A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.
Lex I'll give a pass on because I can see he is genuinely trying to find a flaw that isn't there. Chaseter is just a contrarian that will argue against most things for the sake of arguing.
They aren't going to get it Matt....just not going to happen. That's ok....it's just not gettin' through the noggin.....
Clearly. I don't know how you do it every day. I envy your patience as a teacher.
U.S. v. Dotterweich is a strict liability case. Strict liability cases (such as statutory rape, certain public health code violations, etc) waive intent because the Defendant is knowingly conducting high risk behavior (or should know). Basically when you enter into certain acts, there is an assumption of risk so high that even if you act in good faith, you are still criminally liable. They still include an intent component --- the intent to undertake the high risk act.
Like Lex, you are wrong. Even strict liability crimes require intent, just not intent to commit the unlawful act, rather intent to engage in high risk behavior with full knowledge of potential consequence.
Key component of criminal law:
Guilty act
Guilty mind
No crime without either. Its that simple. You are wrong.
My students are teachable....
Harboring classified data on unsecured home servers is not high risk behavior?
I'm happy to know you stand behind all lawyers because they went to law school. That means you agree with OJ being innocent because his lawyers went to good law schools.
What do you mean by right? Do you mean ethical? Matt is using the letter of the law to state how Clinton isn't guilty in this case. You disagreeing with the law does not mean that the justice system is failing. This isn't the same as with OJ, given the theatrics of the trial and how juries can be swayed by emotion and not fact.
Matt is using facts to argue his position. You are using emotion.
Ethics is a whole other topic.
The law is not infallible and neither are it's administrators. Otherwise, there would never be no controversy, ever. DJ would be applauding George Zimmerman's innocence according to the law.
And yet you still miss the entire point of what Matt has been saying....
Knowledge does not equal intent...
WHAT WAS HER INTENT? What did she plan on doing that would equal her being guilty of anything that was on the books at the time this all happened?
Where is her guilt of "espionage"? What 3rd party was she handing over government secrets to?
I can show you where her guilt of "stupidity" and "bad judgment" was, but where is her intent of wrong doing on anything that is in the law? CRIMINAL LAW not the Law of Ethics....
Exactly what was her intent? If they cannot spell it out, they cannot prosecute it....
You can go all day with ridiculous examples of breaking traffic laws or whatever, but exactly what was her intent, and if you can spell that out, then what law did she intend to break?
Hillary didn't break any laws...
Hillary didn't break any laws... I guess (not an expert, but I will take your word for it), but I don't buy this ignorance thing. Especially given what was going on at the time. I recall reading that people had been telling her she was breaking protocol.
The point is that Clinton took classified information that was in the custody of the United States Department of State. The word espionage is just a word here and not the act. It's only being used here because it is the unofficial title of the Act in which the laws she broke reside. See Espionage Act of 1917. 1917. Emails have since been admitted as evidence, the same as an official written memo. Even the Director of the FBI calls her actions unreasonable. The law interprets against her. The classified documents existed outside the custody of the US Government.
Again, she took classified information out of the US Government's custody. Every letter she sent in communications with certain recipients made the emails classified the moment they were typed. These classified documents existed outside of the US Government's control and punishable by fine and/or ten years imprisonment.
She signed an NDA disclosing consequences for breaking the Government's security protocols. She then willingly broke those laws because they were not flexible enough for her standard of living. In the process, she put American lives in danger and American interests at risk. This seems to be the makings of a trend that goes back 30 years.
ETA: I'll leave this topic with this. As someone that works in Information Assurance, I appreciate this case more than most. If anything comes from this fubar, I hope that it is policy reform across Governments, private sectors, and individuals. The Internet is an amazing tool to help accomplish many different tasks and I hope people fully grasp the need for security when security is needed.
Protocol and law are two different things. One is not subject to criminal charges for breaking protocol.