Slashdot Mirror
US Plunges To 46th In World Press Freedom Index
schwit1 writes "Reporters Without Borders puts out their Press Freedom Index every year, and the 2014 ranking came out today. It was not a good showing for the U.S. Specifically, the U.S. registered one of the steepest falls of all nations, down 13 slots to the #46 position, just above Haiti and just below Romania."
Free nation! Under God! Best thing since apple pie.
The US has really fallen from its optimistic condition so many decades ago. And that failure is not the worst thing about it. It's the fact that no one in the US seems to care.
When all the news source belong to big corporations, how can one be surprised that press freedom is disappearing ?
One solution
I can't wait until Bush is no longer president and we don't have things like this happen.
Whats that? A Democrat has been in the White house for 5 years? Never mind, this must be a fictional story.
How's that working out for ya'll?
What is inferred is also the taking to task of journalists and their sources, which previously, have been sacred and off limits -- akin to a Catholic confessional. These days, journalists are being forced to reveal their sources, which precludes good journalism. The Fourth Estate needs to be protected.
Senators and Congressmen have threatened to assassinate the people doing the reporting (such as J. Assange). We know about it, but that is not exactly what one thinks of as 'press freedom' when the leaders of a country say they will kill the reporter.
It's too bad that the /. editor that posted this didn't dig into this shoddy piece of journalism before posting. You can read more about how arbitrary this "ranking" is at On The Media and then move along, there's nothing to see here.
Think for yourself, but have a look here.
Their statistics suck, even if their principles are sound.
The last true great work of independent journalistic investigationn was the Watergate affair. Since then, so-called journalists have been repeating the government's party line verbatim, or reporting on trivial shit that doesn't matter.
If anything, the Snowden documents, which should have been a bomb for the government, have never been exploited, and show that the 4th power is the lapdog of the 3 first, and has been for a very long time.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Those leaks were reported through The Guardian, a UK newspaper.
Because those making the leaks need to flee the country and take asylum elsewhere, or end up imprisoned for years.
It's not about the presence of the leaks, it's about the way that the government has persecuted the leakers, and the members of the press they went to.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Press freedom's drop was noticed because of Manning and Snowdon: now American-born reporters are afraid to come home. They've been threatened with both criminal charges and extrajudicial punishment for publishing the leaks. Net result? They get published in the UK.
davecb@spamcop.net
They were FIRST reported though the Guardian, but that hasn't stopped any US paper or other news outlet from covering the hell out of the story.
but this is just a rank based on a number calculated according to an arbitrary weighting of factors. It is possible that the rank drop of the US might have been less had the factors used in calculating the score been weighted differently, or the cases used to arrive at the score been characterized somewhat differently.
For example, the score weights "Pluralism" twice as much as "self-censorship" and four times as much as "transparency". Why? Can such things be weighted precisely at all?
The scores for these factors are likewise arbitrarily scaled numbers in the range 0-100. The ranking of each country is a linear combination of non-parametric factors; as such the rank on such a score is so arbitrary as to be practically meaningless, or at best very imprecise.
I think such a score might have some value in comparing a country's performance to its prior performance, or even to compare progress made in one country vs. another -- provided it is taken with a large grain of salt. But the nature of the score is such that very little can be inferred about country A vs. country B based on their relative ranks.
As a liberal geek I'm all up for harsh criticism of America as a nascent plutocracy, but this particular story is just manufactured controversy.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Wait a minute, they're complaining that press freedom has dropped because of Manning and Snowden? Who exactly doesn't know about that because as far as I can tell the press ran wild with it. Seems press freedom worked rather well to uncover quite a lot.
If you'll recall, when Snowden's leaks first came out, the US press was making a concerted effort to assassinate his character in lock-step with the US Congress, White House, and other government agencies.
It was only when that failed that he started getting any US press support at all.
Because those making the leaks need to flee the country and take asylum elsewhere, or end up imprisoned for years.
It's not about the presence of the leaks, it's about the way that the government has persecuted the leakers, and the members of the press they went to.
