Slashdot Mirror
Why Whistleblowers Can't Get a Fair Trial
phantomfive writes "'Seven whistleblowers have been prosecuted under the Obama administration,' writes Jesselyn Radack, a lawyer who advised two of them. She explains why they can't get a fair trial. In the Thomas Drake case, the administration retroactively marked documents as classified, saying, 'he knew they should have been classified.' In the Bradley Manning case, the jury wasn't allowed to see what information was leaked. The defendants, all who have been charged with espionage, have limited access to court documents. Most of these problems happen because the law was written to deal with traitorous spies, not whistleblowers."
When a government is corrupt, dishonest, and incompetent, then a whistleblower and a spy are essentially the same thing, as they threaten the positions and livelihoods of the corrupt, dishonest, and incompetent politicians and bureaucrats who comprise it.
Washington, Adams, Franklin, Hancock, et al would've been hung as traitors if the Brits had quashed the American rebellion.
Bucking the system is courageous for a reason.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Traitorous spies? No, that is false. The law was written to deal with socialists advocating isolationism in WWI.
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
its laughable for people to think anyone who challenges deep political and financial power structures are going to 1. somehow be rewarded or applauded for their efforts or 2. get some sort of "fair trial" (whatever that really means in our current legal system) where a positive outcome for the WB would encourage others to follow suit. ...and for those who think otherwise...sorry to tell you...it was your parents putting the money under the pillow, not the tooth fairy :((
never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
As an outsider (not a US Citizen) I laugh everytime I read an account of how persecuted US citizens are.
Even in Soviet Russia at the height of the cold war russians had rights. (It's interesting reading the real account of life in russian from people who lived it not the propaganda)
Chinese citizens have more rights than you do (as long as they stay within the political party rules) and the law is mostly clear with clearly defined rules and laws.
The US system of laws and bylaws is so convluded that the Avg person commits 3 felonys a day ("http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/three-felonies-a-day-how-the-feds-target-the-innocent#axzz2rEA3eW6J)
USA's Tax law along is almost 4 million pages long.
Implied
Welcome to the Land of the ^ free
There is the answer to all the people who say, "He should have just been a whistleblower". He would have been silenced, and we would never have found out about how we are being spied upon by the NSA.
In a democracy, the public IS a higher authority than the government. Sometimes, the officials forget this.
Whistleblowing is reporting malpractice to a higher authority.
In a democracy, the highest authority is the people. Manning knew that she'd have no success going to her commanding officer, or his CO, or his CO, or even the President or Congress. So he reported the malpractice to the President's boss: the people.
But you have no credibilty, because you are an anonymous coward. Snowdon specifically renounced his anonymity, because he is not a coward.
If it is against your interest or your self-image, you will always find a reason why someone is not a whistle-blower. He still may be the hero of all the people you bully around.
Of course, when the highest authority is complicit there is no one within the system to report to, and the only alternative is to blow the whistle loud and clear where EVERYONE can hear because it is pretty clear that anything else will simply be swept under the carpet.
Remember, Manning released _proof_ that the US armed forces were guilty of gunning down a Reuters reporter, then was further complicit in denying it happened and covering up, let alone not offering help to those wounded during the strike.
Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
handmadehands.co.uk
Whistleblowing would be reporting to a higher authority wrongdoing within the government. That means that they are reporting to someone within the government that is higher up.
Newsflash: the supervisor and employer of the government in a democracy is the people.
Thanks, but no thanks.
I too would like to know why whistleblowers can't get a fair trial. Could someone put up the full text?
The link is to a news story behind the Wall Street Journal's paywall; I think such stories should be reconsidered. Such situations are acceptable with posts on science, which often link both to a popular-science write-up and to the original journal article: probably those readers with the expertise to read the original literature are subscribers. Links to ordinary news stories should follow the same policy: if there must be a link to a paywalled story, a link to a generally accessible version should be expected as well.
Pretty sure that those things are not problems to do with how these specific laws are written, they're fundamental flaws in the trial process and thus the judiciary itself. If such basic rules are being ignored then by definition you wouldn't know if an accused person was actually a traitorous spy or not, would you, because the system would be unable to come to any trustworthy conclusion.
Yes, most governments forget that they are the servants of the people, not the other way round.
"As Americans, we can take enormous pride in the fact that courage has been inspired by our own struggle for freedom, by the tradition of democratic law secured by our forefathers and enshrined in our Constitution. It is a tradition that says all men are created equal under the law and that no one is above it."
"Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones weâ(TM)ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek."
"Iâ(TM)m in this race not just to hold an office, but to gather with you to transform a nation."
"Change doesnâ(TM)t come from Washington. Change comes to Washington."
Now watch me get modded down for using Obama's own words against him. Remember, citizens, report suspicious subversive activity immediately!
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
In the US, every public official's oath of office is to the Constitution (ie, to the rule of law). God helps us if we ever truly become a nation where the rule of men overshadows the rule of law.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
They aren't passing a law they changed the status of a document, basically saying that the intent of the law was broken and that he *should* have known that these were incorrectly marked because of his experience. But this logic doesn't apply to bankers, only whistleblowers.
Except that we do not live in a democracy, we live in a republic. A democracy fails to function beyond a certain number, so a republic is formed to increase efficiency. That is not to say that we are discovering the limits of functioning of a republic, too. Humans may simply not be justly organizable above a certain multiplier of their monkeysphere.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
In both cases there is way too much alleged indiscriminate collateral damage to hide behind the whistle blower defense.
Fixed it for you.
Without disclosure then their is no proof of collateral damage, instead you have to believe the word of the agencies who were suppressing the information leaked in the first place.
What was proven by Manning's leaks was that the US Military were covering up war crimes. Nothing new there, its standard practice, the last thing the US wants its their soldiers being held to account for their actions.
The Snowden leaks have proven that the NSA is, in all probability, in breach of the US Constitution. Which I think is illegal.
You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
7 out of 100 ... would tell me that the those 7 _did_ do something odd
7 out of 7 ... okay let's get paranoid.
7 out of 5 ... NSA at work?
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
There is a continuum from objection to whistleblowing to traitor, not a stark line. How many whistleblowers have there been in the last decade who have indicated waste, fraud, and abuse that exists in the 2 million people who form the federal government? In terms of dangerous or classified documents leaked to the public, where do these 7 stand wrt quantity, sensitivity, and content related to those who were not prosecuted?
Without this data, the fine article is merely clickbait.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Except when those who are the 'higher authority' say "nothing to see here, move along", then doing it through government channels is pointless.
When your government is knowingly breaking the law and doing stuff like this, you pretty much can't gain anything by telling them it's happening, because they don't care.
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
The public often forgets this
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
In the Bradley Manning case, the jury wasn't allowed to see what information was leaked.
When you're on a jury, you have a duty to both the accused and your nation to consider evidence fairly, within Constitutional constraints. Being prevented from seeing evidence would, to me, be all the reason necessary to give a verdict of 'not guilty.'
All accused American citizens have a right to confront their accusers and the evidence presented against them, in a fair and speedy trial conducted within due process. Period, end of story; don't like it? Amend the Constitution or GTFO.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
First of all, I think you're using a nonstandard definition of whistleblower here. Here is a typical dictionary definition:
S: (n) whistle blower, whistle-blower, whistleblower (an informant who exposes wrongdoing within an organization in the hope of stopping it)
Secondly, isn't the highest authority in a democracy supposed to be the people? So even with your definition, people who alert the people to wrongdoing in the government are whistleblowers.
Thirdly, sure, when they leak information people get hurt. But have you considered that the government's wrongdoings also hurt people? Not just the few who have chosen a dangerous line of work as spies, but potentially everybody. I don't think it's obvious that the harm to the spies outweighs the harm to the rest of the people.
No.
As a life-time Democrat it pains me to say it, but it is true.
Re provide aid to our enemies in the process... mb you missed the "Manning acquitted of aiding enemy" aspect...
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_new...
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
The top authority in our US government is not the President, Congress or any official. It is the American people. Because the President and large swaths of the federal government are corrupt to the core, the only higher authority is us. And if we don't care to do anything about it, then shame on us.
Except that we do not live in a democracy, we live in a republic.
And they're supposed to be acting as our representatives, so if they're breaking the law, we still have the right to know.
You're parroting Fox News here.
Not just Fox News. I've heard this nonsensical propaganda on every channel, including Fox News.
You're getting stuck on labels. The constitution starts out with "We the people". The government is beholden to the people no matter what shape or form it takes under the guise of the constitution.
Sadly, the math pretty much guarantees this outcome. The people who designed the system we use had few models to look to and did not have the background to anticipate the problems that would arise.
