Comment Re:Consequences: Redefine and Enforce Law and Poli (Score 2) 44
Consequences to a government agency are not and should not be the same as they are for an individual... When a great wrong has been done by an individual, punishment is arguably useful and usually satisfying from other individuals perspective, but retribution for an organisation (esp government) it's not very useful to anyone.
It depends. Many of us have argued for an official corporate "death penalty", and the government here (US) actually does shut down businesses sometimes and courts often order the people who set up scam businesses to never engage in that sort of business again. Ultimately action needs to be taken against individuals, though.
Also the legality of this ruling should not determine punishment or justification, it should determine change. If the ruling was "lawful", then clearly the laws involved are not comprehensive enough or are poorly defined.
Whatever the ruling, it's clear that the GCHQ overreached. Inadequate oversight, bad policy and fallible laws could be the cause. The ruling and findings along the way can provide insight into how much of each is to blame.
Which is why - in the case of governmental misconduct - *individuals* need to be held accountable, including hard time in prison. That way, next time a higher up at [spy agency] tells his minions to [break the law], the minions get to say "Hey, Jim did that shit last year and he and his boss are locked up in a maximum security prison for the next 10 years. I'll pass and I'll also be turning you over for prosecution."
Not to invoke Godwin, but following your logic we should have handed out a bunch of harsh rebukes at Nuremberg.