Hacker News Reader

Comment by ChuckMcM | Hacker News Reader

So for those of you wondering about Jury nullification, the way it would work in this case is that Levison would reveal that the NSA was hounding him with NSL letters, they would charge him with violating the terms of the NSL and the jury would acquit him anyway.

I hope we can get a case like that to move that aspect of the conversation forward. It helped get bad laws off the books in the civil rights cases and it would help here.

View on HN

I have a hunch that mentioning jury nullification as a potential juror will get you removed from the pool pretty quickly.

Yup, and prosecutors may well ask juror candidates what they think about it.

> It helped get bad laws off the books in the civil rights cases and it would help here.

I'm assuming you're referring to Rosa Parks-style civil disobedience and not so-called "jury nullification". The latter had an important role in the history of the civil rights mvt, but not a pretty one.

No, he's referring to jury nullification. Like almost any tool, it can be misused for unethical purposes, as it sometimes was against my fellow Americans of African descent in hundred years leading up to the civil rights movement. However, at an earlier point in history, jury nullification was used against the slave trade when many juries refused to convict anti-slavery activities of breaking the fugitive slave law.

Presumably, using jury nullification to protect core values embedded in our constitution would not count as a misuse.

> hey would charge him with violating the terms of the NSL and the jury would acquit him anyway.

You're assuming he would have a trial with a jury.

I think that's a big assumption.

Assuming he is a US citizen, and doesn't waive his right to a jury trial (which he should not), the only way to try him would be in front of a jury. That doesn't apply if you are an 'enemy combatant' and held at Gitmo.

I am not aware of any criminal proceeding in which the prosecution can prevent it from being heard by a jury, but I am also not a lawyer. Do you know of a situation other than military tribunals or court marshalls where the jury right does not apply?

Sure, the American citizens overseas that are purposefully being killed by drones. They didn't get a jury trial.

Also, you don't know about any of the criminal proceedings going on in the FISA court, that's the whole point.

You can say that about anyone engaging in war.

Let's say the US were at war with Mexico and you were an American but fighting for the Mexican Army, you would not get special treatment from the American side for being an American --at that point you're just a foe. That's how they view that.

Of course, they are the ones determining if you're fighting for the other side.

Let's say I'm an American living in a foreign country and I read the Koran, or attend a Mosque, or even actually hang out with some known Al Qaeda guys because they are hilarious (not because I in any way want to do anything they do).... I'm labeled guilty and murdered without a court case to determine what I was even doing.

Who would risk their own life to do that for "the good of many"? People like Snowden are exceptions, not a rule, because the guns are out there pointed to everyone. Why don't we instead of asking individual heroes to fight a killing machine called "the state", do that:

1. Acknowledge the evil of the state. 2. Find practical non-violent ways to boycott it. E.g. blacklist personally everyone involved in violent aggression. Switch off USD to Bitcoin. Expose violence of the state consistently in every relevant circumstance etc.

> Who would risk their own life to do that for "the good of many"?

People who feel strongly about what is right, versus what the law says, do.

Hell, do it for your own self interest. If a country with indefinite detentions, broad spying on the public and government strongarming of businesses for "national security" reasons is a place you don't want to live in, help fight against it.

The group dynamic of "yeah, someone will stand up for us" is what creates situations like this in the first place.

come on now.

   Some chick says,
   'Thank you for saying
   all the things I never do.'
   I say, you know, the thanks I get
   is to take all the shit for you.
   -Ani DiFranco, "Face Up and Sing"

Given the treatment of

Snowden: will never set foot in the US again as a free man

Manning: given solitary just to fuck with him with no punishment dished out for doing so (a room full of military assholes all saying "I didn't give the order" and no responsibility nor punishment; he just magically ended up in solitary. somehow. it's a mystery.); he shared a video of US soldiers joking about killing children

Gary Webb [1]: told us that Reagan (another piece of shit) was financing weapons with drug sales in inner cities, with profits sent to the Contras

John Kiriakou [2]: told us that George Bush and the cia now torture detainees

Who exactly is going to step forward no matter what the wrongdoing is? We ruin the lives of whisteblowers. If you want people to come forward, you simply have to not ruin their lives for doing so. Because right now it's clear what the price is for telling us what our government is truthfully doing. Hell, you could make the argument that what the NSA does is okay (I totally disagree), but CIA/president approved crack sales in inner LA. Amazing.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Webb

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kiriakou

I doubt, even in our current situation, that Jury members would become targets if they refused to convict.

It would never get that far. The "jury selection" process weeds out average people and leaves only the most boring, dumb, and/or untruthful jurors.

I think we're referring to the person willing to put their freedom at risk to wager that a jury nullification would happen as the 'hero.'

Reply on news.ycombinator.com