"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."
Letter to Jonathan Jackson (2 October 1780), "The Works of John Adams", vol 9, p.511
Actually, I'm not. We, the people, are who the government is organized to protect and serve. We are the beginning and the end. However, you will remember that the constitution was not written for "the people," but rather by and for the "1%" to use a modern term - the white, male, landowners of the time. It was intended to provide basic freedoms and to restrict the rights of those with whom we did not share a common heritage and moral foundation.
The fact that it is a republic is very salient, as the "people" do not vote on the issues, they elect representatives to do so (okay, it's a representative democracy - we can argue semantics I suppose). While "we the people" are in control, each of us only have a voice in less than 1% of the elected officials. They actually *don't* all have to look out for my interest, only 4 of them are charged such (1 HR, 2 Sen, 1 P/VP pair). That's it. One might say I don't even elect the president, as that is the job of the electors, who are not bound to honor my vote *by design*. "Beholden to the people" sounds nice, but with 330 million people, most of which want different things, is essentially meaningless at the person level. Hence my reference to the limitations of human organization due to the reality of monkeyspace size.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Unfortunately the way our voting system was constructed, you WILL always end up with 2 parties. End stop. Every other country that uses the US system has also ended up with 2 parties, it is built into the math, and no matter how much enthusiasm there is for any particular 3rd party, the 2 party system is what it will stabilize to every, single, time.
One can philosophize all they want, but the way our system was built, voting 3rd party streghtens the position of the candidate furthest from the voter's preferences. It is no throwing your vote away, it is helping the worst candidate. This can not be changed any more then 'if we all think positively and stop believing in gravity we can all fly!'.
Except that we do not live in a democracy, we live in a republic. A democracy fails to function beyond a certain number, so a republic is formed to increase efficiency. That is not to say that we are discovering the limits of functioning of a republic, too. Humans may simply not be justly organizable above a certain multiplier of their monkeysphere.
Democracy is an umbrella term. Under that umbrella is Direct Democracy, wherein the people vote on each and every issue individually, and Republic, where the people elect representatives to vote on their behalf. The US is a Democracy and a Republic.
The UK has a first-past-the-post system, and we currently have a coalition government, formed by one of the two major parties and the third party. Going back to the middle of the last century, the third party was one of the dominant two and was displaced (and reformed after merging with another small party) by one of the current two. FPTP electoral systems do tend towards two-party systems, but they're not stable and can be periodically upset (at which point they'll again start tending towards a two-party system. They trick is to upset them frequently).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Bradley Manning was lucky under the UCMJ he may of gotten the death penalty
Except that we do not live in a democracy, we live in a republic.
It's time to update your dictionary, because you're using an 18th century definition of democracy. Back then democracy meant what we now call direct democracy. Nowadays the word has become more general, to the point where it includes both direct democracies and representative democracies. My apologies if the English language changes. I have trouble reading Chaucer too.
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Unfortunately the way our voting system was constructed, you WILL always end up with 2 parties. End stop. Every other country that uses the US system has also ended up with 2 parties, it is built into the math, and no matter how much enthusiasm there is for any particular 3rd party, the 2 party system is what it will stabilize to every, single, time.
While you are right that the U.S. system is flawed and will tend toward 2 parties, you draw bad conclusions from that premise. That premise does not guarantee that (1) it will always be the same two parties, nor does it guarantee (2) that those parties will always adhere to the same agenda/platform for all time.
Notice that we didn't always have the two parties we have now, for example. The Republican party emerged in the mid-1800s and overtook the Whig party for good reasons. There have also been a number of times since then where a 3rd-party presidential candidate has significantly contributed toward changing the issues discussed in an election. The most recent significant one was probably Ross Perot, who received about 20% of the popular vote in 1992. His presence in debates and during the campaigns served to highlight issues that otherwise may not have even been discussed, as well as problematizing the consistency of the two major party platforms. (For the record, I was NOT a Perot fan, but that's just the most recent example of a strong presidential 3rd-party candidate.) If a 3rd party managed to get a candidate with the charisma, connections, and rhetorical skills of Obama in 2008, it certainly could be possible for a party shift to occur like that which destroyed the Whigs 150 years ago.
And, if you're willing to look beyond the presidency, you can find plenty of examples of 3rd-party candidates actually elected to various offices, including sometimes to federal office.
One can philosophize all they want, but the way our system was built, voting 3rd party streghtens the position of the candidate furthest from the voter's preferences. It is no throwing your vote away, it is helping the worst candidate.
Except when your candidate gets elected, which actually does happen, particularly in many local or state elections.
And even if your candidate doesn't get elected, the examples I mention can often cause major party candidates to shift their views if the 3rd party candidate is perceived as a significant threat.
So no, it's not as simple as you make it out to be. Just because we have a system that tends toward 2 major parties doesn't mean you have to shut up and take whatever crap they serve to you... and sometimes voting for a 3rd party candidate can facilitate changes. (Not saying it always will -- but it's not always the irrational choice you make it out to be either.)
He should have a pretty good case in appeals court, then: It's utterly unconstitutional to be punished for an action that wasn't a crime when you took the action. Whether it should have been classified or not is completely not his fault or responsibility.
Who did what now?
Whistleblowing would be reporting to a higher authority wrongdoing within the government. That means that they are reporting to someone within the government that is higher up.
Is that some newspeak definition? Yes, when those higher up in the system are unaware is generally the best practice. But if they are aware and condone, support or ordered the unethical behavior going to others has always been an accepted form of whistleblowing, whether it's the media, law enforcement or other kinds of watchdog agencies and organizations. If you think your company is dumping toxic waste I'd call that whistleblowing no matter if you went to the CEO, FBI, EPA, Greenpeace or the New York Times. Particularly if it's in the dark shades of gray involving exploitation, polluting the environment, destroying historical or cultural items, exterminating threatened species, brutal treatment of animals, dangers to employer or public safety and other such things that may be simply unethical, not illegal.
You're the kind of person who think the waterboarding at Gitmo should have remained a secret. I mean if we only report it upwards and everybody at the top tell you to STFU, then you should just STFU right? This is particularly true when the system is broken or contain loopholes, I wouldn't put money on the Supreme Court finding anything of what Snowden has published unconstitutional. For example the global mass metadata collection, spying on leaders of your allies and such, if it doesn't involve US citizens I assume they'll tell me to shove my human rights where the sun doesn't shine. I don't care what a kangaroo court in the US finds, I say exposing NSA for what they are has been a good thing for the world. At the very least for the privacy of everyone not living in the US.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
This was on WSJ; so all I saw was a bunch of faded text behind a window telling me to pay up or leave. I wish slashdotters wouldn't link to pay-wall sources. Some of us currently can't afford to pay for this stuff, so we're left wondering just what the hell the rest of you are talking about.
It's a conflict of interest. Are the judges going to be impartial? No. The Jury? No. Seriously, if Snowden got drug back to the US; the trial would probably be a total sham as they've already marked him for death. We don't see the difference between a whistleblower and treason because they don't want to. Mess with the government; they'll kill you. I mean, how many senators and representatives were calling to have him tried for treason and executed? There's absolutely zero way I feel a federal judge will not be biased in this.
I feel the same way about trials involving police officers. Two officers enjoy beating up a homeless man and have video as well as audio proving these two were *clearly* enjoying beating this man to death; bragging about it. Think they went to jail? No, a jury found them innocent. Innocent. There it was, plain clear proof they did this but they couldn't get convicted. Why? You think that jury's going to be impartial? The officers in courtroom are going to find out who they are and make thier life absolute hell if they convict the person. Do we have proof of this? No. But it seems to be the only way officers can get away with murdering someone on camera.
The entire justice system is a giant effing joke. Liberty and justice for all? Not anymore; we have no liberty, we have no justice; and those in power just simply don't care enough to listen to people.
And I admire your ability to walk from New York to L.A., all the while carrying no photo ID--because you know that cops are perfectly cool with it in the U.S. when strangers walk into their town with no ID (don't forget to tell them "Hey, we don't need papers here, man!" to remind them, in case they've clearly forgotten how to do their job). And bring blue-jeans too, because that's the fine line that separates us all from oppression.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
Show me one instance where Snowden gave ANYTHING to the Russians instead of the British press.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
If a 3rd party managed to get a candidate with the charisma, connections, and rhetorical skills of Obama in 2008, it certainly could be possible for a party shift to occur like that which destroyed the Whigs 150 years ago.
The GOP didn't destroy the Whigs by electing Abe Lincoln as POTUS. They destroyed the Whigs by slowly and methodically building a party from the bottom up. By the time Lincoln got to Washington he already had GOP Congressmen and Senators to work with. There were already GOP Assemblyman, State Senators, Mayors, Town Councilmen, Justices at all levels of the judiciary, etc.
It's fashionable these days for third parties to try and run for POTUS but that's a fools errand if they can't be bothered to compete for and win at the lower levels first.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Too late.
Snowden took American national secrets and gave them to the Russians, our enemies.
I didn't realize he gave specific things to the Russians and no one else. I didn't realize the Russians were our enemies. Just out of curiosity, did this "National Secrets to Russian Enemies" thing happen before or after Snowden was accused of being a traitor?
A whistleblower goes up the chain of command to the person above the obstruction; a traitor goes to the enemy.
How does one go above the president? How does one go above organizations that are trained in both character assassination and real-life assassination?
And finally: Who do you work for and how did you get modded to a 3?
I'm not American so don't really know, but it seems to me that Obama probably had little or nothing to do with this. The timeline is just coincidental. Am I right?
I mean it would be like saying someone in the Clinton administration invented the internet. Oh wait....
voting 3rd party streghtens the position of the candidate furthest from the voter's preferences
No, it doesn't. It strengthens the position of the 3rd party.
You are trying to use game theoretical optimums to model a system which is inherently game-theoretically irrational by design. Consider this:
Informing yourself about the issues, takes time. Informing yourself about each candidates positions on the issues takes time. Going to the polls takes time, even if "the polls" is just your mailbox. You could spend that time doing literally anything else, but you don't, despite the nearly-impossible odds that you taking the time to do these things will influence the results of the election.
According to game theory then, about 60% of people in the voting age population (approx. voter turnout) are being irrational. So what is going on here? Well, you understand that if only a small number of people vote, then they will have a great deal of power, and that is clearly bad. You know your vote probably won't make a difference, but if EVERYONE thought that way, it would be really bad.
Game theoretically, you know it would benefit you right now to push button B, but if EVERYONE pushed button B we would all suffer. You aren't thinking about yourself, you are thinking about the group. That is an area of human behavior described in the study of superrationality.
So why then the two party system? Actually, two party systems TEND to crop up even using voting algorithms specifically designed to give 3rd parties a fair chance. Even in wars, you see factions magically aligning themselves into two narrowly-defined groups of strange bedfellows.
The reason is because of ignorance on a massive scale. To bring back the war analogy, we were allies with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden once, because we didn't know any better. People are scared into an irrational panic when faced with the false specter of "the Great Enemy" and are suddenly willing to compromise their own goals with lesser enemies. But it doesn't have to be like that. It isn't ALWAYS like that even now, particularly when people are informed. And that is what "vote 3rd party" advocates are trying to achieve.
Vote your conscience. Vote 3rd party*
*Unless you conscience tells you to vote for one of the two main parties.
In a military trial the term jury doesn't mean what it does in the real world. The jury is hardly the defendant's peers. Manning knew this and went for a trial by the judge only.
In a democracy, the public IS a higher authority than the government.
In a demcoracy the government is the public. Sometimes, citizens forget they are not separable...
govern by the consent of the governed....
governement of the people, by the people, and for the people....
government as an abstraction of the collective will of the public....
etc..etc..
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
The headline says it all. Why on earth would a whistleblower be placed on trial?
Manning had no idea whatsoever of the contents of several hundred thousand classified documents he released. By definition he could not be a whistleblower for the release of these documents.
Are you a Russian? I'm not. He gave me plenty of information... If you can list a way he could have released his information to the US as a whole without also letting it be seen by the Russians (who are opponents of ours on multiple political issues, but not our enemies by any stretch of the definition) then I will grant there is *some* point to what you said. Otherwise, it's complete bullshit.
Also, as others have pointed out, he did try going through proper channels. He was told to drop it. How high did you expect him to go, and what good did you expect it to do? The president himself has expressed support for the NSA's programs *and* branded Snowden a criminal *before* he took asylum in Russia, so that part of your argument is bullshit. Enough members of congress have said (or voted in favor of) much the same things that I doubt it would do much good to have gone to them, either. With the heads of the executive and legislative branches complicit in this travesty, Snowden *did* go over their heads: to the people who elect those scum. We, the citizens of these United States of America.
So, I ask you again: how was Snowden supposed to reveal the information to We The People, without also revealing it to our "enemies"? (If you wanted to pick examples of enemies, you could do much better than Russia).
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Care to give an alternative way that Manning could have "spilled the secrets" only to enfranchised American voters? Because otherwise, your supposed counterpoint is null.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Doesn't work that way, you don't get to just tell top secret information to everyone, no matter what you consider a higher authority. As may people have replied in this fashion I will state this once, here. I don't support the idea of a government having free reign to do what it likes, but I'm not naive enough to believe that a government can operate with full disclosure to its people. Military operations and technical development are a good example of things that we should not be broadcasting. We as a country need some degree of intelligence community to determine if others intend us harm, and that may well walk the line. We need people who suspect wrong doing to work within channels to ensure that they do not do harm. I don't agree with the NSA's observation, but I also don't agree that Snowden did anyone any favors, nor do I suspect that he did it with purely altruistic motives.
Disagreeing with you does not make me a troll.
Actually, that is untrue. Nixon would have been convicted in the Senate had he not resigned. It was a count of the votes that convinced him to give up the ghost and protect what was left of the dignity of the office. Many forget that Vice President Agnew was forced to resign as well as had criminal charges filed against him. Again, he would have also been impeached and convicted had he not taken the plea deal.
To bring this back on topic...
It was Nixon's Watergate scandal that was the result of a whistle blower, (deep throat) that alerted the American public to the illegal dealings in the oval office. Without whistle blowers, the illegal activities of those in power would go unchecked much like it is today.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
The "Rule of Law" is a slogan just like about everything else. Sure, nothing is or was perfect but as we continue our gradual fall into despotism, real actual things fade into metaphor and then into meaningless emotional trigger phrases. Unlike in history, where they lacked the social sciences we have today which enhance the skilled sheep herders control.
If you are their enemy, they can drag you into court over ANYTHING what so ever and the only protection you have is which judge you happen to get - who may "interpret" it anyway they seem fit to; including pulling out old common law that isn't actual law -- that is just if they want to cite something instead of pull some total BS like "corporations are people." Sure, you may win eventually after they wreak your life and freeze your funds (or lose your job) so you can't pay for a defense even if you have the money... which most people do not. The political pressure the press can provide when such abuses happen is the last resort but we all know how that doesn't happen...
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
A republic is literally rex publica -- rule by the people
That's an incorrect etymology from the Latin: It's res publica, the public matters, and you can find that exact construction in Cicero.
Democracy, from the Greek (transliterated) demos kratos, is literally the rule of the citizenry.
I am officially gone from
Disagreeing with you does not make me a troll.
Gee, maybe it's because there's so much more space in the U.S. Let me guess, you're European?
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
That stupid "we're a republic, not a democracy" meme is annoying and it must die.Seriously.
democracy noun \di-mä-kr-s\
: a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting.
I don't have a sig.
This is the first actually good argument I can remember hearing as to why the U.S. is a republic (your first paragraph specifically).
"When I grow up, I want to be a faithless elector!" :D
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
A) Democrats and Republicans were both "third parties" at one point in time. It will always stabilize to two, but *which* two is still open to change
B) Even the existing parties flip alignments every few decades. The system is set up such that both major parties are always hovering within a few percentage points of a majority. So if a third party gets even a small number of votes it may be enough to push one of the major parties over the top if they can win those voters without sacrificing their existing base. Even if it doesn't win, the message that a number of people voting third party would send could still significantly alter the political landscape. And since the most agreeable party to you will undoubtedly be back in power within a few years, it can be worth sacrificing one election to win long-term.
There are VERY few mechanisms for altering the behavior of a major party. Voting third party isn't a great one, but it's still one of only a handful, so it's worth a shot...
If you always vote for the lesser of two evils, that's all you'll ever get.
It's irrelevant what kind of people a law is targeted at. If you can't prove them guilty in proper style you have to let them go. If they (or the jury) are denied relevant information, they can't be prosecuted.
This asssumes you are living in a country with proper free government under the law. Apparently the USA doesn't qualify.
That was a typo made in haste before work; I meant to write "she" there, although I'm not sure of the protocol: is it correct to use male pronouns to describe a MtF transgender person when referring, in the past tense, to a time before her gender identification changed?
When you call Bradley Manning a whistle blower, you lose all credibility.
Pft, coming from yourself - who just committed 10 federal crimes today alone - you sir have less than no credibility.
The people with zero credibility have way way more credibility than you do, so naturally they win.
