Slashdot Mirror


Snowden Nominated For Freedom of Thought Prize

First time accepted submitter DigitalKhaos23 writes "Snowden is a candidate for the European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, named after Soviet scientist and dissident Andrei Sakharov, which honors people or organizations for their work in the defense of human rights and freedom of thought. The article adds: 'Edward Snowden risked his life to confirm what we had long suspected regarding mass online surveillance, a major scandal of our times. He revealed details of violations of EU data protection law and fundamental rights.'"

56 of 212 comments (clear)

  1. Lets give him Obama's Nobel Prize by Todd+Palin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's take Obama's Nobel Prize away and give it to Snowden.

    1. Re:Lets give him Obama's Nobel Prize by epyT-R · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree 100%. He's done more for liberty in the USA than any politician has done in 50 years. he's actually managed to push surveillance as a topic of conversation at the average american's dinner table. That alone is an excellent achievement, nevermind the rest he has done.

    2. Re:Lets give him Obama's Nobel Prize by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Obama won the prize for the achievement of not being Bush.

    3. Re:Lets give him Obama's Nobel Prize by mendax · · Score: 4, Interesting

      He's done more for liberty in the USA than any politician has done in 50 years.

      Except that what he has done is being largely ignored by most of "my fellow Americans", in the Nixon sense of the word.

      I think you're referring to "Great Silent Majority". The Great Silent Majority is made up of morons whose stupidity is only exceeded by the ignorance of the politicians they elect to Congress, who live lives they believe that are so pathetically empty and unfulfilling that they must resort to television fantasy and reality shows to fill this perceived void.

      I am now a part of the Slight Vocal Minority, many of which think Edward Snowden should be given a medal for revealing the illegal snooping the NSA has been doing on the American public and then put in prison for revealing what it is doing in the rest of the world.

      --
      It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
    4. Re:Lets give him Obama's Nobel Prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree 100%. He's done more for liberty in the USA than any politician has done in 50 years. he's actually managed to push surveillance as a topic of conversation at the average american's dinner table. That alone is an excellent achievement, nevermind the rest he has done.

      And yet, somehow I don't feel comforted over the fact that all we can do as citizens today is talk about it at the dinner table.

      Would have been nice to have a Snowden event during a time when we actually could have done something about it.

      Not going to beat myself up too bad about that though, the era I speak of is likely before we had a standing president warning us about the Military Industrial Complex. We lost control long ago.

    5. Re:Lets give him Obama's Nobel Prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Obama won the prize for the achievement of not being Bush.

      Really? I thought he won the prize for pulling the wool over 300 million people's eyes by convincing us he's not Bush...when he really is.

    6. Re:Lets give him Obama's Nobel Prize by erroneus · · Score: 2

      My thought exactly. I thought it was absurd to give him a Nobel for as yet unknown and certainly unmaterialized reasons. Meanwhile Snowden has changed the world in a very significant way.

    7. Re:Lets give him Obama's Nobel Prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I never really understood how a president can come into power and get a nobel peace prize, when he's not really had a chance to do anything... I guess he had to take over and the 'war on terror' had been started by Bush.

      FROM: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_Barack_Obama_win_the_Nobel_Peace_Prize

      "This is a question that seems to call for opinions, but first, a few facts. Barack Obama was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize because the committee believed he had already demonstrated a willingness to engage in diplomacy, and to reach out to the world community, rather than just using "tough talk"-- the committee believed President Bush had been far too bellicose in his rhetoric, and they saw in Barack Obama a new era in communication between countries. As the committee stated in
      their press release, he was given the award for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."
      "

      This seems to be a direct contradiction on what he was suggesting - to bomb Syria... So Maybe Putin should get the Nobel peace prize... and Edward gets the bravery award or whatever... I mean he's really got sum balls messing up the plans of the NSA and GCHQ. I can't say I would have done the same.

      The other thing that made me cross was that Obama deliberately said about chemical weapons being a game changer... thus giving the rebels or Al-Qaeda the incentive to also use checmical weapons... doesn't he realise thats just irresponsible?

    8. Re:Lets give him Obama's Nobel Prize by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You don't find it disturbing that a criminal is our greatest hero of the age, specifically because he's a criminal?

