4 ms·

I'm pretty sure you're completely missing the point. Any time somebody suggests something is "against the law" in a discussion about the NSA practises we need t

by harry8 11y ago

I'm pretty sure you're completely missing the point. Any time somebody suggests something is "against the law" in a discussion about the NSA practises we need to remind ourselves that they really don't care whether they break the law. They do it nakedly, in public, with live television coverage and there are no consequences. The NSA is a criminal organisation. I don't say everything they do is crime or that is there sole raison d'etre just that they don't care about the rule of law. The law is something that they don't need to worry about at all. Does anyone really dispute that? "I gave the least untruthful answer I could..." Lying under oath. No consequences for that crime or any other. No respect for the rule of law. Please don't miss that point, the rule of law is the point, it is a necessary condition for a civilized society and MOST ESPECIALLY the government needs to be bound by it.

HiYaBarbie 11y ago
You're right to point out that the NSA doesn't give a fuck about the law, but.. > the rule of law is the point, it is a necessary condition for a civilized society and MOST ESPECIALLY the government needs to be bound by it You seem to be overlooking the fact that the organization that makes the laws is, by definition, above them. The government is not bound by its own laws any more than a King or Emperor by his, back in the day. The reason why you see crimes go unpunished is that people with political power and/or connections are effectively above the law.
- harry8 11y ago
  One thousand times NO. The rule of law applies to all equally. This the ideal insofar as it is agreed that our current implementation does not achieve that it is an agreed deficiency. The president murders their spouse, expect them to be charged. By definition the rule of law applies to all. The End. Period. The price of freedom is eternal... etc.
  - HiYaBarbie 11y ago
    > One thousand times NO. The rule of law applies to all equally. This is just your cognitive dissonance talking. You can say "NO" a million times, but Bradley Manning was just imprisoned without trial (and tortured for months.. years?), even though Habeas Corpus was supposed to apply. > The president murders their spouse, expect them to be charged. Why would you expect that? If the president murders his spouse, he's probably reasonably sure he'll get away with it. Otherwise he probably wouldn't. > By definition the rule of law applies to all. That's what we're trained to believe.. so many TV shows and movies show police officers risking their lives in fighting crime and courts being fair and just and all, but have you ever dealt with the court system? Did you get justice? You've probably heard of "plea-bargaining", right? http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/12556-overwhelming-use-of-plea-bargains-plays-major-role-in-mass-incarceration http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/12556-overwhelming-use-of... People are blackmailed into accepting a punishment for something they haven't done, to avoid the potential life-ruining punishment for whatever outrageous bullshit they're charged with (that they haven't done either). And you insist that everything is fine? Maybe this will clarify things: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNIgztvyU2U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNIgztvyU2U
    - SEJeff 11y ago
      No not really. As a US Soldier, you sign away 100% of your constitutional rights when you voluntarily sign the contract. So many civilians get this wrong it isn't funny, but the only code that applies to US military members is the UCMJ (uniformed code of military justice), of which Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning was a member of. Source: I'm a US Army veteran and learned all about this.
    - harry8 11y ago
      You have to accept the rule of law is a worthy ideal to find any real or imagined example of its infringement a problem. To give up on it, to give up on the ideal, to stop raging against the violation of that ideal is to give up on Freedom. I won't.
      - HiYaBarbie 11y ago
        I can't tell what you're trying to convey. You may just be trolling, of course. "The rule of law" sounds good and all, but you have to differentiate between laws that are only detrimental to us, and laws that would actually correspond to morals: 1) Don't aggress against others, 2) Don't violate others' property rights.. and those are the only two laws you need. Now we've got like hundreds of thousands of laws, and they're mostly just meant to benefit the ruling class (and their cronies) at our expense. The "If You Were King" video clearly shows there is no such thing as a "good ruler". That applies to governments too (because politicians are our modern-day rulers). But in case you really need it, here's some additional clarification: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE You talk about "freedom", but do you know what it means?

by harry8 11y ago

HiYaBarbie 11y ago

You're right to point out that the NSA doesn't give a fuck about the law, but.. > the rule of law is the point, it is a necessary condition for a civilized society and MOST ESPECIALLY the government needs to be bound by it You seem to be overlooking the fact that the organization that makes the laws is, by definition, above them. The government is not bound by its own laws any more than a King or Emperor by his, back in the day. The reason why you see crimes go unpunished is that people with political power and/or connections are effectively above the law.

harry8 11y ago
One thousand times NO. The rule of law applies to all equally. This the ideal insofar as it is agreed that our current implementation does not achieve that it is an agreed deficiency. The president murders their spouse, expect them to be charged. By definition the rule of law applies to all. The End. Period. The price of freedom is eternal... etc.
- HiYaBarbie 11y ago
  > One thousand times NO. The rule of law applies to all equally. This is just your cognitive dissonance talking. You can say "NO" a million times, but Bradley Manning was just imprisoned without trial (and tortured for months.. years?), even though Habeas Corpus was supposed to apply. > The president murders their spouse, expect them to be charged. Why would you expect that? If the president murders his spouse, he's probably reasonably sure he'll get away with it. Otherwise he probably wouldn't. > By definition the rule of law applies to all. That's what we're trained to believe.. so many TV shows and movies show police officers risking their lives in fighting crime and courts being fair and just and all, but have you ever dealt with the court system? Did you get justice? You've probably heard of "plea-bargaining", right? http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/12556-overwhelming-use-of-plea-bargains-plays-major-role-in-mass-incarceration http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/12556-overwhelming-use-of... People are blackmailed into accepting a punishment for something they haven't done, to avoid the potential life-ruining punishment for whatever outrageous bullshit they're charged with (that they haven't done either). And you insist that everything is fine? Maybe this will clarify things: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNIgztvyU2U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNIgztvyU2U
  - SEJeff 11y ago
    No not really. As a US Soldier, you sign away 100% of your constitutional rights when you voluntarily sign the contract. So many civilians get this wrong it isn't funny, but the only code that applies to US military members is the UCMJ (uniformed code of military justice), of which Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning was a member of. Source: I'm a US Army veteran and learned all about this.
  - harry8 11y ago
    You have to accept the rule of law is a worthy ideal to find any real or imagined example of its infringement a problem. To give up on it, to give up on the ideal, to stop raging against the violation of that ideal is to give up on Freedom. I won't.
    - HiYaBarbie 11y ago
      I can't tell what you're trying to convey. You may just be trolling, of course. "The rule of law" sounds good and all, but you have to differentiate between laws that are only detrimental to us, and laws that would actually correspond to morals: 1) Don't aggress against others, 2) Don't violate others' property rights.. and those are the only two laws you need. Now we've got like hundreds of thousands of laws, and they're mostly just meant to benefit the ruling class (and their cronies) at our expense. The "If You Were King" video clearly shows there is no such thing as a "good ruler". That applies to governments too (because politicians are our modern-day rulers). But in case you really need it, here's some additional clarification: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE You talk about "freedom", but do you know what it means?