First of all... IF Snowden is a LEAKER then, by definition and by virtue of the paperwork he signed the government has the right (if not the obligation) to haul his butt into criminal court and store his living carcass in jail for long periods of time. If convicted of treason, the government can convert his living carcass into a dead one to be stored below ground until the here after arrives.
So watch your choice of words... It's "Whistle Blower!" not "leaker" or the argument is lost before you start.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
haven't you ever spent time going over product reviews loaded with benchmark charts? small variations mean very little, but when there are closely spaced items, it can really mix up the rankings. Learn some math, people!
Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do. (Isaac Asimov)
I was quite puzzled to see a country with lower Freedom index that North Korea. The gap is quite large (82 versus 85 points of 'non-freedom'). Even if they have described the method used (and misnamed it 'methodology', but thats separate story), they don't give detailed per-country factors, so it is not possible to understand _why_ given country is lower or higher in the ranking.
Actually, after reading further, it is based on _questionaire_. It might just mean that Eritrean citizens are allowed to complain about their country more than NK ones... or that NK data is based on imagination of journalists as opposed to interviews with ones which escaped from Eritrea.
Kazakhstan greatest country in the world all other countrys are run by little girls.
Kazakhstan number one exporter of potassium!
Other countries have inferior potassium.
Kazakhstan is 161 on the list. Try harder next year Americans.
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
According to this article, there are plenty of reasons to doubt these rankings, even if press freedom in the U.S. is worrying. And ranking changes like these are not new. Here are the U.S.' rankings over the last 10 years (there's a typo in their own press release, the U.S. actually fell 14 slots):
2004: 22
2005: 44
2006: 53
2007: 48
2008: 36
2009: 20
2010: 20
2011: 47
2012: 27
2013: 32
2014: 46
That seems...a bit inconsistent. Again, that's not to say there isn't plenty to worry about in the U.S., but I'd still take these rankings with a grain of salt.
Because those making the leaks need to flee the country and take asylum elsewhere, or end up imprisoned for years.
It's not about the presence of the leaks, it's about the way that the government has persecuted the leakers, and the members of the press they went to.
First of all... IF Snowden is a LEAKER then, by definition and by virtue of the paperwork he signed the government has the right (if not the obligation) to haul his butt into criminal court and store his living carcass in jail for long periods of time. If convicted...
The government does NOT have a "right" to incarcerate a person indefinitely, without convicting them of a crime.
Conversely, Edward Snowden does have a right to a fair and free trial, to face his accusers and the evidence they present against him, and to be judged by a jury of his peers.
None of which will happen under the current government.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Questionnaire respondents are probably confusing Freedom of the Press with whatever headline is hot the week of the survey.
Warning: Code unreachable error in line 1
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Oh. It is working out horrilbly! Which makes me shudder to think: How much more totally fucked up would things be if she was VP?. Seriously. I don't want to think about it.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
This is a common misconception; reporters are free to report anything, but must face consequences if they choose to report state secrets and that includes who gave the reporter state secrets. Lately the whole question of what makes up a legit state secret comes into play and that's become a rather serious issue. But the reporters and their sources are not like Catholic confessional.
Well, in the US they just charge the journalists as co-conspirators in stead...
As far as we know, there is no ongoing prosecution in the UK against the Guardian or journalists linked to the Snowden whistleblowing. There were some threats, there were some preliminary investigations, there was even the embarrassing attempt to pressure Mr. Miranda into giving in, but since then, all open actions have stopped, and the threats from goverment members, police or members of parliament have ceased.
Don't hold your breath waiting to hear any of this on your Evening Corporate News.
I think the difference is that when Watergate was going on there was an opposition party who benefited from making a stink about it. Therefore the reporting led to a significant call to action, which led to action. This is very different from the Snowden documents. In this case both sides are guilty and have entrenched interests so there is no call to action, therefore there will be no action beyond what little bit of a dog and pony show the administration has offered us so far.
