" would have taken his facts outside of government, and exposed that trend. Such a person would be deserving of respect.
As you rightfully point out, Manning had little, if any idea what those millions of pages of documents were all about. He maliciously distributed all t
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry but you shoot yourself in the foot right there, millions of items. On the Assumption that one Manning did as he was accused he with his brief perusal found criminal activity being hidden and, denied, blatant attempts by the government to pervert the course of justice and the more documents he reviewed the more incidents he came across. To make the idiotically childish claim that he can review millions of documents and then only release the ones that he believes contain evidence of the intent of vario
Re: (Score:2)
Is that a softball pitch for Godwining a thread?
Re: (Score:3)
There are quite a few things in the data he released that perturb my moral compass too much.
Re: (Score:2)
When one makes such a promise, there is an implicit promise in the other direction that there is no criminal activity taking place. Criminal activity voids secrecy in such agreements.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Contempt of Court? (Score:5, Informative)
You apparently haven't seen http://www.iraqwarlogs.com/ [iraqwarlogs.com], which is a good place to start. Also check out http://www.collateralmurder.com/ [collateralmurder.com].
There's evidence of many war crimes committed by the US, not merely something embarrassing. Things like this NEED to be exposed, not hidden away with the reasoning of "You took an oath to keep it secret." Sometimes you have to break an oath if the ones who told you to keep quiet are doing evil things.
Re:Contempt of Court? (Score:4, Interesting)
I admire Assange. I despise Manning. House? He's on the positive end of that scale.
That seems fairly weird. Manning (allegedly) is the one whose conscience was in play. Manning decided his government was doing evil things and decided they needed to be outed. Assange designed the program that Manning (allegedly) used to do that. Manning (allegedly) did what Assange advocates, yet you admire the latter and despise the former?
Where did you find that moral code of yours? In a box of CrackerJacks?
Re: (Score:2)
One could argue Manning simply wanted to screw over his employer. His employer happened to be the US army. If Manning had worked at McDonalds, maybe he'd just have taken some money from the till.
Re: (Score:2)
I like wikileaks, but Assange is a jerk, working with RussiaToday and pretending to fight for the truth, yeah right :(
Re: (Score:2)
From what I hear, most newspaper editors are jerks. Assange is just a modern editor.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm nowhere as ignorant as you.
One of the benefits of being smart enough to hold a research director position.
Go play in your fantasy torture world elsewhere.
Re:Contempt of Court? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I think that reads like "we disagree with your lawyer on your right to make notes of the proceedings".
because his lawyer(counsel) feels differently on the matter. that means his lawyer was advising that he could take notes. notice how the court didn't actually stop him from making notes, they just made an empty threat - which makes it a pretty fucked up court proceeding worth transcribing. it just means that they weren't comfortable with anyone outside the court actually knowing what's going on and how the tax dollars are at work(tm).
Jacob Appelbaum's lecal recourse? (Score:3)
I'm more curious as to what Jacob Appelbaum's legal recourse in this is. Clearly he is being targeted by the government for persecution/prosecution. But how can he prove it when all he has is (presumably) illegal evidence? Just another example of how insidious these secret courts/investigations/etc. really are. A citizen is being targeted for persecution for presumably legal activities, and for anyone to even REVEAL that he's being targeted is illegal.
Very one-sided transcript (Score:5, Interesting)
Since he didn't answer anything.
Which is awesome, needless to say - here is clearly someone who doesn't take crap from anyone, and gives not an inch more to authority than he is legally obligated.
Re:This is just... boring (Score:5, Interesting)
You have to play by their rules or you get the worst possible outcome.
Rule #1 - If they can do nasty things to you, NEVER EVER attach your name to things you do.
Rule #2 - Never EVER talk about what you have done to anyone that can attach it to you. Talk anonomously via a secure and untraceable comms channel and for very BRIEF moments. I.E. you are trying to get the information to WikiLeaks, you spend less than 60 seconds asking questions and then go OFFLINE and do not use that path or even made up handle again.
