Topic: Ortiz could not've handled the Swartz case differently.. (Read 450 times)

She needs to go.

I am an atheist. Although many religions have good points to them, I think there are many very stupid things about religions. Organizations dealing with religion seems to be nothing else but a power trip. I think religion should be something personal, and you would not need to travel anywhere, or go to huge buildings to worship your God. In fact, your God merely existing in your thoughts, without you needing any external symbols to point to him, would suffice.

So I won't contest anyone's personal faith unless they stand screaming in my face trying to convert me.

I love this quote:

I wanted to go on a tangent about John Adams' quote:

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

The argument for anarchy usually runs along the lines that a government always inevitably resorts to force ("government armed with power," says Adams).

I argue against anarchy specifically because I still believe the people will follow a shared moral code.

A legitimate government should not continually be abusing its powers to point guns at innocent people–a government doing that is violating its founding principles.

The Declaration of Independence is a good rebuttal to anarchy, stating that a just government can exist. It is set up by the people, by "the consent of the governed," to stand for the shared moral code the people follow.

Here's my 2 satoshis worth:

In any sort of representative government the people must keep a close eye on their appointed leaders.

Plato, The Republic: "...he who refuses to rule is liable to be ruled by one who is worse than himself. And the fear of this, as I conceive, induces the good to take office, not because they would, but because they cannot help–not under the idea that they are going to have any benefit or enjoyment themselves, but as a necessity..."

I know, I know. The problem is– ideas like "fault" or "mistake" or "human nature" isn't politically correct.

Pick a side: "nobody is perfect" is along the lines of George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Patrick Henry, and Samuel Adams. John Adams said, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

I guess I should avoid trying to quote the other side as I'm obviously biased; it basically boils down to, "do whatever you want and run to the Federal Government if you're in serious trouble."

Actually yes–I believe if Ortiz were to admit prosecutorial overreach the case has enough public outcry as to set a precedent which would curtail the activities of the US Department of Justice. Curtailing the abuse of power, even though it's obviously right, is an admission that morality and religion still have a voice in the Federal Government. Ortiz has chosen a side.

Either the Federal Government is always right or there is some higher authority. You and me individually do not get to choose. Therefore, a lie is either wrong, always wrong–or the Federal Government is right, always right.

Either there is a moral code that must be followed–all major religions include a moral code–or the Federal Government sets the moral code.

There's nobody else big enough to even compete.

Absolutely!

There is still a large group of people who follow a standard moral code. Human nature being what it is, the Federal Government cannot be trusted. We should set some limits on the Federal Government–checks and balances–to rein in human nature, stemming from that moral code which delineates where human nature is ok and where it fails.

Pressing for political change on the basis of a shared moral code has worked in the past, so it's not a stretch to think Americans might still rally to it.

>Ortiz is a politician. She will never admit wrong-doing.

I never understood this. Does politicians automatically assume that all onlookers are naive stupid sheep ?

Personally, I would think politicians admitting to faults, would be much better. We're all humans. Politicians or nobody else for that matter, is no different than you or me. We all make mistakes. This is human nature. Sometimes we do fuck up, and sometimes the fuckups are bigger and more serious than other times.

Anything else is stupid. Nobody is perfect. Nobody.

This whole idea of painting a professional flawless image of a person, it's fishy. And it makes me trust people less. I'd rather see that someone admits that they did something wrong and will work hard to change it in the future. The point of politicians being sociopaths to a certain degree, I can understand. But I don't see any point in being a politician if you don't honestly want to work to creating a better society. If the only point is to advance your own career, or reap benefits, then you are by my defintion a worthless scumbag.

What implications would it have for her career if she admitted that she overdid it in the Swartz case, and that she will change it in the future ? Would she at this point be done. Would she have to retire from her position ?

I have absolutely zero respect for any authority that is a liar. In important matters, when I see someone lying, even if they have all the power in the world, that doesn't change a thing for me. A liar is a liar.

I am inclined to believe that people who never admit to doing anything wrong are little people with too big ego's. Everybody makes mistakes, everybody have their issues. Believing anything else, is stupid, and I don't know who buys into it, unless the public is really stupid.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-states-district-attorney-carmen-ortiz-office-overreach-case-aaron-swartz/RQNrG1Ck

It seems like at least almost 50.000 people are not stupid, and want her removed.

Of course, she can not be held directly responsible to the death of Swartz, as she didn't pull any trigger, but she can not dismiss the fact that she may have largely contributed to it happening. Also there's a hell of a lot of difference in waht Swartz did and what some organized crime boss dealing with narcotics, human-traficking etc. does. Cases needs to be treated separately, and her talking about keeping the internet and networks safe in regards to the prosecution of Swartz, it makes no sense whatsoever.

I think a general rule of thumb is that when you have no fucking clue about what you're dealing with, then consult some professionals in the field. Swartz was no big threat to anybody, and Ortiz should've realized this. Threatening a man known to have depression (this message was also delivered to the prosecution by his lawyers to which they responded: Great, jail will be a safe place for him then) with upwards of 35 years in jail and a 1 million dollar fine for a case like this, lacks all kinds of proportions and is just insane.

If someone doesn't see this, they deserve not to hold any politican position whatsoever. They need to step down.

I think strength lies in admitting faults, being able to say sorry and being honest. Always and never admitting to faults and errors only makes me believe you're a total tool, that deserves absolutely zero respect. A mature, intelligent and humble adult will admit to making mistakes. This is not a weakness, but a strength.

Continuing to push ones agenda when it is so clear that the pressure (in Swartz case) was disproportionate is stupid beyond words. Sometimes I do wonder if I live in the same world as such politicians.

This.  Admitting she was wrong and in this case pointless and overzealous prosecution had horrible consequences may be the humane thing to do but all politicians (IMHO) are sociopaths to some degree. 

Politicians never admit wrong.  Ever.  It is the (not so) unwritten rule of politics.  If she admitted wrong she would rejoin the human race but here political career would be for all intents and purposes over. 

Defiant to the end.  In time people will forget about this case and she will have left the door for further public "service" open as a politician that doesn't make mistakes.

One can only hope.

Ortiz is a politician. She will never admit wrong-doing.

However, I believe the political storm currently surrounding her is having quite the effect. She is likely to disappear, quietly. This is the end of her political career.

And she will not change how she handles similar cases in the future.

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2013/01/ortiz_says_suicide_will_not_change_handling_cases