Quote:
Why? Because crimes carried out that serve the Government's agenda and target its opponents are permitted and even encouraged; cyber-attacks are "crimes" only when undertaken by those whom the Government dislikes, but are perfectly permissible when the Government itself or those with a sympathetic agenda unleash them. Whoever launched those cyber attacks at WikiLeaks (whether government or private actors) had no more legal right to do so than Anonymous, but only the latter will be prosecuted.
That's the same dynamic that causes the Obama administration to be obsessed with prosecuting WikiLeaks but not The New York Times or Bob Woodward, even though the latter have published far more sensitive government secrets; WikiLeaks is adverse to the government while the NYT and Woodward aren't, and thus "law" applies to punish only the former. The same mindset drives the Government to shield high-level political officials who commit the most serious crimes, while relentlessly pursuing whistle-blowers who expose their wrongdoing. Those with proximity to government power and who serve and/or control it are free from the constraints of law; those who threaten or subvert it have the full weight of law come crashing down upon them.
|
source
Merc, how can you see nothing wrong with leaving Manning in Solitary Confinement without a trial since MAY? HE HASN'T BEEN CONVICTED OF A CRIME. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
eta: linky
__________________
Impotentes defendere libertatem non possunt.
"Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth."
~Franklin D. Roosevelt
Last edited by OnyxCougar; 02-14-2011 at 03:02 PM.
|