Which is why efforts to end her career should go forward with as little restraint as her prosecution

That is a curious argument.

The point of this petition, and everything else done to remove Ortiz, Heymann, and Garland is that it is a repeatable process.

Making a spectacular example of Ortiz et. al. is a first step, but it's a fine first step.

Or put it this way, would we have as many lawyers willing to shield torture had John Yoo ended up delivering pizza for a living?

I'm not seeing much to remove Heymann or Garland. There's another petition for Heymann, but that's not getting near as much traction as the Ortiz one, even when I've seen numerous commenters claim he was the one behind the case.

What's going on with these petitions is exactly the tactic politicians use to calm the populace down when they're screaming for something to be done after a scandal or catastrophe. Removing Ortiz would give everyone the vengeance they desire but it wouldn't do a damn thing because the people qualified to replace her are all just like her.

That's a good point regarding the petition, which is why direct action against these people should not be limited to signing the petition.

Indeed, they should be harried out of their professional and private lives as thoroughly and relentlessly as they drove Swartz to suicide. Their lives should be made not worth living.

Crowdsourcing the destruction of the career of an out-of-control prosecutor is a repeatable process, and, as Internet forums gain mass, a process that will get easier to apply.

In other words, this is the public perception of crime on the move. You can see this in other areas of discourse, like cannabis legalization, getting rid of red light cameras that have been shown to increase collisions, etc.

Crowds are fickle and fatigue easily. We become indifferent to things which previously affronted us. It is a natural coping mechanism to prevent the monopolization of our limited attention spans.

For example, gun violence has been a constant thing in the US. The crowds get tired of hearing about it and the drive for legislation goes no where. However, when something out of the "ordinary" happens, such as the grievous Newtown murders, the attention of the crowd has been once again achieved. Politicians know this and the ones pushing legislation know they need to act fast before fatigue and indifference kick in, and the ones against the legislation know it's a waiting game.

My point is that the process of crowds demanding the removal of an out of control prosecutor isn't going to get easier (aka more likely to happen) just because it happened this time.

We have a limited window to act based on the attention of the crowd that has resulted form Aaron's suicide. I believe when people say something to the effect of "your missing the point" when removing a specific prosecutor, they are trying to get this point across.

In our limited window of action, we can remove someone specific, or find away to address the more general problem of prosecutorial overreach while we still have the mic. Ideally that more general approach would not depend on the continual outrage of the crowds.

Would that I had more than one upvote to give you.

That petition is a flawed and bloody flag that many seem willing to follow for the moment. The question is, is it possible to take the momentary outrage at this one prosecutor and turn it into a forceful pressure for reform of a system that is deeply and badly broken.

When I read statements like this, I am reminded why it's a good idea that we are a representative democracy, and not a direct one.

Yea, because it's really great that we have a system where we vote for some person who disappears for two years and doesn't do anything that represents what anyone who for them wanted.

either way it doesn't make a difference if the politician are not accountable and the public is not informed. What we have now, practically globally, is manipulated oligarchy dressed as democracy.

And other than the above I agree with flyingRyan below http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5066292

Look to the Tunisian fruit merchant who self-immolated. Suicide as protest is with us today.

Her political ambitions, professional contact network, and post-DoJ employment prospects could be destroyed, costing her millions of dollars in income. Same for Heymann.

Knowing that hundreds of thousands of people in an industry they interface with would fuck them over given a chance must be a bit depressing.

He and his family members have numerous computing industry connections in their network. Turn these connections against him, and isolate him.

David E. Green is VP public policy at NBC Universal. He should be aware of what a pariah Heymann is.

Duplicate. This one has 1500 signatures already: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-stat...

Congress is bought and elections are a choice among the bought.

We are dealing with prideful arrogant people. They need a vivid example in order to get their attention. Destroying this case's prosecutors' careers is only a good start.

Hate the game or play the game.

Destroying her reputation. Stripping her of every professional friendship by making her a pariah. Piling on in every conceivable forum against her. Making it cost her every every she ever earned, her home, her retirement, and every penny of any family member willing to help her would be perfectly fitting and proportionate in that light.

And yet you will see people here say "Write a note to your Congressman" and that should be the limit of it. Bah.

Stephen P. Heymann deserves special attention. He worked for the "Security Division" of EMC. He may have a past record of inflating small exploits with no criminal intent into federal cases. We don't need lawyers like that practising tech law.