| People stood up to the warrant-less searches but were disposed of one way or another. A good example is the Qwest CEO: he wasn't killed, but he was jailed after acting in his own self interest after his company was ruined. There are occurrences that are less clear cut but still suspicious and that involve long prison terms or death. >Put is this way: Why should I get my safety as a US person put at risk so someone can publicize their story that someone leaked something again? In that video at 1:00. He's trying to make it so classification basically no longer has meaning, if they defect to a journalist. You're wanting to trade freedom for security. I disagree that that is a good idea. You also do not know that he is trying to do that; certainly he has not stated as such. He exposed high crimes. That is why people think he should not suffer punishment. >For the sake of encouraging understanding: I think constitution is used as a way to imply subjectivity of what feels right. That is true in the sense that all laws are only what "feels" right. There is a long history of the US federal government twisting laws to give the federal government more power. It really feels like you're trolling, the last statement does not seem to follow any way I try to read it. I can acknowledge that yes, there are people out there who want to kill you and take your stuff. Defunding the defense apparatus of the US is not a valid solution. But neither is the status quo. |