Rule #3 - Your computer is spying on you, Paranoia is key here even silly levels of paranoia. Better safe than sorry. USE a live CD on a laptop and spoof a MAC address just in case.
Rule #4 - I don't care what anyone else calls it, It's espionage in their eyes. The people running the game have guns, they can point them at you and scream traitor. Keep this in mine every single second of the day.
Bradley Manning was incredibly stupid. He was trying to get street cred in the Hax0r scene by bragging to a known Government Informant. Stupid him, epic stupid him.
I don't care what others tell you, the guys that don't get caught use the above formula. The ones that get lazy or sloppy get caught. Ask Mitnick how he got caught.... he became complacent and lazy.
If you cant live the lifestyle or walk the walk for the REST OF YOUR LIFE, then just dont do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Only those who get caught, get arrested and locked up in prison for the rest of their lives.
I'm not going to weigh the morality of what Manning did, but there were much better methods to get the information out, rather than bragging to a known informant
Re:This is just... boring (Score:5, Interesting)
If they (the State, in this case acting as Prosecutor) want to fuck you up the arse, there is NOTHING you can do to prevent it.
What you CAN do is not make their job easy. What you CAN do is make them spend money, because THAT is the limiting factor in their activities. What you CAN do is tell them to fuck off and that you will record what they say and obeying the maxim that for justice to be done it must be seen to be done, publish and be damned.
Re: (Score:2)
Bradley Manning was incredibly stupid. He was trying to get street cred in the Hax0r scene by bragging to a known Government Informant.
He certainly got global "street cred" for what he alegedly did for transparency.
I think a lot of honerable people would rather go down fighting the good fight, "lound and proud", rather then hiding in the shadows sinking to tactics of the enemy.
Re: (Score:2)
There are no "tactics of the enemy". There is only ethical behavior and unethical behavior.
Acquiring secret information and passing it on is espionage, whether in the service of a government or the public good. There is nothing inherently dishonorable or unethical about espionage - unlike, for example, acts of violence against civilians - particularly when the information may help to save lives or end corruption. It is more honorable to do good while hiding in the shadows than to get caught and killed (or t
Re:This is just... boring (Score:5, Insightful)
And by following those rules, you have given them exactly what they want. You have given in to fear and oppression.
As history teaches us, successful resistance comes not from anonymous cowards, it comes from people who stand up and say "I will not tolerate this anymore".
Arab spring, Gandhi, workers rights fights, USA independence... All of them would have failed if the people involved had been anonymous cowards.
Re: (Score:3)
USA independence... All of them would have failed if the people involved had been anonymous cowards.
Which also would have failed if none of the people involved had been anonymous [wikipedia.org]. There are times to agitate openly, and times when it's better to do so in secret. Whatever works, do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Erronous assumption. A critical and rational analysis leads to the conclusion that the anonymity was a negative. What made it work was that the Federalist was exclusively pushing for the federal policy, and thus of course wouldn't engage in critical debate, and there weren't too many critics who could afford their own presses...
In this case, anonymity through a proxy actually served to enforce a specific political direction, while removing the ability to engage in a serious debate, by placing it in an arena
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. The cause gains momentum by becoming public. If you keep it under cover, it only stays in a select circle. It's why censorship and suppression of open communication is so desireable to despots etc. Anonymous, covert communications simply restricts the spread, and prevents the gaining of critical mass. What made all the situations I mentioned able to reach critical mass was the fact that people stood up, said "Fuck this shit!", which let people see that there are indeed people not satisfied.
First rule
Re: (Score:2)
USA independence... All of them would have failed if the people involved had been anonymous cowards.
You seem to be unaware that the people who organized the Boston Tea Party weren't merely anonymous cowards, but actually disguised themselves as American Indians.
Re: (Score:2)
Boston Tea Party was just a single, tactical incident, where they used obfuscation(which is not the same as anonymity), and not a strategic or operational level where using anonymity would have failed. Compare with special ops using camo or plainclothes..
Re: (Score:2)
Bradley Manning's data leak was a single tactical incident too.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it wasn't. Given the data, and the amount of it, and the level it affects, is a strategic and political incident.
