25,000 People Sign Petition to Remove Aaron Swartz's Prosecutors

The intent of the petition was to put the idea that her behavior was questionable into the Presidents head.

Most likely she's working with her crisis PR team to figure out how to get in front of the issue. Which would involve a complete housecleaning of the office in MA.

See http://bluemassgroup.com/2013/01/its-bigger-than-carmen-orti...

As that article points out she is a political appointee and as such, is a legitimate focus for political outrage.

Not so much, chances are she is taking a pay cut by working for the federal government.

Seriously, you are equating job loss as a harsh consequence when she threatens 35 years of jail time to people?

I don't think it works that way, honestly. The majority of people at that level are so well off that they don't get hit that hard. They don't really get hit at all. They have a million opportunities after being let go. Even looking into someone like Nixon, where do you go from there. He received 2 millions to write his memoirs, was paid millions for interviews etc. I don't doubt it would drastically alter her career, at least from the path she was on. But she has a certain right to uphold a set of ethics, when prosecutors overstep their power, they are no more infallible than you or I. In that role, it's always on the table as a consequence. People keep referencing how she's one of the "good guys" without any real knowledge of her previous work. Her entire career may of been built on top of prosecutorial overreach. When you put away bad people, people don't care how you do it. She finally picked the wrong person to make an example of. But even if she's let go, believe me, she'll do just fine.

Similar pressure? In what world are they even comparable?

We are talking about firing someone, not even a weekend in prison. Give me a break.

> It's being targeted by the hateful vengeance of an Internet crowd that is so convinced of the truth of its accusations and that it knows all the relevant facts, that it doesn't even give her a chance to defend herself before casting the judgement over here.

Versus being targeted by the full weight of the US attorney's office that is so convinced of the truth of its accusations and that it knows all the relevant facts that it piles on trumped up charges to force someone to not defend himself in court?

When the internet crowd has the ability to have her imprisoned against her will, you can compare the situations.

Yeah, because the world is like a Batman comic, right?

When "good guys" screw up, they must take the same responsibility they ask of "bad guys". When "good guys" resort to bully or torture weaker opponents, they are as bad as anyone.

As the page notes, some of those cases are also very controversial. Particularly the case of Tarek Mehanna, who was convicted of aiding a terrorist organization for translating some of their documents into English. No evidence was offered that he had assisted with their operations; the criminal offense was letting the rest of us know what they are thinking. (Do you feel safer not knowing? I don't.)

Here's the ACLU page on the Mehanna case:

http://aclum.org/usa_v_mehanna

This case did not result in a suicide; it did, however, feature a sentence of over 17 years.

My spouse has spent most of the past twenty years as a clinical social worker at hospice agencies. Stints in between include geriatrics, oncology, and Alzheimer's patients. I've spent some time talking about people's reactions to death and disease. It's not the sort of stuff one leaves at the office. That office includes phone calls at 3am on a Thursday to attend a death.

Getting someone fired won't honor Swartz - at least that's my opinion. It won't change the law - and that's a fact.

I remember the Bush era firings. I didn't think they made a positive change in America. I don't think firing Swartz's prosecutor will either. I think we are better served by people who learn from their mistakes.

Loud, angry, effective.