News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:FBI releases documents that confirm they proactively spy ... by agwa on Wednesday October 24, 2012 @03:42PM (#4694672)
> When someone swears to 'tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,' they're agreeing to express themselves to an organ of the government. The constitution doesn't forbid lying, but that doesn't grant you the freedom to engage in perjury.

These three activists didn't lie or take an oath - they simply refused to testify. You could argue that the courts' power to try cases allows the govt to imprison people to coerce testimony, but that's a different argument.

> I wouldn't rely on Russia Today for my legal analysis if I were you. The Validimir Putin Press Agency is not really in a position to report objectively on the theory or practice of fair trials, given the lamentable state of the Russian legal system.

And yet that logic never stops US papers from reporting on other countries' legal systems...

There are sources besides RT for this news - you can google them.

Re:FBI releases documents that confirm they proactively spy ... by anigbrowl on Wednesday October 24, 2012 @03:56PM (#4694735)
Please read the first line of the grandparent comment about how information from other sources establishes that the three were given immunity from prosecution. In other words, they made a deal with prosecutors to testify.
Re:FBI releases documents that confirm they proactively spy ... by elemenohpee on Wednesday October 24, 2012 @04:10PM (#4694811)
No they didn't, all three have been very upfront about their unwillingness to testify.
Re:FBI releases documents that confirm they proactively spy ... by agwa on Wednesday October 24, 2012 @04:25PM (#4694890)
You don't have to consent to be given immunity.
Re:FBI releases documents that confirm they proactively spy ... by anigbrowl on Wednesday October 24, 2012 @04:48PM (#4694990)
After digging about a bit, I find I was mistaken - the court granted immunity but exercised its power to compel testimony by subpoena. Still, the court is not exceeding its authority in that area. Subpoenas do not viol;ate the constitution.