Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
![]()
I can support that in principle, but an army cannot function if its soldiers are constantly questioning their orders. Clearly if the order is, "Shoot helpless civilians," then the idea is valid. If it's something as complex as extrajudicial killings or leaking classified material because of conscientious objection, the issues are a lot less clear.
1. Now that's just silly. Whether it's that they're seeing prostitutes on government time or that we're considering it a big deal, I'm not sure. Sexual assault, on the other hand, is a problem.
2. Thank you for your opinion, "Inventor of the Internet".
3. Probably a good idea, but cue cries of "freedom of speech!"
edited 10th Jun '13 12:25:00 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I'd like to reiterate that the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 was created specifically to address federal institutions that violate law, abuse/mismanage funds, or present a danger to public safety. The original intent was indeed to protect government-employed whistleblowers just as effectively as in corporate civil cases.
It's effectively been defanged. In 2006, the Supreme Court ruled that protecting whistleblowers from employer retaliation is unconstitutional, and the MSPB and Federal Court of Appeals that perform whistleblower hearings are both absurdly biased — the former altogether rejects 98% of appeals, and the latter has ruled in favor of three whistleblowers out of over 200 cases since the 90's.
edited 10th Jun '13 12:34:17 PM by Pykrete
![]()
No doubt about it, Fighteer: Sir Tim Berners-Lee
did invent the World Wide Web at CERN in 1989-91.
edited 10th Jun '13 12:39:54 PM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling OnI'm not questioning his credentials (I assume that such a headline would be fact-checked), but that his opinion carries any special weight by virtue of his credentials.
![]()
Once again, thank you, Supreme Court, for going to such lengths to protect our basic freedoms.
edited 10th Jun '13 12:48:03 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"OSHA hits Seaworld Florida with a fine for ignoring a court order to fix safety hazards.
That's a bit extreme don't you think?
It was an honorThat's my beef. The programs Snowden leaked about are all entirely above-board and legit (in terms of classified stuff, at least). Congress had been briefed on it and approved it. FISC, the court set up in the '70s specifically to address this sort of thing, was involved with it. Everyone on every level was doing what they were supposed to be doing.
Snowden decided to leak it, not because it was illegal or dangerous, but because he didn't like the program. He doesn't get to make that call. He took it upon himself that he knew better than everyone else involved with the program and decided to violate security about it. He does not have the right to make that choice.
http://news.yahoo.com/valuing-physics-over-p-e-colorado-schools-test-192609786.html
so in other fun news. Apparently Colorado has decided to set teacher payscale according to demand for the position, meaning kindergarten teachers will now make less than a high school chemistry teacher despite working with kids for a far greater number of hours.
edited 10th Jun '13 3:47:54 PM by midgetsnowman
Violation of law: namely, the part about invasive warrantless search and seizure of private information by a federal agency. We have this thing called the 4th amendment that says not only is that not okay, but it's so not okay you can't even make laws legalizing it.
Government intelligence agencies in practice get a silent free pass to do whatever the fuck they want, but that doesn't make it legal or constitutional.
edited 10th Jun '13 4:24:53 PM by Pykrete
![]()
Well, if the US got to that point, it'd be so far gone that leaking information wouldn't do much of anything to stop/change it, unless other countries decided to declare war.
edited 10th Jun '13 4:20:41 PM by DrunkGirlfriend
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -DrunkscriblerianThe point I was trying to make is that the legality of a law doesn't mean anything about the appropriateness of the law. Plenty of unconstitutional laws have set on the books for extended periods time, simply because no one challenged them. And other times unconstitutional laws have been challenged and stayed on the books, only for the US Supreme Court to change their minds at a later date.
So promoting a culture where people don't challenge laws is a dangerous one.
I don't know enough about Snowden to make a judgement in that particular case, but in general, being approved by the authorities does not in and off itself mean the order is one that should be followed.
edited 10th Jun '13 4:34:27 PM by IConfuseMe
There's a difference between objecting to a law because you don't like it or because it personally inconveniences you and objecting to it because you find it morally repugnant.
Bear in mind that if we allowed the latter to be the universal standard, then murdering gay people (or black people) could be considered an act of "conscientious objection".
Societies cannot function if laws are only obeyed when it's convenient.
edited 10th Jun '13 5:10:51 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"And one could argue that if people never rebelled on moral grounds abolitionists would not have sheltered runaway slaves, Germans (and people of occupied territory) would not have sheltered Jewish people from the Nazis, and without civil disobedience India would would still be a colony and segregation might be alive and well in the States.
That said, I don't think there is such a thing as a universal standard whether you should obey a law. It's something that's going to vary on a case by case basis.
after all, if we said law was to be always obeyed, state sponsored genocide would be a-ok.
Neither extreme (Neither absolute obedience nor arbitrary refusal) are the ways to go about. And I don't think implied that.
edited 10th Jun '13 5:35:17 PM by IConfuseMe
Here's the problem with this specific type of leak, because it was classified and the FISA courts were the ones who were tasked with deciding it was ok, nobody knew about it to object to it. Therefor it is protected from any form of outside scrutiny.
But from a personal perspective, I agree with Snowdens decision. PRISM is essentially a nation-wide wiretapping warrant that applies to everyone and has absolutely zero probable cause. It's unethical, immoral, and illegal in the sense that you're supposed to have probable cause to obtain a warrant to invade someone elses privacy.
This was essentially a classified court with zero public oversight saying that it would grant the largest blanket warrant in the history of the United States without probable cause. It's immoral and in my opinion, illegal. If a civilian PD requested a warrant on someone because "We want to check their phone calls to see if they are doing anything wrong." but has no probable cause for why they may be doing something wrong in the first place, the judge would say "What are you smoking? No way."
That's why in this matter, I do support Snowden. Mannings leaks didn't have that justification. He is mentally troubled and had a grudge against the Army, so he did the digital equivalent of grabbing as many armfuls of classified paperwork as possible and running out the door.
I'm surprised that I find myself saying this, but something like this requires public consent in my opinion. This is something that most people in the United States would say "Fuck no." to if you walked up and asked them, and our elected leaders are supposed to be doing things that we support. A breach of privacy this huge shouldn't be happening in the dark without public knowledge.
Now what they should have did is gotten a warrant in advance saying that when they have probable cause, they are allowed to subpoena internet and phone companies for this data. The warrant is already in place so that all that is needed is for a FISA judge to say "Yeah, go ahead. Seems legit." Instead, they said "We want access to everyones shit, and we want the ability to just plow through any of it whenever we want with little to no oversight."
edited 10th Jun '13 6:05:06 PM by NativeJovian
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Senator Feinstein (D-CA) Says NSA Leaker Snowden Committed Treason
Glenn Beck, Michael Moore call Edward Snowden a hero

State Department officials have squashed internal investigations involving the use of prostitutes and sexual assault by agency employees, according to an internal memo obtained by CBS News.
Inventor of the Internet: NSA spying violates 'basic human rights'
A group of Senate Democrats demanded Monday that children’s TV channel, Nickelodeon, stop airing commercials for unhealthy food and beverage.
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016