10 ms·

As an American citizen, I hope the rest of the world realizes that there are plenty of those of us here that are thankful when other countries' justice systems

As an American citizen, I hope the rest of the world realizes that there are plenty of those of us here that are thankful when other countries' justice systems push back. We need a lot more of that, we need help to restrain our government and get it back to operating within a moral boundary. International push-back and isolation would help do that. I think the US Government's reach and power has mostly gone beyond the ability of Americans to restrict, and most Americans are willfully asleep at the wheel (thus our skyrocketing prescription drug abuse, Americans are numbing themselves). It might take a global concerted effort to lock the monster down (keeping in mind the monster has a $4 trillion budget, larger than the size of Germany's entire economy). They might continue to still go all crazy police state on us anyway, but standing up to bullies is important.

sneak 14y ago
You contradict yourself - you claim that the government is operating outside of a moral boundary and is beyond the ability of the citizenry to restrict, but you also claim that international push-back and isolation would help. You're right that it's totally out of control - the rule of law is gone. You're wrong about the potential solutions. The only nonviolent solution is to leave the country and avoid the jurisdictional reach. Take your ball and go somewhere that has the rule of law. They _will_ continue to "go all crazy police state on us", and that is precisely why it's time to leave. It's impossible to make things better while being persecuted or beaten or censored or imprisoned without trial.
- adventureful 14y ago
  I don't think I contradicted myself at all. I said mostly operating outside the ability of Americans to restrict (some aspects do, some aspects don't). And I said I think it will help, if the globe pitched in to restrict the US Federal Govt. There's no contradiction there at all. The push-back by international powers would accomplish international restriction of the Feds that US citizens cannot short term (US citizens mostly have no influence over New Zealand justice, nor trade relations with Singapore, nor military relations with Japan, and so on and so forth). It would take a very large cultural shift to get the US military out of Japan from our side (it would take more than just a new President). Japan, however, can and should kick the US military out tomorrow morning. Ditto Germany. It's better if you stop thinking of America as a 'normal' nation, and start thinking of it as an international superpower that has 180 military bases around the globe, with its fingers in every pie. Americans for example have zero influence or control over the Federal Reserve. You'd have to turn congress inside out to then get laws passed that reach to the Fed. Other nations can however change their relationship with the Fed and its banking arms. American voters would have to reform the entire government top to bottom before they got to restricting CIA activities in Italy (for example). Italy however, can get started on that tomorrow morning. The US Government is extremely large and powerful, and it has a superpower's reach globally. It makes perfect sense that it would help if the rest of the world pushed back against its international abuses. Let me provide you an example: I can vote for a congressman, that single congressman cannot realistically stop the NSA at this point, the NSA has a budget equal to the budget of Greece. It would take a complete government overhaul to restructure the NSA, and that will take a long time. Other countries however, at their choosing, can immediately alter what they allow departments like the CIA or NSA to do in their jurisdiction (and or at least make the effort to push back). The US Government is not one thing, it's a massive entity with many powerful heads that operate independent of each other.
  - mih 14y ago
    > Japan, however, can and should kick the US military out tomorrow morning. Ditto Germany Citizens of other countries are similarly held hostage by their governments too (although some to a much lesser extent than the US). The US however has too much clout over other governments to allow what you state to happen.
    - grecy 14y ago
      Wow, once again I see people comparing America to second and third world countries. Yes, people in those countries have it worse than people in America. People in first world countries are not "held hostage" by their governments. Why, why, why would you compare America to Second and Third world countries instead of looking to the top of first world countries and striving to be better?