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
wget https://rsf.org/index2014/data...
cat index2.csv|awk -F ";" '{print $3" "$2}'|sort -n
I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
Not that I'm totally happy with the situation, but I wonder if this story is a bit exaggerated. Reporters Without Borders says that they made changes to their methodology. Suddenly the U.S. drops in rank. I think those two facts are related.
Proverbs 21:19
So, press freedom in the US isn't really so bad, because the US has sometimes ranked higher? Even though it has never ranked above rank 20 or so? Is place 20 something to be pround of for the "land of the free"?
Read the report. It's not only about government abuse, which is bad enough, but also includes other factors. "Self-censorship" is a big one, for example, because of factors like "political correctness" (can't criticize minorities, don't dare offend the Christian right, etc.) and fear of lawsuits. However, the government abuses are already bad enough: metadata gathering, collecting specific phone records without warrants, etc.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
None of which will happen under the current government.
How on earth can you KNOW that he would be unfairly treated? All they've done so far is to issue a warrant for his arrest and invalidated his passport, which is totally legal and within the bounds of the law.
I hate to break this to you, but Snowden *would* be fairly tried if he turned himself in to the USA or if they had managed to arrest him. There is ZERO evidence otherwise. He's lucky that it's the USA that's after him, because other countries would have killed him a long time ago. (And don't fool yourself, if the USA wanted him dead sans a trial, he'd be room temperature.)
So stop with this "He's being unfairly treated" nonsense. Nothing is further from the truth.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
None of which will happen under the current government.
How on earth can you KNOW that he would be unfairly treated?
You mean, aside from the existence of Gitmo, the repeated threats of death from various US officials, and the treatment Bradley/Chelsea Manning received when he/she was suspected of whistle-blowing?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Thank God we God rid of that evil Bush and now we have a President who respects the Constitution !!!
What difference does it make now?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Senators and Congressmen have no power? Are you saying all that money I spent bribing them was wasted?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
This is a common misconception; reporters are free to report anything, but must face consequences if they choose to report state secrets...
By the same reasoning, you are free to commit murder (or any other crime), but must face the consequences. That word "free"... I don't think it means what you think it means.
The concept of "state secrets" which cannot be reported to the public without legal consequences is fundamentally incompatible with freedom of speech, or of the press.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
And if they remained anonymous, you'd call them cowards?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
GITMO is a special case and ONLY involves enemy combatants detained on non-US soil. There has never been any citizens of the USA detained in GITMO, once their identity has been established. So this is totally different issue that is covered by military laws, which is different and would not apply to Snowden, nor would he be jailed in this location.
Manning was IN the military so he was tried under a different system. Again, Snowden would not be tried under this system. But even so, Manning was NOT mistreated and was afforded a trial with rules of evidence, representation and many of the same protections you are entitled when you are not being tried under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
BOTH of your examples where under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which would not be used for Snowden. Therefore I contend that your fears are NOT valid.
So what specifically do you figure would happen to Snowden? He faces a trial in federal criminal court and not a military tribunal.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
U-S-A! U-S-A! Top 50 for over a decade! (That's called "spin" and most of these journalists are abundantly familiar with the concept)
I hate to break this to you, but Snowden *would* be fairly tried if he turned himself in to the USA or if they had managed to arrest him. There is ZERO evidence otherwise.
I think there are STRONG evidence that this wouldn't be a fair trial.
Care to back that up with some *evidence* ?
And as I told another poster, I'm not accepting recent happenings under differing legal systems as evidence that Snowden wouldn't have a fair trial.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I see what's going on here: You apparently trust the US government 100% to be honest, fair, and to honor the Constitutional rights of her citizens, for whatever reason.
I, on the other hand, have seen far too many abuses of said rights by the powers that be, not to mention the fact that there are entities in government who firmly believe that their job is to lie to the American people, to ever put even a modicum of trust into the feds.
That said, I doubt we'll ever achieve middle ground, and to be quite honest I have no intention of or desire to argue the point.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Wow, did you really just defend Gitmo? Because holding someone for 12 years without any sort of charge. Yeah, way to wave the 'freedom' flag.. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-2...