Re: (Score:2)
The Boston Tea Party involved an amazingly large number of tea leaves. That doesn't stop it from being a single incident.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoa there! How do you get your tin foil hat cinched on so tight?
Re: (Score:2)
So what have *you* done about it?
Re: (Score:2)
And how exactly is an investigative journalist supposed to get a transcript of the court hearing? Sleep with the judge?
Re: (Score:2)
If s/he catches you, s/he can cite you for contempt.
But isn't a grand jury hearing supposed to be in secret anyway? And merely one of the first steps in the prosecution of an alleged crime? I mean it's practically like demanding a transcript of the prosecutor's preparation for a case.
Re: (Score:2)
in keeping with the process of natural justice, then yes, why not? It's part and parcel of the whole level playing field thing, full disclosure and all that. If disclosure is partial, then there is no justice.
Re:A right way and a wrong way (Score:5, Insightful)
Investigative journalism is the right way to make public information that you think the should be known.
Nobody invited a journalist to visit and record the proceedings, so this is the only way for the public's interest to be served. Another way would be to eliminate secret courts, and secret court proceedings, which is an absolute requirement if we want people to believe we're a democracy.
Re: (Score:3)
Another way would be to eliminate secret courts, and secret court proceedings, which is an absolute requirement if we want people to believe we're a democracy.
Be careful here. If, say, you are in a divorce with your wife, do you want the world to know the gory details?
However, if the prosecutor is the public one, and the defendant agrees to an open court, then you might have a case.
Re:A right way and a wrong way (Score:5, Insightful)
Be careful here. If, say, you are in a divorce with your wife, do you want the world to know the gory details?
Marriage is a legal institution and the details aren't a secret in some states. Why should the details of the divorce be? If there is no public interest in marriage, why does it even exist as a legal institution at all?
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's your personal life, no crimes were committed, it and doesn't have anything to do with anyone other than your spouse and you.
"If there is no public interest in marriage, why does it even exist as a legal institution at all?"
Good point, and exactly why married people shouldn't receive any benefits not afforded to an unmarried individual. The government shouldn't be ince
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent UP! (Score:2, Interesting)
This is a fascinating way of looking at it. It's very consistent, too.
There is a very strong movement within about half of US's voters, to expand the role of government to further manage marriage. And even if that expansion does not succeed, their rhetoric constantly and consistently speaks of marriage as a public institution, and where third parties and the public at large, have a compelling interest in other people's marriage. Their position is that marriage is not merely a relationship between two peo
Re: (Score:2)
Marriage is a civil contract, generally for mutual benefits and the benefit of (potential) children.
As such, it is governed by laws and courts.
Re: (Score:2)
..maybe divorce court proceedings shouldn't include gory details. why do you need proof of infidelity etc crap for getting a divorce? it should just need the person saying that he/she wants it - it's not a slavery contract.
court proceedings possibly meaningful on national political level should of course be public, public like the sessions to discuss the laws to be made should be.
Re: (Score:2)
In most states in the US there is such a thing as "no fault divorce". The problem is, if one person wants to screw over the other and get as much money and assets as possible "no fault" doesn't really accomplish that goal. What you need is dirt and plenty of it to threaten to drag out - or even actually drag out - to make the other person look as bad as possible. The reward for doing this is perhaps getting enough as a settlement to never have to work again, ever.
Sure, it would be nice if people could ju
Re: (Score:2)
..maybe divorce court proceedings shouldn't include gory details. why do you need proof of infidelity etc crap for getting a divorce? it should just need the person saying that he/she wants it - it's not a slavery contract.
I think the details are not for the divorce itself, but to decide related matters such as alimony/palimony and custody of children. If one spouse has cheated, causing the divorce, I think they are less likely to receive alimony or custody. IANAL so this may be completely wrong.
Re:A right way and a wrong way (Score:5, Informative)
Be careful here. If, say, you are in a divorce with your wife, do you want the world to know the gory details?
You're missing the difference between a civil suit and a criminal one.
