Tell me what Bradley Manning did wrong on an ethical basis ?
He released hundreds of thousands of classified documents, revealing the internal communications of our government to other governments, without any regard to whether or not the release was exposing illegal activity.
Yes, there *was* a program for hunters to donate their game to feed the hungry. The ever-helpful government stepped in and ended that.
The one I do know about is Wisconsin, which has been running almost 20 years and has donated hundreds of tons of food. Organizations such as PETA are also trying to end these programs through scares about lead poisoning from game meat.
Snowden get's a pardon only after Manning, as far as I'm concerned, not until.
Even if manning got a pardon for his actual whistleblowing, you're still left with hundreds of thousands of classified documents he indiscriminately released, for which there can be no reasonable whistleblowing defense.
The Medal of Honor can only be awarded for actions while engaged with the enemy. No, not eligible. Dumping hundreds of megabytes of files he found into the public doesn't even qualify for whistleblower protections by any rational definition.
PETA does propose a solution: reintroduction of natural predators.
So they can be slowly torn apart by four-legged predators instead of cleanly shot by the two-legged ones. Humans are natural predators, something PETA does not like to acknowledge.
I've watched the nature channels, and seen how long it takes a deer to die when attacked by wolves, how long it has to live in terror and pain before finally succumbing. Contrast, most deer are dead probably within a minute of getting shot by a hunter. Those that can run off into the bush die quietly, bleeding out (which is why you wait before pursuing).
I generally do not like the idea of trophy hunting, but in some states excess game can be donated to any meat processor, who will process and package it for donation to those having problems putting food on the table. I believe Texas has such a program, but I don't know if this place is involved in it.
This even applies to Elephant hunts in Africa. Usually wardens have spotted elephants that need to be culled, and would normally shoot them. Instead, they get some rich white dude to pay $25,000 for the privilege in addition to all the money he has to pay for porters, vehicles, lodging, etc., and the villagers get free food.
Of course, rifle/slug hunters always go for the heart/lung shot, because all they care about is the head.
Ethical hunters do not go for a head shot on a deer. The size of the target to ensure a clean kill is extremely tiny since deer have amazingly small brains, and a miss won't necessarily be a clean miss. You're more likely to blow its jaw off so it can linger for days and starve to death. That's not an injury that prevents it from running for a long time, unlike a chest shot where it will eventually bleed out, so you likely won't catch it either. In addition, few people eat deer ribs, and that is the main meat damaged with a good heart/lung shot. And should you shoot through usable meat, such as the foreleg, you only have to discard a little bit around the bullet hole, so it really isn't an issue.
I know I may get disagreement on this from other hunters who are such perfect shots they always get a clean head shot kill (or so they say). But I was always taught, by family and by the game wardens, to avoid head shots.
PETA has a long history of hunter harrassment with the purpose of preventing them from legally taking game. There is no reason to believe they only want to use drones to document violations of existing game laws, which are already usually well-enforced with draconian punishments.
A lot of things about the Constitution are interpreted according to common law, not in the exact text. For example, it "sounds like privacy" as you said. That word isn't in there. You interpreted that clause to mean all privacy. Abortion is legal because of an interpreted right of privacy -- implied by the Constitution according to the court, but not in the text. And abortion doesn't even have anything to do with searches and seizures so that is a pretty broad interpretation.
Conversely, in our common law it has always been understood that there are limits to our constitutional rights. This is also interpreted, and the limits are still fluctuating with the latest interpretations. It is only unfortunate that these days the limits seem to be interpreted by the courts broadly while the protections are interpreted narrowly. Then we also have many hypocrites in this country who would like to interpret some protections very broadly, while interpreting other protections very narrowly.
I do NOT want and have never wanted to give the telcos and thus the government information about my exact location at all times
You are not disagreeing with me. Just because you give the telco the ability to track you doesn't mean you intend to give the government the ability to track you. And, yes, you have given them that ability since by the very nature of the system you have to be tied to a cell tower. It's like saying you want a landline, but you don't want the telco to know your address.
And, no, GPS is not required by the government in the US. The FCC was at one point considering such a rule for 911 location to provide parity with landlines (if you call 911 and pass out before saying anything, they still know exactly what your address is). For now cell tower location services are good enough. But if you have GPS, then it can be turned off. If it can be turned back on and used by the NSA, then we're back to you not giving them permission to do that.
Because if you yell fire in a crowded theater when there is none, and a lot of people get hurt, we as a society would like to be able to prosecute you for causing that injury.
I believe in the freedom to keep and bear arms, but I think the government has a compelling interest in taking a person's guns away from him if he's been proven to be a violent criminal. Again, this got stretched too beyond reason, see almost all "gun control" measures ever enacted.
Come to think of it, maybe the occasional theater riot due to irresponsibly used freedom of speech is worth the extended and guaranteed freedom for all.