Blatant Advert: Android Apps!
Ah, the "my mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts" argument. Always nice when people are that open about it.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Ah, the "my mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts" argument. Always nice when people are that open about it.
Tit-for-tat.
At least I'm not ignoring the reality of the world as it exists today, because it doesn't mesh up with my fixed ideology.
Of course, I could have been a real dick and answered his question with a question -
How on earth can you KNOW that he would be unfairly treated?
How do you know he won't?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
The US outlets are covering the meta-story that Snowden did this. The Guardian is releasing the actual data. Big difference.
I'm not as convinced as many people are that the sky is falling, so I suspect the economy will eventually improve.
The thing that all the knee jerk poster here seemed to miss is that this is the first year on a totally different survey methodology.
Reporters Sans Borders (RSF) totally tossed out their prior methodology and went with a new questionnaire: http://rsf.org/index/qEN.html
Since this isn't the only source of input, you have to read also their methodology
which includes things never before even considered. It turns out that most of the qualitative measurements are done by RSF people themselves, rather than from input from these people in the field.
Quantitative questions about the number of violations of different kinds are
handled by our staff. They include the number of journalists, media assistants and netizens who
were jailed or killed in the connection with their activities,
So "netizens" are who exactly?
And why does that matter? Well, since they don't define it, we have to assume that anyone releasing information
over the internet counts as a netizen. So one Bradley Manning (35 year sentence) can account for 90% of the "Violence against reporters/netizens) score.
North Korea, not having any Netizens, presumably gets a perfect score in this regard. I suggest the whole thing is hopelessly biased.
As with any newly invented scale, you have to give it a few years for the truth (and the bias) to come out.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
The governments lie, the media lie. But as long as they tell different lies, you still have a chance to live in a democracy.
Just be wary when they start telling the same lie.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I see what's going on here: You apparently trust the US government 100% to be honest, fair, and to honor the Constitutional rights of her citizens, for whatever reason.
No, not always, but you *always* have redress in court when they don't.
There is a presumption of you being innocent when accused of a crime. That's how the justice system in this country works (even under the UCMJ this is true). The system doesn't always get it right, but we let a hole lot more people walk free who actually did it than we wrongly punish for things they didn't do. So is the system fair? Usually it is. Would it be fair to Snowden? Absolutely it would, especially in that case. Way too many people would be watching for the government to try anything.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
And that was because the "5th estate", the internet press, was largely supportive of him.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Funny. If I said I'm pondering killing $high_ranking_politician, I'm pretty sure my door would fly off its hinges within 24 hours.
I guess I must be more powerful than the average congressman.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Well, they can't win. If they stay anonymous, people will call it fake. If they go public, they're attention whores.
It's actually sad how we treat people who put their very life on the line to protect our liberty.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Funny how the government can break the constitution--which is the highest law of the land--as it pleases, but people who seek to reveal that the government is doing so must be punished for violated petty contracts that ultimately mean nothing.
Thank you Dave Raggett
How on earth can you KNOW that he would be unfairly treated?
Extrapolation from prior findings?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Not at all. Why, did anyone think that voting for the other side of The Party would change a damn thing?
I can already see people grumbling "Next time, I'm gonna vote GOP! That's gonna show them, then everything gets better!"
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Another fine example of how "better" is not always an improvement from "good".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Does it matter what puppet we use as a figurehead?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
None. The difference between Obama and Bush are ... well, let's say rather superficial.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I don't think "freedom of speech" provides any cover for arrest or legal action from the results of that speech. It only guarantees that the government cannot prevent you from being able to speak freely, or anyone else in public places. In private properties, physical and logical, "freedom of speech" as an amendment to the US Constitution is not in force. E.G. I can tell you to leave my house if I don't like what you are saying, you have absolutely no right to speech in that context. (And thank goodness for that or we'd be overrun with door to door advertisers forcing their way into our homes, oh wait...)
I don't see things in black and white; I see the gray. Heck, I actually see in color, which makes things more difficult
Did you even click the link? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-2...