Stop being a criminal and perhaps others might care somewhat about your opinions of the law.
the american people may have been ignorant about the nature of these people, but the american government and the corporations they work for knew exactly what kind of puppets they were hiring. they didn't give a fuck about anything but the oil and the fact that they were anti-communist or at least anti-russian.
America has a many decades-long habit of setting up and/or supporting/propping up puppet dictatorships all around the world - evil scumbags who loot their countries and murder the civilian population. and it's all fine as US corporate profits keep flowing. Hussein, Pinochet, and Marcos, just to name a few. Even the Iranian revolution of 1979 was due to the americans - the puppet. ie. the Shah, they supported was so bad that the religious loonies overthrew him.
A person that seeks power is, by definition, one who should not hold power.
When the whistle was blown, his polls plummeted, and his party abandoned him, he resigned.
Not quite the population limit you impose though.
I really don't get why--even on a site filled with smart people--people buy into the propaganda surrounding the Tea Party. Look at the facts: They have subverted one of the parties and have effectively gained a good portion of control over it to the point where the mainstream component is mobilizing to fight them and they have caused more debate outside the talking points of both parties than any single force since Ross Perot. I am not politically active but I get the impression, from what I have seen watching from the outside, that the Tea Party is just a bunch of regular people who are sick of mainstream politics and they are doing something about it. It stems from the republican party because those people are traditionally the most politically active and aware. The media and all the establishments of mainstream political control are not interested in really having this system upset and so they all band together to attack the Tea Party, and they do a damn good job dragging a lot of people with them. Just my observation.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
I'm not certain the US qualifies as a republic, either. I will, however, admit that it's closer to a republic than to a democracy.
Republic
That form of government in which the administration of affairs is open to all the citizens. A political unit or "state," independent of its form of government.
The word republic, derived from the Latin res publica, or "public thing," refers to a form of government where the citizens conduct their affairs for their own benefit rather than for the benefit of a ruler. Historically republics have not always been democratic in character, however. For example, the ancient Republic of Venice was ruled by an aristocratic elite.
an extract from http://legal-dictionary.thefre...
This doesn't seem to include the role played by corporations in the modern US, but otherwise it seems about right.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
In a democracy, the public IS a higher authority than the government. Sometimes, the officials forget this.
No. The official know this all too well. Sadly, it is the CITIZENS who are the ones who have forgotten.
"Fish" (David B. Trout)
No, the judge only ruled that he had "no intent" of helping the enemy. Since the judge cannot read his mind, that's pure nonsense. And since this judge's ability to read Manning's mind is as good as anyone's, my opinion is as valid as the judge's. I say that the massive nature of the evidence and the attitude he displayed is a clear indication that he intentionally aided the enemies of the United States. The judge's opinion is only more valid than mine in interpreting the law. Whether or not Manning had intended to aid the enemy is not an interpretation of law. It is an interpretation of facts. As such, my interpretation is just as good and just as valid.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
In 1960 Nixon, like Gore, actually won. While Joe Kennedy's effort to steal the election worked Nixon refused to challenge the results because the count was so close he believed the damage to the political process would hurt the country more than having war hero Jack Kennedy as president. Imagine the US without Vietnam (yes, I was drafted) or Johnson's "Great Society".
I live in Florida and believe Gore lost because the butterfly ballot used in Palm Beach county caused confused elderly Democrat voters to select Buchanan by mistake. As a Republican I sincerely believe having 9/11 on Gore's watch would have resulted in a Carter like four year failure and twelve years of competent Republican presidents.
The main reason I don't trust any government in any country to provide a just outcome in whistle blowers cases is that the governments typically show no regard for the law themselves. Over and over we have seen governments break their own laws in spying and data acquisition and use....and when they are caught they just make it legal anyway and no one is ever prosecuted. The whistle blowers are talking to the people. The governments are deaf to news of their own crimes. It's up to each of us to see to it that criminal governments are at least held to account through the ballot box. if you don't......well.....Germany found out how that turns out back in the late 1930s. Sooner or later you get a leader who doesn't even make excuses for his crimes.
Only boring people are ever bored.
People forget about Andrew Johnson, back during Reconstruction. He was impeached and came within a single vote of the 2/3rd majority required to convict him.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
I didn't forget Andrew Johnson. I specifically left him out because he did have his day in the Senate and was NOT convicted. As you say, it was close but that only counts in horse shoes, hand grenades and atom bombs.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.