U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage • Hacker News Board

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#361

Post by Tloewald » Sun, Jun 23, 2013, 1:15 PM UTC

avn2109 wrote: post #340

o0-0o wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Black projects are not listed in a public budget. The premise of it being tax money is also suspect. The US government does not get all of the money from taxes despite the popular notion. I agree with your gist however; A modern day human sacrifice.

Could you list some of the other sources of government funding? The only one I can think of is the alleged CIA drug trafficking scandals from decades past.

The CIA's drug trafficking activities over the decades are a matter of historical record:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Politics_of_Heroin_in_South...

This of course does not cover Afghanistan and Iran/Contra.

Here's a paper examining CIA Black Funding simply by looking at the trillion or so dollars of misallocated DoD money over fifty or so years:

http://www1.american.edu/salla/Articles/BB-CIA.htm

A trillion here and there and pretty soon you're talking real money.

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#362

Post by pfortuny » Mon, Jun 24, 2013, 9:46 AM UTC

betterunix wrote: post #157

zacharyvoase wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The role of the prosecutor is to prosecute the interests of the State, which in this case they have done. I’m wondering how grand juries play into this—the Fifth Amendment states that “no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury” (except for those in the military, which I think he wouldn’t classify as). There’s a great article her…

"The role of the prosecutor is to prosecute the interests of the State" One would think that, as public servants, their role is to prosecute in the interests of the public at large. That might mean going against the interests of the state, if the state is working against the public.

You are mistaking State for Government. The State simply exists, that is why it has to be defended. The State does not act by itself (it is the Government, "in its name"). This is why the State would be defenseless if prosecutors did not exist, and this is why separation of powers is so important.

I know I am speaking roughly and without technicalities, but the fact that the Government does something does not imply that the State wants is (which is, for example, why the 4th amendment exists: in order to protect, in some way, the State from the Government). And that is why the Constitution is above all mandates of the Government, even if they have been approved by Congress and the military are 'pushing' them.

"The interests of the public at large" is what is meant by the State.

That is why trials (those dealing with the Federation) begin with the words "The US vs whomever", not "The Government of the US" or "The President of the US".

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#363

Post by fusiongyro » Mon, Jun 24, 2013, 4:17 PM UTC

InclinedPlane wrote: post #322

fusiongyro wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It takes ten seconds and costs nothing. I honestly don't understand the argument against it. It may be no better than nothing, but it can hardly be worse.

It does cost something. It makes you feel like you've done something, so you perhaps have less motivation to do something more substantive such as writing your congressional reps and senators. Which is a far more meaningful act than signing these useless online petitions.

There are always ways to do more, but in my experience this line of reasoning actually deflates more than it inspires. If someone has 10 seconds to sign the petition, let them sign the petition and go about their day rather than wasting 10 seconds making them feel guilty for not doing more.