  2. It wouldn't be a problem by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It wouldn't be a problem to have the NSA spying and snooping if they never abused that power, but we know eventually they will. And indeed, thanks to Snowden we know that they already have.

    That's why we don't want the NSA to have this power. Because as far as we can tell, the abuses have been more harmful than any benefits for catching terrorists (and really, the programs don't seem to have caught many terrorists).

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:It wouldn't be a problem by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Interestingly, we have a similar tradeoff between monarchy and democracy. A monarchy would be clearly more efficient and all around better if we could guarantee we had a good king. And a good deal of the philosophy between the years 1000-1900 was about how society can guarantee to have a good king.

      But since that can't be guaranteed, and the abuses caused by a bad king far outweigh the benefits, it is better to endure the inefficiency (and dare I say, stupidity of your neighbors?) of democracy and the checks and balances than to give all that power to one man.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:It wouldn't be a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Also the Kings and queens in these countries usually have .. how would I best describe it.. latent powers. Usually they have huge powers, that they in reality can't use, because if they use them they will be stripped away. The monarch is also pretty much always somewhat above the law, the king can't be prosecuted. It's kind of a gentlemans deal that they won't actually do anything that would lead to prosecution. Also the kings in many monarchies serve as a kind of persistent political figure, and as a link between countries. They often act as an advisor/mentor for the acting prime minister, or whatever the acting head of political power is. Kings offer stability, they won't be switched by elections, and they also offer some kind of last resort fallback in case the state becomes paralyzed for some reason. All in all, modern monarchs are mostly figureheads, and representatives of their respective countries, but they do have other uses as well.

  3. Yes. And. But. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Something about the irony of these prizes:

    They're awarded to the people who are still going to be destroyed for what they've done for humanity while the monsters perpetrating the obscenities against us all are going completely fucking unscathed. The villains are allowed to continue their gross abuses while we give the human equivalent of a gold star sticker to the guy who couldn't not scream.

    1. Re:Yes. And. But. by Xest · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The real irony of this particular prize and nomination is that it's named after a Russian that wanted to flee to the West to escape the oppression in Russia, and this nomination is for someone who had to flee oppression in the West by escaping to Russia.

      How times change.

    2. Re:Yes. And. But. by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Unfortunately it is nothing new and we do not seem to have learned how to deal with it/prevent the rot. Intellectuals have betrayed us all many times in similar ways throughout history.

      "You don’t have any other society where the educated classes are so effectively indoctrinated and controlled by a subtle propaganda system – a private system including media, intellectual opinion forming magazines and the participation of the most highly educated sections of the population. Such people ought to be referred to as “Commissars” – for that is what their essential function is – to set up and maintain a system of doctrines and beliefs which will undermine independent thought and prevent a proper understanding and analysis of national and global institutions, issues, and policies." - From Language and Politics

      Example:

      A more difficult task is to shift the moral onus of the war to its victims. This seems a rather unpromising enterprise -- rather as if the Nazis had attempted to blame the Jews for the crematoria. But undaunted, American propagandists are pursuing this effort too, and with some success. Things have reached the point where an American President can appear on national television and state that we owe "no debt" to the Vietnamese, because "the destruction was mutual."28 And there is not a whisper of protest when this monstrous statement, worthy of Hitler or Stalin, is blandly produced in the midst of a discourse on human rights. Not only do we owe them no debt for having murdered and destroyed and ravaged their land, but we now may stand back and sanctimoniously blame them for dying of disease and malnutrition, deploring their cruelty when hundreds die trying to clear unexploded ordnance by hand from fields laid waste by the violence of the American state, wringing our hands in mock horror when those who were able to survive the American assault -- predictably, the toughest and harshest elements -- resort to oppression and sometimes massive violence, or fail to find solutions to material problems that have no analogue in Western history perhaps since the Black Death.

    3. Re:Yes. And. But. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The main problem is not "intellectuals", its journalism. Or rather the lack of journalism.

      Conflict of interest has destroyed journalism.

    4. Re:Yes. And. But. by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 2

      I should have said Most Intellectuals not imply all of them - my mistake. So no I am not engaging in anti-intellectualism just trying to raise the standard (which might be more obvious if you read the link I posted).