The Saudi national, who has been held for 11 years and is one of 164 inmates, has not been charged with any offence and has been cleared for release from the prison in Cuba.
He was cleared for release in 2007, still hasn't happened. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Blatant Advert: Android Apps!
How on earth can you KNOW that he would be unfairly treated?
Because the previous whistleblowers such as William Binney and Thomas Drake were treated unfairly, and they agreed with Snowden's approach based on their own experiences.
Of the two you cite, only Drake was actually convicted and was given probation for a minor offense to which he plead guilty. Binney was investigated, but not charged.
So, if Snowden is really a whistleblower, the chances of even jail time is pretty low... Only, Snowden really *isn't* a wistleblower by legal definition. He has knowingly disclosed classified information to unauthorized people. Which s entirely different than what either Drake or Binney actually did.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
How on earth can you KNOW that he would be unfairly treated?
Extrapolation from prior findings?
Which prior findings are you referring to?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
What, various politicians calling for his head, literally, isn't enough? Somewhat more commonly, lots of politicians calling for Snowden (as an example) to be charged with capital crimes that literally *cannot* apply as written (treason, mostly) to this situation? Claiming outright that he probably has committed treason (despite the letter of the law unambiguously making this impossible in his case) without even the slightest example of the presumption of innocence that is a core part of our (civilian, as Snowden is) legal process?
Or how about we take the really, really obvious case:
Who was hurt worst by Snowden's revelations? The NSA
What do we know the NSA has been doing that violates due process? "Parallel construction" for their law enforcement buddies, intercepting client-attorney privileged communications, unconstitutional searches, and more.
Are you seriously suggesting there's even a slightly plausible case that the organization whose unconstitutional acts Snowden has spent the last year exposing, and which has substantial pull with law enforcement, would allow him a fair trial? Whatever the fuck you're smoking, put it down. Nobody with a working brain and even a basic knowledge of the stuff Snowden has been revealing could be that naïve...
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
LOL, true, but I'd still rather have Bush. BTW, I was trying to allude to Hillary...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
You're really not reading the link are you?
Look, GITMO is a *bad* situation with solutions that are only worse. Remember these guys are effectively POW's by international law, but it's not the Saudi's we are at war with so to where is he returned? If the Saudi's don't want him and the place he was picked up doesn't want him what do you do?
To answer, lets read the article...
He has permission to live in the UK indefinitely because his wife is a British national. They have four children and live in London.
Mr Aamer's case was raised by Prime Minister David Cameron in talks with US President Barack Obama at the G8 summit in June. [2013]
A Foreign Office spokesman said: "Mr Aamer's case remains a high priority for the UK government and we continue to make clear to the US that we want him released and returned to the UK as a matter of urgency."
He said the case had been raised with both Mr Obama and Vice-President Joe Biden, adding: "We are confident the US government understands the seriousness of the UK's request for Mr Aamer's release.
Blatant Advert: Android Apps!
When one bothers to actually look at the data, the rank for the United States is still higher than its ranking in 2006, 2007 and 2011. Since 2002, the United States press freedom has bounced back and forth between the 20s and 50s. This is not to say that there isn't merit to the deficits in press freedom that Reporters Without Borders points out; there are very legitimate concerns being raised about recent efforts by the current administration to crack down on leakers and whistleblowers. Yet because Reporters Without Borders is regularly changing their methodology, you can't really use the data to make a true comparison of any nation's change in rank beyond very broad generalizations. Here's a good story in the Washington Post that makes this point.
That's some fine trolling you've got going on there.
Blatant Advert: Android Apps!
Ok, that's what the BBC is saying...
I stopped reading right here. You refuse to even look at evidence that counters your world view. People like you are the problem in this country.
I don't think "freedom of speech" provides any cover for arrest or legal action from the results of that speech.
What "results"? It's speech. It doesn't do anything on its own. If someone hears it and chooses to act in a criminal manner, that's their choice and their action—the speaker is not responsible for what others choose to do.
