4 ms·

> The Human Rights Watch representative used this opportunity to tell Mr Snowden that on her way to the airport she had received a call from the US Ambassador t

by lambda 13y ago

> The Human Rights Watch representative used this opportunity to tell Mr Snowden that on her way to the airport she had received a call from the US Ambassador to Russia, who asked her to relay to Mr Snowden that the US Government does not categorise Mr Snowden as a whistleblower and that he has broken United States law. Am I the only one who found this whole statement pretty odd? Let's see. A "whistleblower" is a term for someone who blows a whistle. This is generally meant to indicate someone who is making some kind of loud noise to report a crime; someone (maybe a cop, maybe just someone who is a victim of a crime) trying to get attention that a crime has been committed. Now, when reporting a crime, do you generally expect the perpetrator of that crime to be the appropriate person to determine whether or not a crime has been committed, and thus whether or not labeling the person a "whistleblower" is appropriate? The whole idea of whistleblower laws that don't protect someone from reporting to the public about crimes committed by the administration is laughable. What the hell is the point of any kind of whistleblower laws or protection if you can't actually blow the whistle on your bosses?

baddox 13y ago
But the whole idea of government is that one group of individuals should be the "top level" of authority, creating, enforcing, and interpreting its own laws, reserving the authority to keep certain types of secrets (and, of course, reserving the authority to determine which types of secrets qualify), etc.
- lambda 13y ago
  Um, no. The whole idea of democracy is that there is no "top level" of authority. In the US system, there are representatives of the people, passing laws. There is a single executive, also a representative of the people, implementing said laws. And there are the courts, interpreting said laws when there are disagreements over them. But the whole point of representative democracy is that the people ultimately get to decide who is doing this, so that a runaway government cannot be a single "top level" of authority that creates, enforces, and interprets its own laws. The whole point is that the people are the highest authority, and the government serves at their will. But if the government hides substantial information from the people, a democracy cannot effectively function. The people need to know what the government is doing. There are good reasons for limited amounts of secrecy, for particularly sensitive information or for privacy purposes. But keeping vast amounts of information on things that affect everyone, outside of a wartime environment, is anti-democratic. This type of secrecy, this type of executive action which is seen as being unquestionable by even elected representatives, let alone the people, is turning the government from a representative democracy to an oligarchy.
  - baddox 13y ago
    > The whole idea of democracy is that there is no "top level" of authority. Not true in any practical sense. If the government physically does something to me (like surveils me, arrests me, evicts me, etc.) I don't get to vote my way out of it. They are the top level of authority in any meaningful sense.
    - lambda 13y ago
      You appear to be confusing individual authority with collective authority. Of course you, personally, cannot get out of being arrested; if anyone could get out of being arrested by voting or saying that they are a member of the populace and thus are the ultimate authority, that would be pretty silly. But rather, the people, collectively, are supposed to be the top level of authority. If the people want to vote out the current administration, they can. If they want to change the laws, they can vote for representatives who will do so. If they want to change the constitution, they can call a constitutional convention. Now sure, no individual can do this alone; they have to get a substantial fraction of the populace to do it along with them. However, there are several factors that work against this. One major one is secrecy. If what the government is doing is hidden, then they cannot provide oversight (nor can their elected representatives, or the courts).

by lambda 13y ago

baddox 13y ago

But the whole idea of government is that one group of individuals should be the "top level" of authority, creating, enforcing, and interpreting its own laws, reserving the authority to keep certain types of secrets (and, of course, reserving the authority to determine which types of secrets qualify), etc.

lambda 13y ago
Um, no. The whole idea of democracy is that there is no "top level" of authority. In the US system, there are representatives of the people, passing laws. There is a single executive, also a representative of the people, implementing said laws. And there are the courts, interpreting said laws when there are disagreements over them. But the whole point of representative democracy is that the people ultimately get to decide who is doing this, so that a runaway government cannot be a single "top level" of authority that creates, enforces, and interprets its own laws. The whole point is that the people are the highest authority, and the government serves at their will. But if the government hides substantial information from the people, a democracy cannot effectively function. The people need to know what the government is doing. There are good reasons for limited amounts of secrecy, for particularly sensitive information or for privacy purposes. But keeping vast amounts of information on things that affect everyone, outside of a wartime environment, is anti-democratic. This type of secrecy, this type of executive action which is seen as being unquestionable by even elected representatives, let alone the people, is turning the government from a representative democracy to an oligarchy.
- baddox 13y ago
  > The whole idea of democracy is that there is no "top level" of authority. Not true in any practical sense. If the government physically does something to me (like surveils me, arrests me, evicts me, etc.) I don't get to vote my way out of it. They are the top level of authority in any meaningful sense.
  - lambda 13y ago
    You appear to be confusing individual authority with collective authority. Of course you, personally, cannot get out of being arrested; if anyone could get out of being arrested by voting or saying that they are a member of the populace and thus are the ultimate authority, that would be pretty silly. But rather, the people, collectively, are supposed to be the top level of authority. If the people want to vote out the current administration, they can. If they want to change the laws, they can vote for representatives who will do so. If they want to change the constitution, they can call a constitutional convention. Now sure, no individual can do this alone; they have to get a substantial fraction of the populace to do it along with them. However, there are several factors that work against this. One major one is secrecy. If what the government is doing is hidden, then they cannot provide oversight (nor can their elected representatives, or the courts).