  4. This surveillance stuff is nothing by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I want to hear about the medical experiments being performed on prisoners, the serums and electrodes and soft pillows and comfortable chairs

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  5. George W just got nominated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    for The Freedom from Thought Prize. He has to pick it up at the Hague. He gets three for two if he brings Cheney and Rumsfeld along.

  6. I wonder... by wordsnyc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    how a prize named after Andrei Sakharov is gonna go over with Snowden's landlord, a veteran of the KGB that tormented Andrei Sakharov.

    --
    Sent from the iPad I found in your car.
    1. Re:I wonder... by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Finding out global networking encryption is junk is not "political turmoil, infighting, and disruption".

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:I wonder... by c0lo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      how a prize named after Andrei Sakharov is gonna go over with Snowden's landlord, a veteran of the KGB that tormented Andrei Sakharov.

      The same way that landlord can live with an avenue in Moscow name after Sakharov.
      Or... you think that avenue is under risk of being tormented too?

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    3. Re:I wonder... by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      You've a brave person. Not many people admit to being commanists.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    4. Re:I wonder... by FilatovEV · · Score: 5, Interesting

      how a prize named after Andrei Sakharov is gonna go over with Snowden's landlord, a veteran of the KGB that tormented Andrei Sakharov.

      Reportedly, Putin is a fan of Sakharov.

      An excerpt some early interview with American "National Public Radio":

      Mr. Siegel: On another subject, our listener, Alfred Friendly Jr., sent us this question. He wants to know what influence you believe Andrei Sakharov and other human rights advocates and their supporters in the West had on the course of Soviet and Russian history.
      President Putin: I think that was a crucial impact that they provided. It was a fundamental impact that they provided to the Russian history. At different periods, certain periods of time in the life of any nation, there will be people who turn on the light, if you will, and they show a road for the nation to follow. And no doubt Andrei Sakharov was one of those people who turned on the light.
      Link: http://archive.kremlin.ru/eng/speeches/2001/11/16/2355_type82916_142499.shtml

      That is, there are no problems whatsoever regarding Sakharov prize for Snowden.

      You might also want to check that Putin is a fan of Solzhenitsyn, too -- under Putin, Solzhenitsyn's masterpiece was included into the Russian regular high school curriculum.

  7. European Parliament’s Sakharov Prize for Fre by rvw · · Score: 2

    For those who wonder what this prize is about, a quote from the linked article. The question is who proposed him and if he makes a real chance.

    Members of the European Parliament are officially nominating fugitive US leaker Edward Snowden for a prize celebrating freedom of thought, a parliamentary representative said Wednesday.

    Snowden is a candidate for the European Parliament’s Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, named after Soviet scientist and dissident Andrei Sakharov, which honors people or organizations for their work in the defense of human rights and freedom of thought.

    More info about past winners on Wikipedia.

  8. Don't Forget Jimmy Carter by BBCWatcher · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Considering the last 50 years, I rate Jimmy Carter and his Carter Center very highly, though a big percentage of his good work has been done after his political career ended in 1981.

    1. Re:Don't Forget Jimmy Carter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Considering the last 50 years, I rate Jimmy Carter and his Carter Center very highly, though a big percentage of his good work has been done after his political career ended in 1981.

      Carter is a great former president, Obama was a great future president.

      Time to find a good incumbent.

    2. Re:Don't Forget Jimmy Carter by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Carter was, and is, one of the best statesmen the USA has ever had as President. Unfortunately he was inadequate as a politician. He never was able to get Washington to work.

      Obama is also having trouble getting Washington to work. But in this case its because he has to deal with a badly broken Republican party. The Republicans were enticed into bed with a pretty little tea bagging wench and are now saddled with a marriage partner who cares more about being given the bling she has set her silly dreams on than about making the marriage work.

      Time and again Obama and professional Republican politicians have started to work out the meaningful compromises that make a democracy work, only to have that dumbass wench throw a hissy fit because she won't get the bling that she thought she had been promised.

      The Republicans need to toss the bimbo out. Let her make her own party. Yeah, divorces are messy and both sides lose, but marriages like this one that should never have happened are messier for longer, and can really get dangerous to everybody, especially when there are so many firearms in the household. </rant>

      --
      Will
    3. Re:Don't Forget Jimmy Carter by jez9999 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This isn't true. I think Obama has a fundamental lack of respect for liberty (he laughs off the idea of ending the drug war), privacy (massively expanding unwarranted surveillance), and the constitution (numerous violations such as unwarranted search and seizure), not to mention international law (pardoning the Bush administration for war crimes, torture, etc.)

