Comment by hackuser | Hacker News Reader

Comment by hackuser | Hacker News Reader

The key point of the article: The government discovered that the head of Temple's physics department had transferred to China schematics for a 'pocket heater', which is used for semiconductor research and for which he had signed some sort of NDA (I don't know with whom). The FBI arrested him, handcuffed him, led him away; and the U.S. attorney charged him. You can imagine the effect on his job, reputation, etc. We pick up the story here:

But months later, long after federal agents had led Dr. Xi away in handcuffs, independent experts discovered something wrong with the evidence at the heart of the Justice Department’s case: The blueprints were not for a pocket heater.

Faced with sworn statements from leading scientists, including an inventor of the pocket heater, the Justice Department on Friday afternoon dropped all charges against Dr. Xi, an American citizen.

My concern is, do heads roll at the FBI and U.S. Attorney's office after a failure like that? Is there accountability?

The key point of the article, to me, is really not in the article at all but in one of the comments.

   Tobin    Worcester    22 minutes ago

   Once again, the government is demonstrating that we 
   cannot trust it to wisely use the evidence that it is 
   collecting on us.

It just goes to show how we as private citizens are accountable to our government, but the reverse is never true. Rest assured no heads will roll over this. No lawsuits will be won or even be permitted. No elections will be lost, no careers ruined. The prosecutor's office will continue to run 100% open-loop, as usual.

See also the case of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wen_Ho_Lee

That's because you'll continue to vote for the same party that's responsible for it. You can blame the government all you want, but almost everybody in America is to blame for either voting for it or not voting for anyone else.

Yes yes, voting for that other faction of the Party will totally help.

Sorry to be the one to tell you - the only boxen left are the ammo box and the s-box.

I suspect you've never tried to be involved in politics.

It's actually pretty easy to effect change, especially at a local level, because so few people put in the time to try it; it's a lot easier, I guess, to sit around on the internet posting about "ammo box" recourse.

Try volunteering on a campaign in your home town, you'll be surprised at the people you meet and the outcomes you can play a role in.

I've helped with, and seen others fight for, various local political causes, none of which went the way any of us wanted. You can effect change, but only if the change you want is already going to happen anyway, and your opposition will vandalize your property and slander your name.

And downmod you, apparently...

At the even more local level, you can effect changes to things in your own living space quite easily.

Something clearly does not scale up.

A major point to the rule of law is to protect assorted minority interests from the majority. The larger the group, the stronger the groupthink.

How in the world are you able to interpret this as a partisan issue?

Uh, because the actions of the Justice department are a direct function of whatever the Executive branch wants to focus on.

The Attorney General is nominated by the president. They decide who the federal government prosecutes. It is absolutely political.

The surveillance state machinery has been a long time building, under the aegis of both parties. I think the Republicans push this with more vigor than the Democrats, but Democratic administrations such as the current one keep the machinery running.

This is not a greater debate about the vague idea of a surveillance state, it's about a very concrete case the federal government could either choose to prosecute or choose to drop. The current administration chose to prosecute.

That decision was a decision entirely up to the executive branch, which is entirely up to the electorate. Making (not well supported) assertions about "republican adminstrations pushing a surveillance state" does not change those facts.

Most of the people who work at the DoJ are not elected or appointed, and they probably have a fair amount of influence on what is visible to the AG.

So which party or candidate has made dismantling the DoJ their key issue? Because a president really only gets one or two Big Things plausibly accomplished.

The Democrats clearly won't do it, and we can rest assured the Republicans will busy themselves with abortion and warmongering with Iran.

Then vote third party, and when your friends tell you to vote for Hillary! explain to them exactly why you're not doing it: that she will do nothing to tear down the Bush/Obama surveillance state that went after people like Xi and Schwartz, and indeed will probably expand it.

Third parties do change things, even if it's just the major parties co-opting their positions after getting a scare in the election. "Hey, Party X took ten percent of the vote simply by opposing mass surveillance. Maybe we should get some of that action."

It would have likely gone the same way with any other administration.

My CEO doesn't watch what I do on a daily or ever basis. I have my assignments and my evaluation criteria, and that criteria does not change when the CEO changes.

Personnel at the working level don't change much with new administrations, and the personnel rules and evaluation criteria likely don't change at all. Agents have to investigate and arrest, prosecutors have to prosecute and win.

I'm sure the President and AG had no hand in deciding whether to start and continue this investigation.

Both parties are bad on DoJ operations because both parties' insiders and base voters like an abusive DoJ. Vote for Rand Paul or Bernie Sanders in the primary and -- if enough fellow Americans agree -- you could change that. If candidates like that start getting votes, others will follow along on better DoJ operation.

It is entirely the responsibility of intellectuals and opinion leaders -- including ordinary smart people like HN readers -- that Americans haven't been educated to care and vote on the issue. We appear ready to continue voting for it to get worse.