      - jfoutz 14y ago
        Mostly because the US is very very diverse. If I move two counties over, my life expectancy goes up 5 years. It's probably fair to say 1% of the US is third world. At the very least, Alabama's immigrant ghettos are concretely third world. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/456/reap-what-you-sow?act=1 http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/456/r...
        grecy 14y ago
        That doesn't mean you should compare the country to second and third world countries when analyzing if something needs improvement or not That's like comparing America's murder rate to El Salvador and saying it's perfectly fine. Instead, it should be compared to first world countries, and it's soon very clear that it's not OK and is a serious problem for such a prosperous country.[1] This kind of comparison leads to apathy. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#2010s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona... (sort the list by "most recent", and have a look where the United States sits compared to the next first world country.
- bad_user 14y ago
  So I don't know where's the contradiction you mention: the author simply says that a global push-back effort would go beyond what American citizens alone are able to do. the rule of law is gone What? Quite the contrary, the "rule of law" is stronger than ever. And that's precisely the problem, as the justice system needs to calm down on passing and enforcing laws that restrict our freedoms and constitutional rights. And the institutions that enforce those laws need to remind themselves that people should be innocent until proven guilty. The only nonviolent solution is to leave the country That's not a solution at all, because the U.S. has so much influence that many countries simply bend over and deport you in the blink of an eye.
  - tripzilch 14y ago
    > What? Quite the contrary, the "rule of law" is stronger than ever. > And that's precisely the problem, as the justice system needs to calm down on passing and enforcing laws that restrict our freedoms and constitutional rights. Nonsense, that's not your problem at all. The problem is: A right that doesn't hold for everybody is not a right, but a privilege. Your "rule of law" does not apply equally to everyone, and the only thing that is strong is the "rule of privilege". Your constitution is a centuries old document whose interpretation is up for grabs to anyone. It, and one half of your legal system isn't even codified, like a sane legal system would. All countries that trace their legal heritage back to England are still stuck with a "Common Law" system (about 1/3rd of the world) instead of writing down their laws in (sufficiently) unambiguous legal code (don't tell me legal code can't be unambiguous until you've seen a proper example of Civil Law legal system[1]), like the rest of the world. I've seen people pour over this Constitution and the Bill of Rights of yours and try to divine some wisdom from it, say about a right to bear arms, and then another person pointing out some incomprehensible old-English sentence that supposedly mean this or that, and apparently people are allowed to have different opinions about what these documents really mean and this is taken seriously ... WTF??? You might as well stick to interpreting the Bible to base your legal decisions on ... I mean, I'm all for people having the right to their own opinion and shit, with one exception, and that is the interpretation of legal code. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)
Joakal 14y ago
The American electoral system is slanted towards an effective duopoly dictatorship with FPTP. Even the most brilliant political analyst will vote against their favourite candidate in favour of one the lesser of two evils that are likely to win. The only way for that favourite candidate to win is to get as much popularity possible. But with many candidates, it's really difficult. Unless, they have a huge amount of money and influence. With bi-partisan decisions such as more security over movement and Internet, American voters have no other choice. Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiHuiDD_oTk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiHuiDD_oTk Is your Cat confused about the referendum on the alternative vote on the 5th May? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE&feature=related https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE&feature=rela... The Alternative Vote Explained

sneak 14y ago

You contradict yourself - you claim that the government is operating outside of a moral boundary and is beyond the ability of the citizenry to restrict, but you also claim that international push-back and isolation would help. You're right that it's totally out of control - the rule of law is gone. You're wrong about the potential solutions. The only nonviolent solution is to leave the country and avoid the jurisdictional reach. Take your ball and go somewhere that has the rule of law. They _will_ continue to "go all crazy police state on us", and that is precisely why it's time to leave. It's impossible to make things better while being persecuted or beaten or censored or imprisoned without trial.

adventureful 14y ago
I don't think I contradicted myself at all. I said mostly operating outside the ability of Americans to restrict (some aspects do, some aspects don't). And I said I think it will help, if the globe pitched in to restrict the US Federal Govt. There's no contradiction there at all. The push-back by international powers would accomplish international restriction of the Feds that US citizens cannot short term (US citizens mostly have no influence over New Zealand justice, nor trade relations with Singapore, nor military relations with Japan, and so on and so forth). It would take a very large cultural shift to get the US military out of Japan from our side (it would take more than just a new President). Japan, however, can and should kick the US military out tomorrow morning. Ditto Germany. It's better if you stop thinking of America as a 'normal' nation, and start thinking of it as an international superpower that has 180 military bases around the globe, with its fingers in every pie. Americans for example have zero influence or control over the Federal Reserve. You'd have to turn congress inside out to then get laws passed that reach to the Fed. Other nations can however change their relationship with the Fed and its banking arms. American voters would have to reform the entire government top to bottom before they got to restricting CIA activities in Italy (for example). Italy however, can get started on that tomorrow morning. The US Government is extremely large and powerful, and it has a superpower's reach globally. It makes perfect sense that it would help if the rest of the world pushed back against its international abuses. Let me provide you an example: I can vote for a congressman, that single congressman cannot realistically stop the NSA at this point, the NSA has a budget equal to the budget of Greece. It would take a complete government overhaul to restructure the NSA, and that will take a long time. Other countries however, at their choosing, can immediately alter what they allow departments like the CIA or NSA to do in their jurisdiction (and or at least make the effort to push back). The US Government is not one thing, it's a massive entity with many powerful heads that operate independent of each other.
- mih 14y ago
  > Japan, however, can and should kick the US military out tomorrow morning. Ditto Germany Citizens of other countries are similarly held hostage by their governments too (although some to a much lesser extent than the US). The US however has too much clout over other governments to allow what you state to happen.
  - grecy 14y ago
    Wow, once again I see people comparing America to second and third world countries. Yes, people in those countries have it worse than people in America. People in first world countries are not "held hostage" by their governments. Why, why, why would you compare America to Second and Third world countries instead of looking to the top of first world countries and striving to be better?
    - jfoutz 14y ago
      Mostly because the US is very very diverse. If I move two counties over, my life expectancy goes up 5 years. It's probably fair to say 1% of the US is third world. At the very least, Alabama's immigrant ghettos are concretely third world. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/456/reap-what-you-sow?act=1 http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/456/r...
      - grecy 14y ago
        That doesn't mean you should compare the country to second and third world countries when analyzing if something needs improvement or not That's like comparing America's murder rate to El Salvador and saying it's perfectly fine. Instead, it should be compared to first world countries, and it's soon very clear that it's not OK and is a serious problem for such a prosperous country.[1] This kind of comparison leads to apathy. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#2010s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona... (sort the list by "most recent", and have a look where the United States sits compared to the next first world country.
bad_user 14y ago
So I don't know where's the contradiction you mention: the author simply says that a global push-back effort would go beyond what American citizens alone are able to do. the rule of law is gone What? Quite the contrary, the "rule of law" is stronger than ever. And that's precisely the problem, as the justice system needs to calm down on passing and enforcing laws that restrict our freedoms and constitutional rights. And the institutions that enforce those laws need to remind themselves that people should be innocent until proven guilty. The only nonviolent solution is to leave the country That's not a solution at all, because the U.S. has so much influence that many countries simply bend over and deport you in the blink of an eye.
- tripzilch 14y ago
  > What? Quite the contrary, the "rule of law" is stronger than ever. > And that's precisely the problem, as the justice system needs to calm down on passing and enforcing laws that restrict our freedoms and constitutional rights. Nonsense, that's not your problem at all. The problem is: A right that doesn't hold for everybody is not a right, but a privilege. Your "rule of law" does not apply equally to everyone, and the only thing that is strong is the "rule of privilege". Your constitution is a centuries old document whose interpretation is up for grabs to anyone. It, and one half of your legal system isn't even codified, like a sane legal system would. All countries that trace their legal heritage back to England are still stuck with a "Common Law" system (about 1/3rd of the world) instead of writing down their laws in (sufficiently) unambiguous legal code (don't tell me legal code can't be unambiguous until you've seen a proper example of Civil Law legal system[1]), like the rest of the world. I've seen people pour over this Constitution and the Bill of Rights of yours and try to divine some wisdom from it, say about a right to bear arms, and then another person pointing out some incomprehensible old-English sentence that supposedly mean this or that, and apparently people are allowed to have different opinions about what these documents really mean and this is taken seriously ... WTF??? You might as well stick to interpreting the Bible to base your legal decisions on ... I mean, I'm all for people having the right to their own opinion and shit, with one exception, and that is the interpretation of legal code. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)

Joakal 14y ago

The American electoral system is slanted towards an effective duopoly dictatorship with FPTP. Even the most brilliant political analyst will vote against their favourite candidate in favour of one the lesser of two evils that are likely to win. The only way for that favourite candidate to win is to get as much popularity possible. But with many candidates, it's really difficult. Unless, they have a huge amount of money and influence. With bi-partisan decisions such as more security over movement and Internet, American voters have no other choice. Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiHuiDD_oTk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiHuiDD_oTk Is your Cat confused about the referendum on the alternative vote on the 5th May? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE&feature=related https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE&feature=rela... The Alternative Vote Explained