      He's not hamstrung by the Republicans; he's just a very big disappointment as a president. It's somewhat redundant, if true, to say that he should be impeached, given that that has applied to pretty much all US presidents for the last few decades.

    4. Re:Don't Forget Jimmy Carter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't forget directly ordering the extra-judicial killing of US citizens.

    5. Re:Don't Forget Jimmy Carter by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      Obama is also having trouble getting Washington to work. But in this case its because he has to deal with a badly broken Republican party.

      It's not like Obama had a Democratic House AND Senate his first 2 year or anything, or a lot of goodwill all over the world....

      If he wanted to get something done he had plenty of time to do it. The problem is politicians care more about getting re-elected than actually getting things done, so they just waited until the Republicans got some more seats to try and pass major things, so that when it failed they could point and them and say "Well, we tried".

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    6. Re:Don't Forget Jimmy Carter by khallow · · Score: 2

      Blame transference is an interesting thing. So it's the Tea Party's fault that your "professional" politicians aren't remotely competent and can't get anything done? Too bad. Those tea partiers vote too. So that means they aren't going away either.

    7. Re:Don't Forget Jimmy Carter by mcvos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Outrageous statements? Maybe, but his claim that the US is not a functional democracy was not false.

      He may not have been the most effective president, but he's the most noble person to have occupied the White House in recent years. Instead of getting dirtier politicians into office, Americans should work on cleaning up the rest of Washington to people like Carter can have more impact.

    8. Re:Don't Forget Jimmy Carter by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Here's Obama's fault as president, in a nutshell: If the Democratic and Republican leadership in Congress both agree on something, Obama assumes the issue is settled and does nothing about it.

      And this isn't a 2013 phenomenon or even a 2011 phenomenon: That kind of thinking started showing up in Obama's actions as president-elect, both with his choice of cabinet nominees and with his decisions regarding the giant bank bailouts with little-to-no strings attached. What Obama has exposed is that the 2 major parties have widespread agreement regarding:
      - civil liberties (they'd rather we didn't have 'em)
      - the rights of foreigners (will always be trumped by requests of business or convenience)
      - the rights of citizens (to be violated when it's convenient)
      - international law (to be violated with impunity because the US has a military that's on par with the rest of the world combined)
      - equal justice under the law (there are documented cases of rich and powerful people literally getting away with murder, and US citizens executed by the US government with no legal proof that they were engaged in any kind of criminal act)
      - privacy (to be ignored)
      - war (it's good for business)
      - banking (banks should be allowed to do whatever they want)

      Both parties have some backbenchers that disagree with these views (more Democrats than Republicans, because the Democratic Party culture allows for more questioning and dissent without a primary challenge), but both parties are controlled by people who believe fully in all the ideas I just listed.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    9. Re:Don't Forget Jimmy Carter by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      Yes, and I don't remember record-breaking filibusters in 2009 at all.

    10. Re:Don't Forget Jimmy Carter by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 2

      How did that work when Obama had a Democrat house and senate?

      Pretty well, really. Back in those miserable days, Obama managed to keep the Great Recession from becoming Great Depression II. That took guts and a lot of nimble footwork, and nobody ended up happy. I was severely disappointed that the bastards who were screwing finance and mortgage laws were allowed to walk free. But compromises needed to be made, and we have emerged from the greatest economic crisis in 80 years without having to jump into another world war to do so.

      --
      Will
    11. Re:Don't Forget Jimmy Carter by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 2

      Author of parent post has a short memory. The Federal government was shut down briefly during Clinton, until the Republicans gave way: that was Clinton's action, not a bluff.

      At the time America was quite wealthy and Clinton could afford to take the risk. Obama, though, is President over a very different America, one that was driven into credit card bankruptcy before he took office, and whose finances and aggregate personal wealth had been wasted away by finance crooks and the mortgage bubble. Obama has not had the options Clinton had.

      Between Clinton's Administration and Obama's Administration, the USA went from being one of the wealthiest countries in the world to having one of the poorest debt to asset ratios of any country, at any time. That's what allowing the housing bubble with its derivative financial tools to go on and on, and starting endless wars paid for on credit, can do to a country.

