Or, with equal validity, I could say they could include Merrick Garland and Jonathan Meyer.
You’re implying that they’re probably anonymous because they’re nobodies, as opposed to because they’re doing exactly what’s the standard thing to do when you have an issue with what your employer the United States Govt is doing.
You’re also comparing them to music professors speaking on climate change, when professors have tenure specifically because of this exact issue, so they can speak publicly on controversial issues without being fired for it if they cross someone powerful. Since these people don’t have that protection, I’m inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt that the reason they’re anonymous is because they want to be able to tell the truth without being fired, and they’re using the exact mechanism built into our society for doing that.
You’re implying that they’re probably anonymous because they’re nobodies
Not at all. If they are anonymous, then they are no better than an internet stranger but also no worse.
We’re all equal here. After all, for all I know you could be Merrick Garland.
And I fully understand why they want to remain anonymous. I’m anonymous too. But claiming the benefits of anonymity means giving up the mantle of authority. You can only earn that by providing your CV.
There is, but unfortunately that process was pretty slipshod here. All we can conclude is that the Intercept interviewed four authors and confirmed that at least three of them are government lawyers.
They don’t report anything about legal backgrounds beyond that. Perhaps they think that’s sufficient but I don’t. Maybe other news outfits will do better.
Yes, I know they aren’t in the music department.
What I said is that they could be IP lawyers (who exist in both DOJ and DHS).
Or in the case of State, likely not a lawyer at all.
Or, with equal validity, I could say they could include Merrick Garland and Jonathan Meyer.
You’re implying that they’re probably anonymous because they’re nobodies, as opposed to because they’re doing exactly what’s the standard thing to do when you have an issue with what your employer the United States Govt is doing.
You’re also comparing them to music professors speaking on climate change, when professors have tenure specifically because of this exact issue, so they can speak publicly on controversial issues without being fired for it if they cross someone powerful. Since these people don’t have that protection, I’m inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt that the reason they’re anonymous is because they want to be able to tell the truth without being fired, and they’re using the exact mechanism built into our society for doing that.
Not at all. If they are anonymous, then they are no better than an internet stranger but also no worse.
We’re all equal here. After all, for all I know you could be Merrick Garland.
And I fully understand why they want to remain anonymous. I’m anonymous too. But claiming the benefits of anonymity means giving up the mantle of authority. You can only earn that by providing your CV.
If only there were a process where some third party could vouch for their credentials while keeping them anonymous
There is, but unfortunately that process was pretty slipshod here. All we can conclude is that the Intercept interviewed four authors and confirmed that at least three of them are government lawyers.
They don’t report anything about legal backgrounds beyond that. Perhaps they think that’s sufficient but I don’t. Maybe other news outfits will do better.
I’m gonna exit this conversation now