In a civil suit, two civilian (hence "civil") parties are in dispute and require the court's assistance in reaching a resolution. A divorce is a good example. (I will add as a footnote that, at least here in Canada, ALL court proceedings are a matter of public record, divorces included. Therefore if you seek the court's assistance in resolving your divorce it will become a matter of public record. Whether or not that ought to be the case is something I won't get into since it would take me into a long editorializing rant full of my personal opinions and that's quite OT).
In a criminal suit it's the government (presumably the "public") against a citizen who has committed a crime.
In a free and open society all criminal suits ought to be a matter of public record and be open because it's one of the best tools we have for keeping the government honest and fair. That's why we have jury trials and public records and transcriptions etc. It's also a powerful tool to aid in proving someone's innocence after they were falsely convicted (by proving mistrials etc.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. At least the defendant should have a say in whether the records should be open or not.
Re: (Score:2)
If the court proceeding is a matter of public record, and you were found innocent, it's the employer's problem if they want to lose out on your services because of irrational biases and fear. Besides, do you really want to work at such a place ?
Not to mention, with that kind of stain associated with someone who was simply accused of a crime, it's more incentive for the public to hold their government accountable, and provide severe repercussions for falsely convicting and accusing someone.
How to go about "f
Re: (Score:2)
Ideally, in any lawsuit, including divorce, the court shouldn't go offtopic or subjective, and should only concentrate on the matter at hand. Unfortunately, most judges don't really value the privacy of the parties involved. Thus, I have to agree with you, until lawyers will be forbidden to dig up your whole life in an unrelated case, sometimes having the trial behind closed doors is the better alternative.
Re:A right way and a wrong way (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Overall, the secrecy of grand juries helps the little guy.
That might be true, I'm not an expert and I haven't built any statistics on the subject. But in this case we're dealing with a political issue and we need to know what is being said on our behalf.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, if the hearings were more public, perhaps prosecutors would be reigned in a bit and be forced to confine prosecution to cases where there was clearly a violation of the law and where prosecution is properly in the public interest.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes,and if prosecutors are afraid that misconduct with the grand jury will come to light, they'll stop gaming the system to get unjust indictments.
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing a REAL American distrusts the government on is taxes. Only commies don't unquestioningly trust the government on every matter except raising taxes on the wealthy or corporations. Otherwise you should not ask any questions and let the government do anything it wants in secret. Only citizens should not be allowed any secrecy or privacy.
Re: (Score:3)
. . . Another way would be to eliminate secret courts, and secret court proceedings, which is an absolute requirement if we want people to believe we're a democracy.
But . . . we arent a democracy . . . .
Re: (Score:3)
But . . . we arent a democracy . . . .
On one hand, I agree with you. We are a corporatocracy masquerading as a republic. However, that republic often pays lip service to the idea of democracy. I do think that before we go trying to spread it to other nations, we should try it here...
Re: (Score:2)
But the main Amendment that tipped the scales from the national government of the United States being a mere republic to being a true representative democracy was the often-overlooked Seventeenth Amendment, which took effect in 1913. Since 1913 the U.S. Senate has been elected directly by the voters, rather than being appointed by the state legislatures. That makes the national government democratic in form, as well as being a republic.
From http://www.williampmeyers.org/republic.html [williampmeyers.org]
Re: (Score:2)
This wasn't a court, it was a grand jury. They are secret to protect the innocent from having their names tainted. The process may sometimes be abused for the purpose of hassling people, but calling it a "secret court proceeding" is still wrong. Civilian court proceedings are public and handled by judges and juries.
Re: (Score:2)
"which is an absolute requirement if we want people to believe we're a REPUBLIC." - FTFY
Fucked that for me? Thanks. I said what I meant, and I meant what I said. Go troll elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
So according to this quote, apparently WikiLeaks is now forcing people to be whistleblowers?
Re: (Score:2)
No, by outsourcing the blowing of a whistle to wikileaks you allow them to determine whether to blow it.
The quote's point was that you should blow it yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
So if you give information to WikiLeaks, you no longer have it yourself and can't release it?