Comment Re:SNOWDEN !! DOUBLE-AGENT ?? (Score 1) 328
Snowden is bad. He's the definition of traitor. If you support him...
Then you are supporting the ideas and principles the United States of America was founded on.
Snowden is bad. He's the definition of traitor. If you support him...
Then you are supporting the ideas and principles the United States of America was founded on.
...then what the people making this argument are really saying, is that the whole system is broken.
I read most of the way through your rebuttal, only to find you making the very point that completely invalidates your rebuttal. And that's the truth, the system is broken. Maybe at some hypothetical point in history, the point was to find the criminal. But now, the system is focused on getting a conviction. Any conviction will do. You don't just get charged with *a* crime anymore. Instead, even a minor incident can see you charged with 10-15 separate crimes. Why? Because even if you are innocent of the main crime, they hope that at least one will 'stick' so they can justify their time and energy. No concern is made as to how innocent or guilty you might be. They just want to get you with something.
And the US is the most successful country in history. Probably just a coincidence....
By what standard? It doesn't even crack the top five for land (British Empire, Mongol Empire, Russian Empire, Spanish Empire, Umayyad Caliphate), nor for population (Achaemenid Empire, Mauryan Empire, Sassanid Empire, Qing Dynasty, Ymayyad Caliphate) and, I'm not even going to look it up, but trust me it's nowhere near the top for duration.
The only one the US 'wins' is historically adjusted GDP (America, Qing Dynasty, Mughal Empire, British Empire, Russian Empire) and even there, China is expected to surpass the US by 2016. So be careful with your claims of "Most successful in history". There are some of us out here who actually know history. And by histories standards, the US is notable, but hardly #1.
"I look back at my decisions and wonder, 'How on earth could I, a junior analyst, possibly believe I could change the world for the better over the decisions of those with the proper authority?'"
That struck me as Bradley saying "I should not be thinking for myself, questioning my superiors and acting according to my morals. I should just follow orders."
Thank goodness the Nuremberg trials have shown that this is the right attitude for a soldier. Never question superiors, never act in a way contrary to their orders no matter how many rights you violate. Bradley Manning has learned...
If it was a EU bear it would be flopping on the ground like a soccer player.
If it was a bear from Canada, it would stop, spit out a few teeth, then get up, walk over to the car, pull the driver out the drivers side window and then, while holding the drivers shirt with one paw, he'd start beating the driver about the head with his other paw.
Just because someone leaves something vulnerable does NOT give anyone the right to exploit that vulnerability.
You don't understand. The poor security of the police meant those whistleblowers were already exposed to anyone with a little computer skill. This put them at risk without the whistleblowers even knowing about it. So Anonymous took this public step that, whatever reason they said they did it for, at the very least let the whistleblowers KNOW they were vulnerable.
You're trying to say "Just because a door is open doesn't mean you can walk in". But what I'm saying is there are innnocent people who counted on that door being locked. Anonymous showing behind the door publicly is a way to warn those people that anyone could've already walked in that door.
System restarting, wait...