YouTube Video Sends Guatemala Into Crisis

Several have sent word that a YouTube video of recently assassinated lawyer Rodrigo Rosenberg has sent Guatemala into a tailspin. The video of Rosenberg claims that if you are watching, he has been murdered by President Alvaro Colom with help from presidential secretary Gustavo Alejos. "The video spread across the Internet after family members handed it out during Rosenberg's funeral on Monday. In the 18-minute tape, a seemingly calm Rosenberg, sitting behind a desk and microphone, alleges that Colom, the First Lady and two associates were involved in murder, corruption and money laundering. The group, he says, filtered public funds through a state-owned bank for personal gain and to finance drug traffickers. Rosenberg then claims that after Khalil Musa, a prominent businessman and bank board member, had learned of the Coloms' scheme, Musa and his daughter were shot to death in front of a shopping center in April. Rosenberg says the President signed off on the killings."

Comments

The Internet Has Its Merits

[eldavojohn]

Where are all the people clambering for censorship when the internet is used for something good?

Pre-Internet:
President Alvaro Colom: They passed out a tape at his funeral? Quick get me a list of everyone at the funeral, I want them all in custody and tortured until we have every single one of those tapes!
Gustavo Alejos: Yes, sir ... well, there is one more thing ... they may have mailed a copy to the United States or a press outlet here.
President Alvaro Colom: Ahahahh, Gustavo, so naive. I suppose I'll have to make a phone call to the director of our postal system. He'll be quite cooperative with a little bonus this year ... paid for by the people, of course!

Post-Internet:
President Alvaro Colom: They passed out a tape at his funeral? Quick get me a list of everyone at the funeral, I want them all in custody and tortured until we have every single one of those tapes!
Gustavo Alejos: Yeah ... see ... about that. Um, they kind of put it on the internet.
President Alvaro Colom: The internet?
Gustavo Alejos: Yeah ...
President Alvaro Colom: Very well, torture them until they take it down!
Gustavo Alejos: Uh, it's on YouTube. Everyone's seen it.
President Alvaro Colom: So ... we ... need to ... torture everyone?
*Gustavo Alejos shakes his head back and forth*
Gustavo Alejos: No, I think the order you are looking for right now is 'Prepare my escape helicopter and fake passport for Colombia.' The noise outside right now with the thousands of people yelling for your death is bad.
President Alvaro Colom: What did I do wrong, I was only trying to live up to Oscar Humberto Mejia's legacy!

How can you argue against something that makes it more difficult for asshat dictators to remain in power?

Re:The Internet Has Its Merits

[Jhon]

Where are all the people clambering for censorship when the internet is used for something good?

Um. Can you list an example of how this case is like another? In which the "censorship" (although, I think you and others are misusing that word) was demanded?

Re:The Internet Has Its Merits

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Where are all the people clambering for censorship when the internet is used for something good?

How can you argue against something that makes it more difficult for asshat dictators to remain in power?

They are naive enough to believe that only "bad" things will be censored. They seem unable to grasp that everyone's definitions for bad aren't the same and they don't realize that by enabling censorship they are putting the controls into the hands of those with most to gain through censorship. Its almost as if they believe that power doesn't corrupt, it purifies.

Re:The Internet Has Its Merits

[eldavojohn]

Where are all the people clambering for censorship when the internet is used for something good?

Um. Can you list an example of how this case is like another? In which the "censorship" (although, I think you and others are misusing that word) was demanded?

So you are saying you don't know of anyone that wants the internet censored to protect their children from porn and swear words and terrorists?

I'm a bit confused, I seem to encounter these people daily in real life and the news. And that's just in the United States! Around the world, people are passively letting their government take this role.

85% of Chinese reportedly desire it. "Elected" governments keep pushing for it. Talk about a trap.

If we gave our government the right to censor our internet then it would be no surprise to see any other country follow suit. If the Guatemalan government had the legal right to control their content on the internet, well, I think you can see how this story might have been different. Restrict your people's ability to upload videos without them passing censorship!

