581–590 of 784 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Among other things, one would certainly have to exclude any country which engages in the mass collection and permanent storage of all of its citizens' communications.
What if the population was ok with that / didn't care?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another take, with no more or less evidence as far as I can tell: He essentially had no choice, as it was obvious he was going to be railroaded at any trial, and would likely be bounced to the US at some point.
This was far from "obvious". Extradition from Sweden would have been harder than from the UK.
It happened. He was proven correct.
The people who disagreed were just wrong.
And I think it is OK to call the people who didn't believe this, to have been extremely misinformed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. That isn't just a legal principle - it's a philosophical principle. If you throw that away and want to talk about probabilities - that's ok too - but then you need to add the probability that the global super power put pressure on people to drum up baloney charges.
It's interesting that people have raised presumption of innocence until proven guilty to a philosophical principle, because its primary utility is as a legal principle. Presumption of innocence in criminal cases has value because the state has all the power (including the monopoly on violence), so if they are to use their monopoly on violence to deprive anyone of their freedoms, the burden of proof should be extremel…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Largely because people have roots here and it's a pain to move. What, you're supposed to quit your job, leave your extended family, sell your house and possessions, find a new job and place to live overseas, and potentially even learn an entire new language? Just to be sure you won't be tortured? (assuming you can even find a place to take you - things are easier here for this crowd, tech skills are in-demand and usu…
It's not a 1% chance. Even if one accepts your definition of torture, people who aren't criminals are very rarely caught up in the system at all. So it's far less than 1% as long as you're simply not a criminal. If the US were really so bad, people would leave. The people who do leave typically leave for tax purposes opposite to your belief.
I was asked if a bag of teriyaki beef jerky in its original packaging, the edge of which was sticking out of my pocket was drugs.
Eventually I was arrested for saying fuck off while walking away. I was charged, appealed eventually rejected because half of America does not actually have any rights at all unless you have thousands of dollars and if you need that money to buy medicine or pay rent you are fucked.
Then there is the time I was almost arrested by virtue of helping a black man move a couch from his own home because burglers always leave the electronics and jewelry and take the giant furniture.
I'd keep going but the other abuses are more personal.
Your perspective is based on being well off and white.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US justice system is possibly the most cruel justice system in the West, and by quite a margin, too. It is one of a few aspects in which the US is far closer to today's developing and third world countries than to the Western average. Also over many decades many organizations have called out the conditions in parts of the US justice system as torture(-like).
The US is a leader in many respects, due largely to our Constitutionally-protected rights. I'm not a fan of the US prison system. But are you seriously claiming that the whole justice system is worse than Venezuela or Honduras?
So it says that it is the worst in the west (a term that usually does not include south/central america, even though they are west on a map), and that it is closer to a third world country than many in the west.
From my casual reading that seems pretty much on point.
The justice system does not just mean the prison system, it encompasses laws, police, courts, correctional facilities, some portions of mental health treatment.
If we are bringing up the freedoms enjoyed by citizens in different countries I'd also point out that how the constitution is interpreted seems pretty arbitrary over time depending on who is in the supreme court and what the political climate is. As an example I'm not even sure how solitary confinement can not be considered a "cruel and unusual punishment" under the eighth amendment. I don't get how NSA data collection is not a impacting the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" of Fourth Amendment. The second amendment seems pretty cut-and-dry in the text that any American should be allowed to have a rocket launcher and that background checks are illegal. I'd hate for that to come true, but if you are following the principle that the constitution supersedes all lower law then it seems logical.
Most western democracies seem to have similar freedoms and similar guarantees that the government will follow similarly given that they are also enshrined in law.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but when I hear americans talk about their freedoms they seem to talk in absolutes, but in practice it's no more free or secure than similar freedoms given by laws in many other western countries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not like he had any better choice here.
He could have just faced the charges in Sweden. He'd be out by now if he was found guilty. His behavior and streams of lies about extradition, etc. suggest the whole episode was a guilty man hiding and foolishly digging in. His best option was always to just face the charges instead of fleeing justice.
He was right. His opinions on extradition were proven correct.
How can you ignore the literal evidence, right here, right now, of everything that he had predicted, to be coming true?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All of your family is there. All your friends are there. All that you own is there. All that you've ever known is there. You may not know any other language than your native one. You: "Why don't you just move?" This really sounds like saying "Cheer up!" to a person suffering from depression. EDIT: Spelling
No, it doesn't. I know people from developing countries. I'm married to one. Universally, every single one of them wants to get the fuck out, and they do everything in their power to get out. That's reality in a developing country. The US is not in any way like a developing country. Comparing it to one is an act of such entitled privileged whining it's absurd.
Seriously, if you believe other threads on HN are so much better, why stay in this thread?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are two answers to that: technical (legal) and moral. Technical (legal): No, clearly not. There's a reason he's hiding from the US justice system in Russia. He didn't follow the legal process for whistleblowing (and he probably should not have). Moral: The major difference between Manning and Snowden's leaks is that Snowden read the documents he forwarded and only collected and forwarded enough to blow the whis…
Your world view is terribly idealistic from a govt perspective. We are in the midst of a whistle-blower leak right now where an army colonel no less is being threatened to the extent that the US military is looking to take that person to a secure location. This after having the US congress AND the army on his side. Imagine being a contractor and having no established procedures to go to, and when you blow the whistle…
The State Department keeps secrets, and keeps more secrets than it needs to. The NSA's full-time job is generating and keeping secrets. The fact secrets exist (and some secrets should be publicized) doesn't imply unbridled leaking of those secrets is objectively good, and it doesn't imply the world would be a better place if the State Department or NSA operated in the open in general.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you take that point of view and use a different example it sounds foolish. If we agree to have sex while she has a blindfold on but only if I wear a clown mask. If I take off the mask before sex and she watches the tape later she cannot claim rape. Or do you think that's rape as well?
1. I think it's extraordinarily disingenuous to compare protected vs. unprotected sex to whether or not one has a mask on. The consequences of unprotected sex - pregnancy, STDs, etc. - are potentially deadly. 2. Yes, your example describes non-consensual sex, i.e. rape.
If someone has aids doesn't tell the partner and they die they could be charged with murder or assault. But never rape.
If you think pointn 2 is rape then a husband promising to take out the trash if sex is performed and him not doing later makes it rape. Fraud perhaps.. you are missing the violence that rape puts the victim through.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is something that is within the lawmakers’ power to do.
In the US Ex Post Facto laws are constitutionally forbidden. Other jurisdictions is not so clear but it is generally frowned upon.
Civil laws, such as, immigration laws, are not so limited. That's why I encourage permanent resident immigrants (green card holders) to complete the naturalization process ASAP. (Assuming they want to retain the right to stay in the US.)