Law enforcement does have politics involved, but individual administrations don't have as much control over it as you describe. The Justice Department's priorities transcend election cycles, because not everybody -- in fact, hardly anybody, all told -- is replaced every term. A person can work their entire career for the Feds; there are multigenerational traditions and political momentums operating there that no President can counteract.

US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President.

Sure, but the people who work for the US Attorneys, where do they come from? And what is the pool of people from which the president chooses US Attorneys? This is an organizational/cultural thing.

There are only 210 appointments in the Department of Justice, which has over 110,000 employees. The FBI itself has over 35,000 employees.

Are you sure it was a partisan comment? Which party was he talking about? Maybe he was talking about the party, the Republican/Democrat establishment? (I don't know, but that's possible)

Yes, saying that a problem can be solved by voting different people into office is a partisan argument. The problem is bigger than the voting cycle.

It's almost as if it's the very nature of government that leads to this condition.

But if you point that out, you get told to move to Somalia if you don't like it.

Which party do you think hasn't promoted widespread surveillance without accountability?

The Green Party?

Cyber Party

Pirate Party

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

And I voted for None of the Above, i.e. third party.

Those good people who want to change the system in a big way seem to get assassinated or wait until the end of their term to voice the concerns they've had to the public - though couldn't touch the policy for. Alternatively they don't get into power because the for-profit systems can pay much more to lobbies and then the better way people don't have the same marketing power.

>>My concern is, do heads roll at the FBI and U.S. Attorney's office after a failure like that? Is there accountability?

There should be a minimum $500k USD awarded to anyone who's arrested by USgov but then found innocent. Of course the problem this will cause is that if USgov arrests you... they will try their hardest to find any kind of violation on you. And as we know, the law is so complicated that chances are if USgov looks hard enough they can find dirt on anyone. So... as much as I wish they were held accountible, the pain they'd put you through to make sure they're not found in the wrong makes me hesitant to levy anything on them.

I want it to be much easier for them to admit being wrong than going forward with pressing charges.

"Of course the problem this will cause is that if USgov arrests you... they will try their hardest to find any kind of violation on you."

No the problem with that is tax payers are punished for shitty government official decisions. The officers and officials don't have to pay, they have "endless" funds. Individual actors need to be held accountable. The DoJ is now focusing on criminally charging executives at companies, not just the companies themselves, for breaking laws. Government officers and officials should also be held accountable.

> No the problem with that is tax payers are punished for shitty government official decisions.

Which would hopefully motivate the tax payer to hold their government officials accountable while helping restore those harmed. Hopefully...

> Individual actors need to be held accountable.

Agreed.

Guess who is ultimately responsible for shitty government decisions in a representative democracy... If the people are technically the source of government power, the people as a whole should bear the responsibility of ensuring that good government is elected. Punishing the taxpayers broadly ensures accountability from the top (the people).

> Of course the problem this will cause is that if USgov arrests you... they will try their hardest to find any kind of violation on you.

So require them to pay you for everything they charge you with but don't convict you of. At a minimum it would put a good sized dent in prosecutorial overcharging.

I think this would incentivize people who don't make anywhere close to $500k USD to make themselves appear shady in a gamble to later get off years later with the payout.

> My concern is, do heads roll at the FBI and U.S. Attorney's office after a failure like that? Is there accountability?

Never worked in the FBI, but just based on how rabid the US govt appears to be over prosecuting and winning, threatening people with ruin so that they can get any win ...

No, not a single head will roll. At most, relevant supervisors will console the investigators and prosecutors. "Well, bad break kid, the guy was innocent."

I really don't think it's about enforcing the law, or protecting the public or the Constitution, it's about annual reviews and advancement.

We are resources for law enforcement.

No, they won't say "the guy is innocent" -- they'll say "bad break kid, the guy got off ... on a technicality."

>My concern is, do heads roll at the FBI and U.S. Attorney's office after a failure like that? Is there accountability?

Who's going to hold them accountable? Those who fund them have no choice in the matter, so it's naive to expect accountability in the first place.

A small change I would make would be to allow appellate courts to ban prosecutors and police officers. A ban meaning they can't bring cases before the court or testify. Bans could be temporary or permanent.

Yellow and Red cards, just like soccer. This idea actually has some merit.

wow... this is really clever. personal accountability and an incentive to not pursue any charges not clearly backed up by the facts.

Nothing will roll. In fact, Dr. Xi won't even receive an apology or acknowledgement that something wrong happened here. He probably can and should sue in this case, as they destroyed his reputation over a "mistake". The government either a) brought these charges due to extreme negligence, or b) brought the case in bad faith, knowing that their case was fatally flawed from the beginning and were looking to use the charges to extort Dr. Xi into cooperating against his Chinese counterparts. Either way, the government is liable for the damages its actions caused.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com