I see this as a brilliant example why the internet must remain a horrible offensive waste of time instead of a government regulated squeaky clean educatin' machine. But I'm sure I'm part of the minority because people don't realize how powerful it is. It just saved Guatemala from being led by a murderer. Think about that.

Re:The Internet Has Its Merits

[eldavojohn]

Sorry buddy, Colom is not a dictator. He was elected. I'm also pretty sure UN watchgroups monitored the election.

Sorry buddy, once you authorize the murder of an innocent person opposing you, you aren't elected anymore. You're a dictator ... even worse you're a murderer. Pretty sure the UN would back me on that.

Re:The Internet Has Its Merits

[Anonymous Coward]

You should start by linking to something, anything...

Re:The Internet Has Its Merits

[Jhon]

So you are saying you don't know of anyone that wants the internet censored to protect their children from porn and swear words and terrorists?

(boggles)

I'm speechless. How can you get the above from what I requested? You make some totally weird logical leap from "Can you list an example" of how this case is like another in which "censorship" is called for.

Perhaps *YOU* can tell me how this case is like your "anyone that wants the internet censored to protect their children"?

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you suggesting there should not be ANY limits on "free speech"? Should we do away with libel? Calumny? Slander? Allow people to yell "FIRE" in a theater? Because these limits on speech are NOT censorship.

Re:The Internet Has Its Merits

[Anonymous Coward]

It just saved Guatemala from being led by a murderer. Think about that.

I'm sorry I don't want to be too much of a tool but the fact is, this video does NOT prove anything. So far it's just a conspiracy theory - one that needs to be thoroughly investigated. It may sound stupid but, as a guatemalan, I wouldn't put it pass the right-wing radicals to fabricate this video, but this is just another conspiracy theory. Until there's been a decent investigation we really can't pass judgement on whether the president is a murderer. Btw, the president has asked for help from the FBI and international bodies, from the article.

Re:The Internet Has Its Merits

[cduffy]

Perhaps *YOU* can tell me how this case is like your "anyone that wants the internet censored to protect their children"?

The argument is that the tools put in place for the latter purpose can also be used for the former.

Re:The Internet Has Its Merits

[MaskedSlacker]

Will be used for the former. ARE used for the former.

Re:The Internet Has Its Merits

[DragonWriter]

Sorry buddy, once you authorize the murder of an innocent person opposing you, you aren't elected anymore.

Yeah, you are still elected.

You're a dictator ...

Its possible to be an elected dictator, though the hypothetical presented doesn't even necessarily mean that.

even worse you're a murderer.

That much, OTOH, is true (in at least the moral sense of the word "murderer".)

Being bad, even criminal, even murdering doesn't make a leader suddenly not an elected leader. "Elected" is not the same thing as "good".

Re:The Internet Has Its Merits

[secolactico]

Dictators can be elected, altho I can't think of any modern example of this happening. A dictator is an abosolute ruler (and considered above the law). Sulla (or Cilla) was elected dictator and so was Caesar (how fair were those elections is a matter of debate).

Today's dictators don't style themselves as such. They usually have a legislative body even if it's full of puppet legislators.

Re:The Internet Has Its Merits

[Xest]

Because power corrupts, and even in Western democracies like Britain the ruling party Labour have been pushing more and more of a totalitarian agenda over the last few years.

Labour in the UK is in ruins, the party is done, it has no hope now of re-election, yet the leader, Gordon Brown continues, he continues blindly believing in his own mind that he is doing the right thing not being willing to step down.

It's for this reason that they are against it, because the reality is that they know, eventually, it will be used against them as it goes against what they themselves want - more power, despite being corrupt to the core as the last week in British politics has shown.

Leaders who remain good throughout their entire term in office are rare- we've seen it happen in Canada with the corruption in their previous ruling party, we've seen it happen in the US under Bush, although from pretty early on, we've seen it in Australia. It happens time and time again - the longer a single leader or party is in power, the more complacent they get, and the more they forget they're there to serve the people, not control them.