Additionally, courts have used Burden of Proof before. Want to prove this is illegal? Well, first you need to have been negatively impacted by this uber-secret program.
And they are doing it wrong in an effort to prop up the government spying. Traditionally privacy is held to the strict scrutiny standard, and that means the government is supposed to prove its actions aren't unconstitutional (as opposed to the plaintiff proving it is).
No, in that case an officer (or a camera) is looking at the activities of each person in a very public place. Nobody driving on public roads has an expectation that his current speed is a private matter. Anybody from an officer with a radar gun to a couple kids with stop watches can check your speed.
The idea is that an overriding government concern ("compelling state interest") can allow for infringements on constitutional rights. If this is to be a compelling state interest, then the judge must believe it to be effective. If it's not effective, then it can't be a compelling interest.
"Every day, people voluntarily surrender personal and seemingly-private information to transnational corporations, which exploit that data for profit,"
That data is given voluntarily. People may be pretty glib in giving the information, but it is still their choice. Maybe I do want Facebook knowing everything, but don't want my government to. Still, my choice. I never opted-in at the NSA web site.
push the view of letting the aggressive superstar individual succeed
This is telling. You have the view that society has to let a person succeed. Restated, a person needs permission from society in order to succeed. No more superstars so that everybody can have a nice relatively equal lifestyle, huh? Herrison Bergeron, here we come.
That is a pretty honorable thing to do unlike, for example, invading a country and killing people that were no threat to you, any of your friends or anyone else in your country.
That is exactly what your communists did, invading the South. And don't say it was Vietnamese stopping US imperialism, because the fight was US vs. Soviet imperialism.
I love goth and industrial music, have been to hundreds of concerts, met and was friends with many band members. But I look decidedly regular. I'm looking back at my old photos, and I see one of a standard geeky guy with regular hair and glasses, wearing an admittedly hideous blue windbreaker, partying with Nik Fiend.
So this algorithm shouldn't only associate your face with your culture, but use the faces of those around you to establish your culture. But then I have friends who are in a death metal/industrial band, and their mainstream family members come to concerts to show support. So we'd have regular people labeled as being in the death metal culture if we did that.
The ICC violates three constitutional rights: the right to trial by a jury of one's peers, the right to confront one's accusers, and the protection from double jeopardy. I don't think there is even any provision for bail.
Others may think it's odd because we have a higher protection of rights than they do (certain recognized abuses we're fighting notwithstanding). It's like how Islamic countries think it's odd that we are free to ridicule Mohammed, or how European countries think it's odd that American Nazis can say whatever they want.
A market approach would have individuals producing their product, and seeing which one the market accepted. The Soviets largely went on which bureau chief had the most political pull in the Politburo.
Slashdot Mirror
He released hundreds of thousands of classified documents, revealing the internal communications of our government to other governments, without any regard to whether or not the release was exposing illegal activity.
The one I do know about is Wisconsin, which has been running almost 20 years and has donated hundreds of tons of food. Organizations such as PETA are also trying to end these programs through scares about lead poisoning from game meat.
Even if manning got a pardon for his actual whistleblowing, you're still left with hundreds of thousands of classified documents he indiscriminately released, for which there can be no reasonable whistleblowing defense.
The Medal of Honor can only be awarded for actions while engaged with the enemy. No, not eligible. Dumping hundreds of megabytes of files he found into the public doesn't even qualify for whistleblower protections by any rational definition.
So they can be slowly torn apart by four-legged predators instead of cleanly shot by the two-legged ones. Humans are natural predators, something PETA does not like to acknowledge.
One Drone: $300+
One shell 12 gauge birdshot: $0.50
I've watched the nature channels, and seen how long it takes a deer to die when attacked by wolves, how long it has to live in terror and pain before finally succumbing. Contrast, most deer are dead probably within a minute of getting shot by a hunter. Those that can run off into the bush die quietly, bleeding out (which is why you wait before pursuing).
I generally do not like the idea of trophy hunting, but in some states excess game can be donated to any meat processor, who will process and package it for donation to those having problems putting food on the table. I believe Texas has such a program, but I don't know if this place is involved in it.
This even applies to Elephant hunts in Africa. Usually wardens have spotted elephants that need to be culled, and would normally shoot them. Instead, they get some rich white dude to pay $25,000 for the privilege in addition to all the money he has to pay for porters, vehicles, lodging, etc., and the villagers get free food.
Ethical hunters do not go for a head shot on a deer. The size of the target to ensure a clean kill is extremely tiny since deer have amazingly small brains, and a miss won't necessarily be a clean miss. You're more likely to blow its jaw off so it can linger for days and starve to death. That's not an injury that prevents it from running for a long time, unlike a chest shot where it will eventually bleed out, so you likely won't catch it either. In addition, few people eat deer ribs, and that is the main meat damaged with a good heart/lung shot. And should you shoot through usable meat, such as the foreleg, you only have to discard a little bit around the bullet hole, so it really isn't an issue.
