I don't get it. Why doesn't someone just speak out on principle. Out of everyone who "can't" speak I would expect at least one to come out and do it even though it might get them into "trouble."
One factor is that the individuals forbidden to speak are just regular people, going about their lives. The people applying the pressure, on the other hand, are professionals at scaring the shit out of people. And when they aren't doing that, they ruin lives. Justifiably, we hope; that's what the rule of law is about. But regardless, ruin.
A long time ago, when I was in high school, the FBI dropped by my house to ask some questions about things involving computers and phone lines. When they arrived, the friend who happened to be with me was very smart, very mouthy, and always up for an argument. I'd never seen him back down. He started giving the FBI agent static, and the agent shut him down in about 5 seconds. My friend sat quietly on the porch steps for the rest of the encounter.
In this case, the "'trouble'" is substantial, and most of the people who are forbidden to speak are leading the comfortable life of middle-class professionals. It's not shocking to me that most people aren't willing to throw that away. Especially since the people making the threats will surely talk up how many lives are being saved. And, frankly, because until recently it looked like the public didn't give a damn anyhow.
>And when they aren't doing that, they ruin lives. Justifiably, we hope; that's what the rule of law is about. But regardless, ruin.
I'm not sure there's any justification for ruining lives. Note, I don't believe in the death-penalty. I think it's unfortunate that we ruin lives with excessive jail-time and almost permanent criminal records. I think society would be better served by always giving people a challenging recovery path. A way to clear criminal record, at least from employers' background checks. Excessive jail-time, since it pretty much ruins a life, should only be used in the most extreme cases - maybe only if the crime ruined someone else's life.... maybe...
Excuse me, which amount of mental and physical torture is "not excessive"? I may understand keeping beasts in the cages (crazy murderers and the like), but 99% of the laws are not about beasts, it's about compliance with whatever "rules for benefit of society". Be it anti-drug rules, anti-pron rules, anti-gay, anti-blacks, anti-foreigners, anti-rich or anything else. And of course, you have to fork over money to IRS for sponsoring this mafia.
Does it fix anything and not ruining one's life if a person refuses to give to IRS and being held under a gun as a prisoner for even 1 second? Would any of your friends do that to you, or you - to them if does not "pay taxes"? I highly doubt that. We all are being brainwashed to believe that violence is "for our own good" and "without it, it would be much worse". It's a religious nonsense of 13th century. "Without religion there's no morality."
1.4 million Americans have 'TS/SCI' clearance, but only Manning and Snowdon felt inclined to suffer the consequences of speaking out of principle.
I think it's easy to imagine you would speak out when you don't have access to anything secret - but when it's you and your family that will be put at risk I can understand the disincentives looming large.
It's also quite telling that neither Manning nor Snowden have a young family to take care of - no wife or kids.
It is easier (although still monumentally difficult, of course) to take a stand when you are not taking down an innocent wife and children with you, who you might never see again.
From what I've read the 'trouble' they can get into is serious prison time. I'm sure for most of these people it's not worth the risk considering how brazen the US government has been recently.
"On December 1, 1955, in Montgomery, Alabama, Parks refused to obey bus driver James F. Blake's order that she give up her seat in the colored section to a white passenger, after the white section was filled... NAACP organizers believed that Parks was the best candidate for seeing through a court challenge after her arrest for civil disobedience in violating Alabama segregation laws though eventually her case became bogged down in the state courts.Parks' act of defiance and the Montgomery Bus Boycott became important symbols of the modern Civil Rights Movement. She became an international icon of resistance to racial segregation. "
Sure, but you have to look at how many people got arrested, beaten, or lynched for equivalent actions to no benefit at all. For centuries.
I admire Rosa Parks immensely; her action was the spark that lit a great fire. But there were plenty of sparks before her that made no immediate difference.
Exactly. Take Snowden for example. He has given up a hell of a lot and provided proof of serious government wrongdoing and the government has done nothing to remedy it, very few people in government have spoke out against it, and although the general public is aware and cares about it to a certain degree they are doing nothing about it.
Why does everything think reactions should be immediate and overwhelming? These things take time for people to digest, discuss, rationalize, prioritize, and finally internalize their stance on. History has shown repeatedly what people will eventually do, all those on the internet calling everyone a coward or ignorant should get off the internet and go start talking to their neighbors about it.
you would speak out against the surveillance of a government that likes to torture people, put people into inhuman prisons without trial, kill people without trial, kill people outside war, etc etc.
How do you expect one little guy to stand up and speak out on principle, when all the big guns just roll over and get in bed with the government? We've heard recently of possibly Yahoo and Google resisting to some extent, but imagine the outcry if tomorrow Gmail or Ymail was shut down. What if they did it just for a day, SOPA style?
The typical response is that they are a business, they have shareholders to report to etc. but these guys have much more clout, money and media influence to fight this kind of thing.
they would need to be so high in the chain of command as to have even a modicum of protection from those who would come after them. The mindset of the America public as a whole has not reached the point where most individuals are not willing to risk their freedom
A long time ago, when I was in high school, the FBI dropped by my house to ask some questions about things involving computers and phone lines. When they arrived, the friend who happened to be with me was very smart, very mouthy, and always up for an argument. I'd never seen him back down. He started giving the FBI agent static, and the agent shut him down in about 5 seconds. My friend sat quietly on the porch steps for the rest of the encounter.
In this case, the "'trouble'" is substantial, and most of the people who are forbidden to speak are leading the comfortable life of middle-class professionals. It's not shocking to me that most people aren't willing to throw that away. Especially since the people making the threats will surely talk up how many lives are being saved. And, frankly, because until recently it looked like the public didn't give a damn anyhow.