I believe this is why the European courts have done a better job at preventing Labour's attempts at ever more draconian measures to control the population- because the European court of human rights has no direct explicit power over each individual country in the EU and the lack of any direct explicit power means their is less scope for them to become drunk with power.

It's also why I'm a big fan of minority governments, there's an argument it makes them more efficient, but I believe it realistically increase efficiency because such a minority government is kept on it's toes, it's being constantly reminded of what it's there for, and if it forgets that a coalition of opposition parties will remind it by forcing an election. The only laws that get passed are laws acceptable to all parties, rather than as we have in the UK and as the US had for many years under Bush - a situation where they can implement any policy changes they want regardless of what the population or opposition thinks of it. I believe that leadership terms should be shortened to 2 to 3 years to more frequently remind those in power that they can be removed and removed at any moment.

It is a dangerous situation in the likes of Venezuelan where the people have been dumb enough to allow Chavez to stand indefinitely and in Russia where Putin appears to be gaming the system to continue controlling the nation well past his constitutionally allowed maximum term. If history has taught us anything, it is allowing leaders this much power for this long without challenge that has allowed many of the cruelest dictators throughout history to achieve power and maintain it until it was finally lost nearly always through bloodshed.

I believe many politicians become politicians because they are phsycologically inclined towards a thirst for power in the first place, not that they're necessarily competent or intelligent and want to make a specific country better.

Re:The Internet Has Its Merits

[horza]

That doesn't make sense. Libel (ignoring slander as you can't do that on the Internet) is nothing to do with censorship. One happens after publication and the other prevents publication in the first place. One deals with defamation of character of an individual, and the other with arbitrary moral or ideological values set in place to blanket protect an entire society. There is no contradiction between supporting both lack of censorship and also current libel laws. If your mind is boggling, I suggest it is because it is inadequate. The right to publish does not exclude the responsibility that then follows.

Phillip.

Re:The Internet Has Its Merits

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

They are naive enough to believe that only "bad" things will be censored.

Very few people are that naive. Most people, most people are completely in favour of censorship because it would stop videos like this one from being disseminated.

The sad reality is that the majority of humans on planet earth are perfectly happy to live under a dictatorship of some kind. They support any measure that will make society more closely resemble a police state or one party state. It is not the case that people do not understand the consequences of supporting government surveillance, censorship, draconianism, etc. They understand perfectly well, and that's the reason they support it.

Some people want to live in a free society with rights for all. But sadly most people want to live in rigid , closed and unfree society with rights only for the right people, and are perfectly contented when they find themselves in one.

The internet genie is being put back in the bottle. Ironically, the main effect of this video will likely be to accelerate this process across the globe, particularly in Latin America.

Re:The Internet Has Its Merits

[liquiddark]

No. Not everyone has the power of censorship - it is inherently an asymmetric ability. Only those with a great deal of power can harness censorship, and often as not (in many cases, more often than not) the incentive will be towards using it for some other purpose than protecting innocents (assuming you believe the "protection" afforded by censorship is anything of the sort). Anyone can use a "hammer", even if the hammer in question is just a big hard rock, and the incentives are much more balanced between all users.

Re:The Internet Has Its Merits

[digitig]

Sorry buddy, Colom is not a dictator. He was elected. I'm also pretty sure UN watchgroups monitored the election.

Sorry buddy, once you authorize the murder of an innocent person opposing you, you aren't elected anymore. You're a dictator ... even worse you're a murderer. Pretty sure the UN would back me on that.

Wow, Colom has already been arrested, tried and convicted for this? Justice sure moves fast in Guatamala! Or /, is even further behind the news than usual. Or you think because you heard about it on the internet it must be true. I wonder which one?

A friend's mother in her last days was convinced that the CIA, the Archbishop of Canterbury and her son's pet gerbils were conspiring to kill her in an undetectable way. And sure enough, not long afterwards she did die! And yet the authorities did nothing about those evil gerbils!

Sorry, but an accusation doesn't make it so. It may yet turn out to be so, but an accusation doesn't make it so.

Re:The Internet Has Its Merits

[lgw]

The argument is that you have to balance the cost of banning the tool vs the cost of misusing the tool.

This is why we remove government censorship: because it might be used for political speech. The usefulness of a hammer outwieghs the (dubious) usefulness of banning hammers, but the usefulness of free speech outweighs the (dubious) usfulness of censorship.

Ultimately, there is very little that is worse that a government banning criticism of itself, for most other government-instigated atrocities can be stopped given free speech as a tool (not all, of course, as sometimes the people are happy with the atrocity, but most).

Re:The Internet Has Its Merits

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at Australia. Films and games have to be rated by the official government rating agency, and without a rating they can't be published. That's not censorship, right?

Does it become censorship when they refuse to rate something, and it therefore cannot be published? Adults couldn't legally buy Fallout 3 in Australia. It was refused classification because of "realistic visual representations of drugs". (Bethesda took that out of the game and it was classified 15). Postal and Postal 2 are banned, for everyone. The original version of 50 Cent: Bulletproof. Many more games which had to be edited, their original artistic vision altered because the government would not allow adults to buy it in that form.

Is that censorship?

The problem is, it's easy to draw up a set of rules which don't appear to be incompatible with free speech, and to assume that they will be applied by rational people under 60 years old. But it doesn't happen that way. It pays to be cautious when you are giving governments power over you.

Re:The Internet Has Its Merits

[cduffy]

Usually, I've seen people cry "censorship" at any attempt to limit them from saying exactly what they want to say, when they want to say it and who they want to say it to. Thats why I requested an example. I don't think there is one that REMOTELY links to this youtube case.

There are plenty of them; look at China: Content posted to the Internet is proactively monitored, and substantial infrastructure is in place to tie activities to a Real-Life identity such that the jackboots can show up at your door if you (1) post such content as this to YouTube, (2) inform others of the existence of such content, etc. Further, infrastructure is in place to block access to locations known to host such politically sensitive content.

Now, let's back away from China, and look at Australia. A blacklist of sites is maintained by a government-affiliated organization with no oversight, putatively for the purpose of limiting access to content which is illegal for highly defensible purposes (ie. child porn) -- but that blacklist also contains sites which have posted legal correspondence with the entity overseeing the blacklist.

Now, let's move from Australia to the UK, in which legal and physical infrastructure is being put in place to record the headers of all electronic communications. In such a case, the party posting the YouTube video could be identified, as could those who inform others about its existence, those who repost it in the event of a takedown, etc. Even in the absence of jackboots -- an absence which cannot be guaranteed to persist -- are the chilling effects not clear, particularly in the case of content which purports to demonstrate that those in power will gladly resort to murder to cover up things they would prefer remain unknown?

Re:The Internet Has Its Merits

[Anonymous Coward]

Couldn't they just, you know, repost the video without the damn song?

Re:The Internet Has Its Merits

[Hurricane78]

[citation needed]

Or in other words: I call total bullshit on your assumption.

Re:The Internet Has Its Merits

[Toonol]

Could you could mute the song and upload it again?

Re:The medium is NOT the message

[couchslug]

"Wouldn't the word have gotten out just the same if it had been televised instead?"

Not as quickly or widely. A TV station broadcasts a video once or, in some cases a few times. A video can hit the internet within minutes of being shot.

On the internet it can be saved, forwarded, and dispersed beyond the ability of any central or commercial authority to stop it.

Re:The medium is NOT the message

[zeropointburn]

The fact that it was out and available all over the world as soon as someone posted it is important. It means the content can't be stopped by torture, mail inspection, border patrols, or a well-planned plane crash. The medium made the message possible to an extent that we could never have imagined a decade ago. THAT is the reason this story is here on /.

Re:The medium is NOT the message

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck to the average citizen trying to get an anti-government tape to be broadcast on what is probably a government run station...

Anyone can (And did) upload to youtube, which is the tech side of this story. A few years ago, this wouldn't have been able to happen.

Re:The medium is NOT the message

[Anonymous Coward]

"Wouldn't the word have gotten out just the same if it had been televised instead?"

Not if the tv station is stormed by military types in the name of "national security."

Well...

[Toonol]

What's the over-under on Youtube taking this video down? I _think_ they'll keep it up, despite any demands to the contrary.

Now, if it was China...

Error

[d12v10]

Has anyone considered the possibility that he was killed by someone other than the Guatemalan president? Like, say, a family member with an axe to grind?

Re:Error

[samkass]

That was my thought. Once the tape was made, anyone who knew about it and had something to gain by his death had a free pass. It doesn't seem to me like it was the wisest move.

Re:Error

[Chyeld]

That's prety much exactly what the president's supporters are claiming.

On the other hand, we have a lawyer whose clients were just before they could, as they claimed, blow the whistle on government corruption, is also killed just after he indicates HE knows the details of the first killings.

His killing, prior to the distribution of the tape, was passed off as just another random murder (meaning releasing the tape was pointless if you were doing it to cover your tracks).

Which do you think would be more likely:

A family member did it.
Said government did it.

Re:The medium is NOT the message

[DragonWriter]

Does the fact that YouTube was involved make this a computer story somehow?

Quite arguably yes, though its not posted as a "computer" story, but as a "Politics" story. That it is, in fact, accurately labeled as a "Politics" story I think is pretty clear, whether or not one agrees that it is a "computer" story.

Wouldn't the word have gotten out just the same if it had been televised instead?

J. Random Citizen can't post a video to "television" and get it global exposure, particularly if they live in a country where the government has its thumb on the press. While there are certainly also governments that try very hard to control what goes on on the internet, it takes a lot less hardware to put something on the internet than to broadcast it on TV, making it much hardware for governments to control. So, yeah, if it had been televised around the world rather than being carried around the world on YouTube, word would have gotten out just the same -- its just a lot less likely that it would have successfully been televised around the world before the government threatened by it managed to sweep the message (and the people trying to distribute it) under the rug, permanently.

Get that off YouTube NOW.

[DdJ]

By which I do not mean remove it from YouTube.

I mean, download it, copy it, ensure that it continues to survive even if YouTube is persuaded somehow to remove it. Help personally ensure that this is impossible to suppress by taking individual action right now to back it up.

Re:child pornography is bad

[MostAwesomeDude]

Child pornography is inherently offensive, which only limits its public display. It is not inherently dangerous, nor is it inherently harmful. It is evidence of a felony. Nothing more, nothing less. Would you say that a picture of an axe murderer's bloody implements warrants the same censoring? What about a picture of rape? A picture of a businessman hiring a hooker? Or that same businessman's expense account summaries, displaying his money laundering? Where the fucking hell is the line?

Re:child pornography is bad

[centuren]

censoring child pornography is nothing remotely like censoring political speech

and if country A censors child pornography, while country B censors political speech, they are not anywhere near comparable

How many times do we have to go through the reality that Internet censorship filters are improperly and often irresponsibly implemented, even to the point of showing a political slant. From their use in US schools, to the nation-wide Aussie plan that was recently discussed so much, we have seen again and again that tools like blacklists make the issues of A and B closer than we'd like.

where did i endorse that?

[circletimessquare]

the intent to censor child pornography is spotless

the schemes thought so far are atrocious, and drift far from that purpose

but don't think my words endorse any particular poorly thought out scheme that strays far form the effort of filtering child porn

but if someone soemday DOES devise a scheme that hits JUST child porn, how could you argue with that?

Re:child pornography is bad

[Bryansix]

Mmmhmm. Thank you god for handing down that edict! Oh wait, you aren't a god? Oh, my bad.

Please do me a favor and define child porn for me. I mean really define it. At what age is consent possible? Really at that age? That age is (insert arbitrary rhetoric here) too old/young by any standard. You should definitely raise/lower it.

Re:And yet...

[MichaelSmith]

Yeah we don't want every nutcase doing that.

Re:child pornography is bad

[mOdQuArK!]

censoring child pornography is nothing remotely like censoring political speech

Except that it's impossible to censor only the one without having the means to censor the other.

Re:child pornography is bad

[artor3]

It is inherently harmful, in that it creates a market demand for children to be raped.

To respond to your line drawing fallacy:
* Videos of actual rape should be treated the same, because they create a market for rape. However, since it's much easier and safer for pornographers to pay a woman to pretend she's being raped, this is a non-issue.
* Evidence of the other crimes you listed do not create a market for the crime. No one is going to say "Gee, I'll steal millions of dollars so that I can sell the evidence online for hundreds!"

you are intellectually dishonest

[circletimessquare]

obvious answer: the desire to view child pornography creates a marketplace for the creation of child porn

child porn just doesn't happen by accident, and people just happen to see it by accident. which is how you describe the situation, which is of course 100% bullshit

someone seeks out the images on purpose, and someone else fulfills this need because there is demand for it

this really should be pretty obvious

the viewing of child pornography is a desire that contributes to the creation of it, and is therefore a desire which is criminally culpable for the act of creating child pornography

Re:child pornography is bad

[artor3]

Because what you are saying is pretty much the same argument used against violent video games and the absolute best anyone has been able to do with that is to show a minor increase in aggressive behaviour by very young children, that subsists pretty quickly, immediately following game playing.

You misunderstand. Child porn doesn't make people want to go out and rape children, the way certain people claim video games make gamers violent.

Rather, the already existing demand for child pornography leads to people raping children so that they can cash in on that demand. By outlawing it, the demand is greatly reduced. This makes it less profitable to rape children, so much so that so that it is (ideally) not worth the risk to the would-be pornographer.

It is nothing at all like the bullshit about video games making people into killers.

ok

[circletimessquare]

just scrolling down to the first 5 comments above a 3 threshold in the 3 randomly chosen recent threads below on the topic, in 2 or 3 of the comments out of the 5, one finds the retarded idea that censoring *anything* is as bad as the worst censoring places on the globe. which is 100% wrong, and commonly found thinking all over slashdot. no, censorship of something like child porn is not anything remotely like censoring political speech, yet it is a common line of thought here on slashdot. its fucking retarded and outright 100% logically, philosophically, and morally wrong. and commonly found in comments here

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/12/0012255

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/23/1846207

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/01/1436237

anything else i can help you with?

censoring something like child porn is NOT comparable to censoring political speech

get it in your thick heads slashdot

so you are against gun ownership?

[circletimessquare]

because you might shoot an innocent person and not just a criminal?

so you are against stem cell research?

because you might clone a person instead of cure paralysis?

you are against nuclear tech?

because you might build a bomb instead of power a city with soemthign cleaner than coal?

are you against penises?

because you might rape a woman instead of love her?

all retarded lines of thought. which what you just wrote matches perfectly: "because we might do something bad with [x], regardless of our intent, we can't do [x] at all"

you're a luddite. you fear technology

absolutely 100% true about jenna jameson

[circletimessquare]

and not in any way a refutation of anything i said. so now you are just changing the subject

grey areas exist about what is child porn and what is not. duh

so now you are saying that just because grey areas exist in this world, that means there is no such thing as obviously vile and disgusting dark areas? that everyone agrees is wrong and should be punished?

say: an 8 year old in guatemala lured into a car with candy, and locked in a basement room and repeatedly abused. does this happen in this world or not? should it be punished in your mind or not? why did it happen? because a bunch of pedophiles desired this content be created for their consumption on their monitors? is this connection between demand and supply real or not?

wake up

do you take your trash out on thursdays?

[circletimessquare]

well, stop

see, you'll never stop creating trash. you're never going to win the war on trash. its always going to accumulate, no matter what you do. so you should let the trash sit in your room and fester, and live in it

going after hardcore addictive drugs (not marijuana, that should be legal), or going after child porn, or going after terrorists, are not wars that ever will be won, ever. its simply a maintenance function, like taking ou the trash every week

there will always exist child porn, highly addictive drugs, and terrorists. but you fight these things anyway, simply to MINIMIZE their existence and the damage they do, and simply because you have a human conscience and a sense of simple human justice that innocent human lives are being destroyed by these things (or, rather, you SHOULD have that human conscience)

Re:are you an elaborate troll?

[grumbel]

you honestly wish to assert that the creation and consumption of child pornography is a myth

No, the myth is that:

1) There is an industry behind it with millions of dollars. - Not the case, it happens for most part non-commercially.
2) That its a real problem. - There is virtually no child porn on public webpages as they would get shut down really quick.
3) That it would actually protect children. - Child abuse happens at home, not on the Internet and not on demand. Also lots of stuff qualified as child porn was produced without harming children (FKK pictures, nude pictures from back when it was legal, pictures they took from themselves, etc.).

that censoring child porn is worse than sanctioning someone just for speaking their political opinion!

With political censorship I at least would know what and why they censor and there would be a public outcry against it, with that whole child porn witch-hunt is a hell of a lot less predictable and it also untouchable, as nobody likes to argue against something that is supposed to "protecting the children".

Or to put it in practical terms: Wikileaks.de got raided by the police because it provides copies of a censorship lists and has a good chance to get put on one of those censorship lists itself in the next few month in Germany. None of that happened directly due to oppression of political opinion, all of that happens under the cover of childporn, while its really just the former.

The trouble with childporn is that its a perfect tool to shut people up. Don't like somebody? Mail him childporn and let the police raid his home. Public branding of "child porn consumer" will in turn to a good job that even those that might agree with him, distance themselves from that person. You can't pull stunts like that with political speech without getting caught. And no, thats not fiction, a case quite a bit like that has happened to a German politician just a few weeks ago.

Re:Big Difference

[kungfugleek]

Killing tens of thousands of innocents is an attempt at genocide -- murder amplified. Killing tens of thousands of enemy combatants is war. Neither is exactly humanity at its best. But I think there's a difference between targeting an innocent (murder), and targeting an enemy combatant (not murder, but still killing). The end result of a human life being lost is the same. The difference is in the motive. Murder is personal, war usually isn't (between individual soldiers at least -- the leaders that declare the war, that might be a different story). Neither should be glorified, but I do think there is a difference.

And I know it's not always clear who is an enemy and who is an innocent, but how you determine that (and I suppose, how hard you try to be certain), does have some moral implications. Also, there are certainly unjust wars, but I'd put the blame for those on the leaders, not on the soldiers.

Re:child pornography is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

... No. You cannot advocate child pornography on those grounds.

If marijuana, for instance, were legalized, it _could_ (not saying it would) be produced without exploitation, given proper regulation.

The same argument cannot be made in regards to child porn.

(p.s.: you, sir, are despicable.)

Re:child pornography is bad

[Prien715]

This makes it less profitable to rape children...

'cause pedophiles are so in it for the money!

It's not like they're sick or anything....

Poor, naive Americans

[SlappyBastard]

We Americans really don't understand how the rest of the world works. We're dumb enough to think this will make a dent.

This is Guatemala we're talking about. Every friggin faction in Guatemala makes sport of screwing the other guys. Go review the case of one Rigoberta Menchu before you get too wild about believing anyone's testimony about anything in Guatemala.

Guatemalans have been jerked around so many times by both the left and the right that their default presumption is that everyone is at least embellishing, if not completely lying.