I know I may get disagreement on this from other hunters who are such perfect shots they always get a clean head shot kill (or so they say). But I was always taught, by family and by the game wardens, to avoid head shots.
PETA has a long history of hunter harrassment with the purpose of preventing them from legally taking game. There is no reason to believe they only want to use drones to document violations of existing game laws, which are already usually well-enforced with draconian punishments.
A lot of things about the Constitution are interpreted according to common law, not in the exact text. For example, it "sounds like privacy" as you said. That word isn't in there. You interpreted that clause to mean all privacy. Abortion is legal because of an interpreted right of privacy -- implied by the Constitution according to the court, but not in the text. And abortion doesn't even have anything to do with searches and seizures so that is a pretty broad interpretation.
Conversely, in our common law it has always been understood that there are limits to our constitutional rights. This is also interpreted, and the limits are still fluctuating with the latest interpretations. It is only unfortunate that these days the limits seem to be interpreted by the courts broadly while the protections are interpreted narrowly. Then we also have many hypocrites in this country who would like to interpret some protections very broadly, while interpreting other protections very narrowly.
You don't see "privacy" or "abortion" in there anywhere either.
You are not disagreeing with me. Just because you give the telco the ability to track you doesn't mean you intend to give the government the ability to track you. And, yes, you have given them that ability since by the very nature of the system you have to be tied to a cell tower. It's like saying you want a landline, but you don't want the telco to know your address.
And, no, GPS is not required by the government in the US. The FCC was at one point considering such a rule for 911 location to provide parity with landlines (if you call 911 and pass out before saying anything, they still know exactly what your address is). For now cell tower location services are good enough. But if you have GPS, then it can be turned off. If it can be turned back on and used by the NSA, then we're back to you not giving them permission to do that.
Because if you yell fire in a crowded theater when there is none, and a lot of people get hurt, we as a society would like to be able to prosecute you for causing that injury.
I believe in the freedom to keep and bear arms, but I think the government has a compelling interest in taking a person's guns away from him if he's been proven to be a violent criminal. Again, this got stretched too beyond reason, see almost all "gun control" measures ever enacted.
Come to think of it, maybe the occasional theater riot due to irresponsibly used freedom of speech is worth the extended and guaranteed freedom for all.
And they are doing it wrong in an effort to prop up the government spying. Traditionally privacy is held to the strict scrutiny standard, and that means the government is supposed to prove its actions aren't unconstitutional (as opposed to the plaintiff proving it is).
No, in that case an officer (or a camera) is looking at the activities of each person in a very public place. Nobody driving on public roads has an expectation that his current speed is a private matter. Anybody from an officer with a radar gun to a couple kids with stop watches can check your speed.
Not being in the right lane isn't speeding, it's impeding traffic.
The idea is that an overriding government concern ("compelling state interest") can allow for infringements on constitutional rights. If this is to be a compelling state interest, then the judge must believe it to be effective. If it's not effective, then it can't be a compelling interest.
That data is given voluntarily. People may be pretty glib in giving the information, but it is still their choice. Maybe I do want Facebook knowing everything, but don't want my government to. Still, my choice. I never opted-in at the NSA web site.
This is telling. You have the view that society has to let a person succeed. Restated, a person needs permission from society in order to succeed. No more superstars so that everybody can have a nice relatively equal lifestyle, huh? Herrison Bergeron, here we come.
That is exactly what your communists did, invading the South. And don't say it was Vietnamese stopping US imperialism, because the fight was US vs. Soviet imperialism.
I love goth and industrial music, have been to hundreds of concerts, met and was friends with many band members. But I look decidedly regular. I'm looking back at my old photos, and I see one of a standard geeky guy with regular hair and glasses, wearing an admittedly hideous blue windbreaker, partying with Nik Fiend.
So this algorithm shouldn't only associate your face with your culture, but use the faces of those around you to establish your culture. But then I have friends who are in a death metal/industrial band, and their mainstream family members come to concerts to show support. So we'd have regular people labeled as being in the death metal culture if we did that.
The ICC violates three constitutional rights: the right to trial by a jury of one's peers, the right to confront one's accusers, and the protection from double jeopardy. I don't think there is even any provision for bail.
Others may think it's odd because we have a higher protection of rights than they do (certain recognized abuses we're fighting notwithstanding). It's like how Islamic countries think it's odd that we are free to ridicule Mohammed, or how European countries think it's odd that American Nazis can say whatever they want.
It's done right all the time. Government classified networks often go over the public Internet, all in encrypted tunnels.
A market approach would have individuals producing their product, and seeing which one the market accepted. The Soviets largely went on which bureau chief had the most political pull in the Politburo.