      Obama's legacy is not going to be anything that he has built. His legacy is going to be the acknowledgment that he successfully glued back together what had been broken into nasty shards during the years between Clinton and Obama.

      --
      Will
    12. Re:Don't Forget Jimmy Carter by compro01 · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's not like Obama had a Democratic House AND Senate his first 2 year or anything, or a lot of goodwill all over the world....

      He didn't. He had a majority in both the House and Senate, but only had a fillibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate for a total of 181 days (and the Senate was only in session for 94 of those days), from August 25, 2009 until February 4, 2010 and again from June 28, 2010 until July 16, 2010.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  9. His has been nominated by MrL0G1C · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Bahnhof, a builder of futuristic-looking data centers" Has nominated Snowden for the peace prize.

    I wouldn't expect those morally corrupt idiots to actually award him the prize. It would restore some of their credibility if they did though.

    --
    Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  10. largely ignored by most leading intellectuals.... by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Let's take Obama's Nobel Prize away and give it to Snowden.

    I agree 100%. He's done more for liberty in the USA than any politician has done in 50 years. he's actually managed to push surveillance as a topic of conversation at the average american's dinner table. That alone is an excellent achievement, nevermind the rest he has done.

    That all being true, no matter what Snowden or any other activist does to try and roll back the fascist encroachments of absolute power - the peace prize world is off limits. Heroes of the people like Manning, Snowden will continue to be labeled traitors and excluded from all significant high profile peace prizes, Time Person of the Year, in large part due to the failure of our intellectuals:

    The article is an attack on the intellectual culture in the U.S., which Chomsky argues is largely subservient to power. He is particularly critical of social scientists and technocrats, who he believed were providing a pseudo-scientific justification for the crimes of the state

    Intellectuals have betrayed us all before and it will continue to happen until a groundswell of people start to shun, exclude and shine a bright constant light on these mostly unnamed behind the scenes policy setters who have corrupted their purpose blinding following the "party line" subservience to power.

  11. Hypocrisy by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    European Parliament may be "officially nominating" - but their respective countries have all denied Snowdens asylum requests. Sure sounds like a consolation prize and even if he wins it, it does not let European countries off the hook for their crime. History will judge their actions very poorly - they have done the world a disservice and revealed their deep rooted hypocrisy.

  12. Re:Traitor by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sometimes the law needs to be broken.

    Wasn't the US founded by a bunch of rebels who violently rose up against the lawful authority of the time?

  13. realities of life by Max_W · · Score: 2

    The price of life in Russia and especially in Moscow is very high. The government of RF does not assist E.S. in fear of further reprisals from the US government.

    E.S. has to hire a protection from a private security company, an apartment, etc.

  14. Re:I came by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I do not think you understand the ramifications of what has been done.

    In your defence few do, even here on Slashdot. I saw someone begging for 1984 instead of what we now have which is both far more insidious and far more subtle as well as far more totalitarian. That person is on the right track of understanding; “we” have essentially doomed the future of humanity.

    Nothing less. A fait accompli, a done deal, inescapable.

    We have to fight it but we can never win because winning is now impossible no matter who your are or what one might believe or whatever one claims allegiance to.

    It will never go away now. Widespread ability is too sophisticated to remove it and its seductive allure as a fantasy of control will only grow stronger.

    This is what fate looks like. Fight it not in delusion about winning but to potentially be able to claim ownership of yourself. If nothing else out of pure defiance and spite or even enlightened self-loathing.

    Everyone has already lost but will you choose to lose in style? That's the only real choice left for every human being.

  15. Re:largely ignored by most leading intellectuals.. by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 2

    The TL;DW version of Cold Fiord's video on Conservative policy think tank Hoover Institution intellectual Thomas Sowell and his book "Intellectuals and Society"... for those that are interested...

  16. Re:And thats why, my fellow americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    We must liberate Europe of its harboring terrorists leaders

    The grass isn't any greener over here so yes please take all our politicians but don't you dare bring any of your own.

  17. Irony? by mschaffer · · Score: 4, Funny

    I thought the prizes were goldy or bronzy---not irony.

  18. Re:Traitor by msobkow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sometimes a law being "broken" isn't a law at all, but spin by the thugs who run government.

    If anyone is a traitor in this, it's the US Congress, the US Senate, the US President, the Canadian Prime Minister, the Canadian Senate, the Canadian House of Commons, the UK Parliament, and so on.

    They're the ones who authorized the creation and growth of these abusive letter agencies in violation of the laws of their lands.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  19. Re:Traitor by msobkow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Whistle blowing is not a crime. It's a service.

    And when the entire government you could report to is corrupt, one has no choice but to whistleblow to the media and the public who own the government.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  20. He also hasn't tried by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    On any issue of importance he's either agreed with them, or folded without a fight. I'd give him a "hamstrung" thing if he'd taken a number of fights to the republicans, lost each time, and has to start compromising to get anything at all done. However he hasn't done that. He's never even stood up and fought. It isn't even that he's rolled over, he's just never shown up in the first place.

    This blaming the republicans is really silly. While the republican party by and large is not being helpful, they do not have any sort of control. They have a narrow majority in the house, a minority in the senate, and of course don't have the presidency. If President Obama wanted to stand up and fight on things that mattered, well he'd have a shot at least. It isn't like they could just ram legislation past him. However he hasn't, not once that I can think of.

    That's the problem.

    1. Re:He also hasn't tried by Notabadguy · · Score: 2

      On any issue of importance he's either agreed with them, or folded without a fight. . He's never even stood up and fought. It isn't even that he's rolled over, he's just never shown up in the first place.

      How is this surprising? His senatorial credentials consist of voting "present." The man has never taken a stand for anything.

  21. What do you mean? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Your evidence supports that, not disproves it. The problem is the Saudi monarchy is massively corrupt, as all monarchies tend to be. That doesn't mean that a theoretical perfect one, that is unattainable with real people, wouldn't be a great system.

    I mean look at a system like the US has, it's mix of democracy and republic. There is a lot of infighting in government, bureaucracy, dead weight, and so on. It is slow to respond and rather bloated. This is by necessity, and also by design. Spread the power around and create checks and balances so that nobody can abuse it. That is needed because we deal with real people, but it is inefficient.

    Now imagine a system where it is a dictatorship, or other situation of absolute power, but we have a theoretical perfect being (an AI maybe) as the ruler. It is incorruptible, cares for nothing but the welfare of its citizens and nation, and makes the best choice it can, all the time. Well that would be a hell of a lot more efficient. Shit would get done. When things needed to change, they'd just change by immediate decree. No games, no pork barrel spending, no holding the budget hostage.

    The problem is, we can't have that perfect ruler. Humans are imperfect and put them in a position of absolute power, they get corrupted, generally very badly. Even if you got real lucky and got one that didn't, sooner or later you'd get one that did.

    Hence the need for a more complex, and inefficient, system like what we see in modern free countries. However that doesn't invalidate the theory that with a perfect ruler a system of absolute power would be more efficient.

  22. Re:Traitor by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

    Exposing secret information that is evidence of crime (in this case, about 300 million violations of wiretapping laws) is in fact the very definition of whistleblowing.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  23. Yes he broke the law by Arker · · Score: 2

    And in this case the appropriate response would have been to offer him immunity from prosecution to back and testify at the trial for all the other criminals whose actions he exposed. We do that routinely in cases with real bad guys who have no extenuating circumstances or qualities other than their testimony. In Snowdens case, his lawbreaking appears to have been motivated by the highest and most admirable of motivations - a will to obey the oath he took to the Constitution.

    Of course the fact is the last thing the powers that be want is to prosecute the other criminals he exposed, which is why they dont want him to come back and will do all they can do discourage rather than encourage his return.

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  24. Re:I'm fine with Obama by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The fault is in the American public in electing the previous administration in the first place

    It's debatable whether Bush actually was elected in the first place.

  25. Re:Parent is trolling by Todd+Palin · · Score: 2

    Actually, I was not trolling. I am seriously disturbed by Obama's warmongering. I did vote for him, but I am beginning to question that decision. His proposal to attack Syria is very disturbing. The Snowden revelations are just as disturbing. Obama has done more to disrupt peace than any Nobel PEACE Prize winner should ever be allowed to do. Snowden, on the other hand has done a great service to the planet, which really is worthy of a Nobel Prize. I'm sorry you thought I was trolling. That was not my intent.