In private properties, physical and logical, "freedom of speech" as an amendment to the US Constitution is not in force. E.G. I can tell you to leave my house if I don't like what you are saying, you have absolutely no right to speech in that context.
You still have every right to freedom of speech—though not, of course, because of the U.S. Constitution, which merely recognizes free speech as a pre-existing natural right. You just don't have the right to be on the property after the owner has told you to leave. That's trespassing, and again has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
For an action to be legal you need to have all the rights associated with that action, not just some of them. In this case, in order to speak in that particular location you need not only the right to freedom of speech, which you have, but also the right to be on that property, which you lack. On your own property, or property you otherwise have permission to use, you can say whatever you want to anyone who cares to listen.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
GITMO is a special case and ONLY involves enemy combatants detained on non-US soil.
enemy whats now?
Gitmo is a special csae because they made up stuff to be able to detain people indefinitely that they had no legal right to do so nuder domestic or international law.
The fact that they're prepared to make "special cases" as you put it, for people they don't like does not fill one with confidence.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Do try to think this though. GITMO is the result of not having law in place to deal with combatants which are not agents of another state. How do you hold POW's when there is no organized army you are fighting? GITMO was the lesser of multiple evil choices.
But, GITMO is not a reason Snowden won't get a fair trial. It exists for totally unrelated reasons and would have nothing to do with a criminal prosecution of Snowden.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
He does have that right unless he is considered an enemy combatant, or for several other reasons. Ignore the quotable headlines and soundbites, the devil's in the smallprint.
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
Then Vote For Change already! As long as people vote for the 2 incumbent parties, nothing will improve.
We have, what, 57% voter turnout? There's all sorts of math you could say about that. I notice that if just half of those non-voters vote for a third-party, and some of the party-voters vote third-party, they could make a third-party candidate win.
Of course, that won't happen, because the non-voters have roughly the same voting opinions as the voters, and because they all get their voting opinion from the mainstream media: The only "serious" candidates are the candidates who can afford the ads on mainstream media.
I say the US is doomed. I just don't know the how or when of the collapse.
Have a nice time.
To be honest, I'd rather have Eisenhower. Even as a corpse he'd be a better prez than either of them.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Hell - they're still using the METRIC system FFS!!
If there's anything to this, then IMHO, the American press is its own worst enemy by placing ideology above objectivity.
There is no distinction. If there is no protected free speech there is no free journalism. Period.
Without passing judgement on the ratings, why doesn't a country like Afghanistan or Iraq strive to beat the US in ratings like these? God knows they could easily do it.
Yes, God knows they could easily commit sin. A lot of majority-Muslim countries in the Middle East have state-sponsored "establishment of religion" (as my country's constitution calls it) and otherwise restrict "free exercise thereof". In those countries, if press freedom contravenes leaders' interpretation of the Qur'an, leaders' interpretation of the Qur'an wins.
Always have redress in court... unless they assassinate you (by drone or other tool), or throw you in an overseas prison without access to a lawyer (hey, you just admitted that the government doesn't always grant its people their constitutional rights), or any of a number of other ways they have of making you go away. As for presumption of innocence, that's the second most blatant bullshit in your post (after "*always* have redress"); the government has acted from day one under the assumption that he's guilty. How the hell do you expect him to get a fair trial in those circumstances?
Oh, and as for the "way too many people watching" argument, did you miss the part where this whole thing started because of the government "trying something" and telling the only people in a position to catch them at it that it was illegal to say anything? How the hell are we going to know if the government "tries anything" unless somebody else blows the whistle on it? It's not like they'll do it in public... and if I were Snowden, I sure as fuck wouldn't trust somebody else to become a whistleblower on my behalf having just witnessed the way to government is treating whistleblowers these days. Nope, the only thing we know is that a very substantial part of the administration has already said that they consider him guilty, and the NSA has every reason to see him discredited and removed, and they routinely operate without proper oversight and have all the tools they need to see somebody found guilty. Hell, the fact that they were doing that (quite thoroughly without due process) is part of what led to Snowden's whistleblowing in the first place! You really think they'd keep their hands out of it, this time?
