Timeline for Why might Title 18 Section 793 be unconstitutional?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 11, 2016 at 17:58 | comment | added | dwoz | interesting response, nomen! Perhaps you misunderstand how "discussion" works? MasonWheeler's point was a valid one to consider, politically motivated though it may be. Since at least on the surface, the "Clinton email server" debacle has many of the earmarks of a political inquiry rather than a criminal inquiry, it's quite valid to draw a distinction between the two. | |
| Nov 11, 2016 at 16:23 | comment | added | nomen | Oh look at @MasonWheeler Wheeler getting schooled. Mason Wheeler is TRWTF. | |
| Jul 8, 2016 at 2:42 | comment | added | dwoz | I see how you might think that, @MasonWheeler, but the statute is about military/defense, not FOIA. Also, it's entirely politically-motivated conjecture that avoiding FOIA was the "purpose." | |
| Jul 8, 2016 at 1:29 | comment | added | Mason Wheeler | If the US is defined as "We The People", and the server was set up with the purpose of evading FOIA requests, (both of which are true,) then there's a strong argument to be made that "the intent to do harm to the US" was exactly the purpose of the whole thing. | |
| Jul 8, 2016 at 1:20 | comment | added | dwoz | @Dawn, one of the key statements made by Comey is that this particular statute has been on the books a very long time (c. WW1) and it's been used only rarely, and only for clear cases of actual espionage. Thus, its application in this current circumstance would stretch "equal protection" to the breaking point. That's my take, anyway. | |
| Jul 7, 2016 at 21:20 | history | edited | phoog | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Spelling
|
| Jul 7, 2016 at 21:04 | comment | added | user3851 | Could you make the constitutional argument clearer? I can't tell what it is. | |
| Jul 7, 2016 at 20:54 | history | answered | dwoz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |