4 ms·
Claims like this may be more convincing when they are supported by evidence.
by btipling 13y ago
Claims like this may be more convincing when they are supported by evidence.
- akiselev 13y agoThe people of the United States are innocent until proven guilt. Their government does not deserve the same benefit of the doubt.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 13y agoBecause our government is made of bricks?
- akiselev 13y agoNo, because the majority of people in power (and a few of their minions) have immunity, both legal and practical. Innocent until proven guilty does not apply to them if they can't be prosecuted to begin with. Yes I know this isn't a legal argument, but if someone receives immunity for actions that would otherwise be unacceptable they should not receive the benefit of the doubt when accused. The burden should be on them to prove they deserve our continued trust.
- mithaler 13y agoSo you automatically assume any allegation leveled against the government to be true until someone in the government spends effort disproving it? Is it really so much to ask that we criticize the government for things that we know it actually did?
- fnordfnordfnord 13y agoEvidence is mounting that agencies within the US gov't are up to no good. Given that the main one is the NSA, an agency with a fair amount of expertise at keeping secrets; it shouldn't be a surprise that great smoking guns of evidence aren't bursting from within the place.
- hobs 13y agoNot any, definitely not all, but the government's lack of transparency and recent actions means that we doubt it to the core. Also, "we know it actually did" is a terrifying thought when the government decides to hide whatever it wants whenever it wants. How will we ever know?