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
True that. One wonders how the fuck they're still posting at 1... moderators must be taking extra-strength stupid pills today.
Moving the fenceposts, check: several times, ranging from "evidence he would be mistreated" to "who is being detained without charges?" to "nobody wants him" to "but the BBC doesn't dictate our policy" (why the fuck does that matter, when - according to you - the problem is that we don't have any option of where to put this person?)... the blatancy of the bullshit is incredible.
Standard troll tactic of repeating the same line over and over again, check: the whole "GITMO is *bad* ... but there's no solutions" refrain while continuously ignoring the solutions people are offering. The failure to read the link is sadly typical, the repeating that little line of bullshit as its arguments are systematically dismantled is just an insult, the kind a five your old losing an argument resorts to.
Then there's the final claim, that "just because the US government is demonstrably mistreating people all the time, constantly, and has been doing so for over a decade... well, that's no reason to believe it would mistreat somebody is has already denied the presumption of innocence to!"
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Except, there are legal protections in place for whistleblowers. To take a different example, shooting your neighbor would be a serious crime. Shooting the neighbor who broke into your house and is now raping your wife while choking her to death would be perfectly legal. You'd still wind up in court over it, most likely, but you would have legal justification for your actions which would override the general-case laws.
Unfortunately, unlike our hypothetical defender of home and family, Snowden wouldn't have the benefit of being tried by people who don't have a stake in the matter. It would be like being tried by a court run by said neighbor's similarly raping-and-murdering brother, who has dirt on everybody in town and has been known to make "enemy combatants" (excuse me, "obstinate jurors") vanish off to prison themselves...
Care to name what Snowden's alternatives were? He tried going internally, was told to ignore it. He could have gone up the chain of command, to... who, exactly? The entire executive branch, right up to literally the most powerful single person in the US government, has expressed support for the NSA's actions. How do you go over the head of the (supposedly) democratically elected government? You tell the people who cast the votes. Now, if you can come up with some way that Snowden could have only told voting-age citizens of the USA about what he'd discovered, without telling anybody else, I'll concede he had other options. Or maybe you can come up with some other actual option that wouldn't have gotten him either stonewalled or arrested on trumped-up charges. Unlike you, I'm willing to consider the possibility that there are other options. Unfortunately for you, you have yet to provide a single scrap of evidence for your claims (though you've ignored plenty of other peoples' evidence, moving the goalposts when necessary) so I doubt this is a reasonable option. The whole "other alternatives" thing has already been discussed.
Oh, and let's not forget that the government's very first reaction to the disclosures was denial and an attempt to destroy his credibility. They never showed even the slightest interest in determining the truth, much less in determining whether Snowden deserved protection as a whistleblower. Those are only the actions of the guilty, and their guilt absolves Snowden of his wrongdoing in revealing it.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
There's a problem if being without official citizenship is an automatic one-way ticket to GITMO. The obvious solution is to give him a work visa in the U.S., with the option of citizenship.
You know the deal in Russia and other parts of the world one has to have papers to travel and show papers to cross boarders, living in America we're smug in the fact were free to travel where ever we want, whenever we want. Which many do in fact still believe . Any time, any where in the US anybody can be pulled over and required to produce their papers (being at the least a license or it's alternative. If your found without one can be jailed or less that X amount of monies (differs in each area) you can be jailed for vagrancy.
You don't even need to of done anything wrong, Any time, any where in the US anybody can be pulled over for a safety check.
Growing up the computer chips were as well, We used to be told what they could do for us, Now they are a reality and it's what it can do against us that's become the concern.
I see what's going on here: You apparently trust the US government 100% to be honest, fair, and to honor the Constitutional rights of her citizens, for whatever reason.
No, not always, but you *always* have redress in court when they don't.
Unless the evidence presented against him is "classified," and thus not available to the defense for scrutiny, thus violating his Sixth Amendment rights.
Which is definitely going to happen. But hey, let's keep pretending that the courts are fair and in no way biased towards judging in their own (i.e., the government's) favor.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Really? You've *seen* this happen before? (and not on TV, in real life)
As I understand this, legally they have to disclose all evidence they have to the defense period. So if they have classified evidence, they have to let the defense have it. Yes, they can have the trial in a closed environment and seal the transcripts, but this is not unfair.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Geeze you people.. He's a US citizen in the eyes of the law, they just revoked his passport because they want him arrested. That's not taking away his citizenship status. Some other country might offer him citizenship and he can denounce his US citizenship, but he would be tried as a US citizen because he was one when the alleged crimes where done.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Except, there are legal protections in place for whistleblowers.
Despite your claims otherwise, Snowden did not take the prescribed steps for wistleblowers but took the short cut of breaking the law. He still had legal options that didn't involve breaking the law. If he didn't understand what those options where, that's not a good enough reason to just dump classified information into the hands of the press.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
This isn't funny. The US is still free despite our speeding toward socialism as our current regime completely ignores rules of law. Your tired rhetoric about CEO's or the rich shows just how ignorant you are in your understanding of the real world. The only thing separating rich from poor today is confidence in the system. The fact that both rich and poor are still investing, working and going about their daily business shows that we still believe in the system. The alternative isn't pretty and probably means a collapse of our infrastructure. At that point suddenly a food cache becomes wealth and all the walls and expensive shit won't be worth a damn if you're hungry.
Really? You've *seen* this happen before? (and not on TV, in real life)
http://www.techdirt.com/articl...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
As I understand this, legally they have to disclose all evidence they have to the defense period.
https://www.techdirt.com/artic...
So if they have classified evidence, they have to let the defense have it. Yes, they can have the trial in a closed environment and seal the transcripts, but this is not unfair.
Just keep on spinnin' those wheels, defending a state you know to be corrupt, dude.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Shouldn't that be "4th Estate 2.0"?
Sorry. Couldn't help myself.
First link, http://www.techdirt.com/articl... [techdirt.com] proves my point. If the government is violating your rights, get a lawyer and appeal. That's what this guy is doing.
Second link, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com] Again proves my point. If the NSA is using data it has collected illegally in criminal trials as evidence, there is redress in court to get the evidence stricken and any convictions based on it overturned.
Third link: https://www.techdirt.com/artic... [techdirt.com] is on it's face the most troubling. However, In order for this to be a *real* issue, one must assume that the NSA data was used in collecting the evidence being used in the criminal trial. If such data was not used in the investigation, it is inadmissible and thus the defense is not necessarily entitled to a court order to get it.
You see, in each of these cases, the rules of evidence are being argued over and applied. Which is my point. There is a process here and that process IS fair.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
In order for this to be a *real* issue,
... and we come full circle, back to you insisting that the problems aren't "real" problems, and that the state is 100% fair and trustworthy.
Meaning this "conversation" is over. Good day.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
In order for this to be a *real* issue,
... and we come full circle, back to you insisting that the problems aren't "real" problems, and that the state is 100% fair and trustworthy.
Meaning this "conversation" is over. Good day.
So we HAVE come full circle. We have zero evidence that the proper and fair process would not be followed if Snowden where here to face the charges. In fact, your evidence shows that there is a vigorous defense of ones rights allowed within the process. Which is my basic point that started this extended thread. Within the US, we have a legal system that is exceedingly fair to the accused. Snowden would be treated fairly.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
This "list" seems to be convinced that you could get a contract government job in (France? Britain? Germany? Some other much-adored European country) and steal state secrets, release them, and not be tracked down and arrested.
I for one think someone should test this theory. Do it, see what happens.
Really this entire article is just flamebait for anti-American Europeans, and _especially_ for self-loathing Americans with pathological inferiority complexes.
US law is far from being perfect in any aspect and free speech is no exception. Flawed as it may be, in this aspect it is still much better than the law of almost all countries in the top positions of that list.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
Casteism
They're the ones that HAVE direct access to the data. Do you know of any US media outlets that have that access?