(don't get me wrong - venezuela has serious problems. but cherry picking examples for one country is no argument at all. people in glass houses....
also, wouldn't it make the world a worst place if we required the country offering asylum to be "better" than the country persecuting someone? that seems pointless, except for internet point-scoring)
Sure, I'll agree that Guantanamo's a stain on this country.
And while we have entirely too many prisoners in this country, they aren't 'political prisoners'. People aren't thrown into prison for protesting the government. (Or not generally, you did have McCarthyism and such in the past)
| People aren't thrown into prison for
| protesting the government.
Depends on what you are protesting. Look at the police response to the Occupy protests. Talk to anyone that's worked in the animal rights movement. Sure you don't get thrown in jail for 'protesting the government' directly, but you'll get things like selective enforcement of laws brought against you because you've stuck your head out.
In those instances, you might spend a few hours or the night in a jail cell, that's true. It's a bit different than what they do in Venezuela, or say, Egypt.
The death penalty is not simply a state-by-state issue.
Besides the existence of a federal and military death penalty, the federal court system, including the US Supreme Court, deals with Constitutional issues related to the death penalty in states constantly, and has imposed various restrictions on its usage. SCOTUS has also been on an excruciatingly slow but clear path towards total nationwide abolishment.
There is very little in the US that can be treated as purely state-by-state, and so long as the 8th and 14th amendments exist, capital punishment definitely isn't one of them.
It's like saying State Insurance isn't a simple state issue because there could be intervention by the feds. Of course, but de-facto, it's a state issue and the Feds have their own purview for things like the military and treason, etc.
But, if a state wanted to eliminate it, they could, so long as their legislature or judiciary so decided. So it is a state by state issue, by and large.
[PS] I think allowing things to be done state by state actually help in the end to get the whole nation to agree on things which as a whole it might not without states or a state 'testing the waters' as it were. Eventually I see all states eliminating capital punishment, and I think being able to refer to states that have and show that it has not resulted in higher murder rates post elimination is a good thing. Same for pot laws and same sex marriage laws. In this big republic, given that we're not a strictly civil law, I think this bit by bit helps out, in the long run.
No, you're missing the point. The nation as a whole permits the death penalty to continue, even if some political subdivisions choose not to impose it themselves.
The idea of 50 sovereign states doing their own thing is merely a convenient fiction for those who don't want the murders conducted in their name to bother their conscience.
And it falls apart completely when you remember, the federal government sentences people to death, too, not just states. America conducts state-sponsored murder. Not even the 50-state fiction shields anyone from that reality.
Edit Re PS: Speaking of being technical... You're focusing on the mechanisms. I'm very familiar with the mechanisms, and I don't care about them. I care about the result. The result is we remain one of forty countries, almost all of which we hypocritically lambast for their human rights records, to retain the death penalty. No amount of procedural justification will change that, nor will it reduce our moral responsibility.
The federal government does still utilize the death penalty, but it's very rare these days. Only three times since 1963, whereas Texas has executed 500 people since 1982.
The war on drugs is almost always a war on the underclass / minorities. It is almost impossible to see when you live within it, but there will come a time years in the future when looking back on current America is like looking back on the era of slavery, in basic disbelief to the overwhelming ignorance of so many.
He did more than just 'mention' it, he stoled government property and disseminated classified information to the public. I'm not saying what he did was 'wrong', but it is illegal and not particularly a free speech issue.
I'm not sure how anyone could say Russia's 'way more open' with a straight face[1].
These people didn't negotiate this meeting. This is the formal reason.
Informal reason is that they are often organized by the institutions which funded by other countries, institutions, which aim is definitely not a prohibition of Russia.
May be it is a good idea to avoid judgements about countries/cultures, which you don't understand?
How is releasing a single press release being "desperate for attention"?
A common theme among people who oppose Edward Snowden's is to criticize his character. Even within this thread people have resorted to name calling, dubbing him a "Drama Queen" and accuse him of seeking fame.
I suppose it's easier to attack a person than it is to attack the issues he stands for.
Riiiight... He'll get fair trial and ride a unicorn over happiness mountain. All life is delaying the inevitable. Let's hope he doesn't end his in a dark cell.
I've seen your opinion before. And you appear to lack the ability to give his situation enough brain power to develop a realistic reply. But feel free to continue to blather on like you understand what's happening. Maybe we'll get a laugh out of it on HN.
Did you even read their statement? They're the ones trying to provide him safe passage to a place of refuge. Remind me again, as its a common refrain, how shamelessly self-promoting WikiLeaks is? To my knowledge, everyone involved has made great personal sacrifices (basically given up their lives) to expose the truth to an indifferent public. Bradley Manning has been locked away for years, denied almost all human interaction. Julian Assange is holed up in an embassy. Snowden is the most wanted man on the planet. Do such people really deserve your derision?
They do when they knowingly break the laws and run away from the consequences like Snowden and Assange have (Assange's even more appalling given the rape allegations he also ran away from). Manning, at least, didn't do that.
I stand corrected about Wikileaks role in this particular aspect of the story as they do seem to actually be helping him elude justice. But they seemed to have nothing to do with his actual leaks, yet I've seen multiple 'statements' from them on the matter that seemed to only serve as a way to remind people of their existence. At least now they have an actual reason, I guess.
I'm afraid your understanding of justice and my own differ greatly. It's probably an insurmountable impasse. To me, exposing a massive surveillance apparatus is a laudable act of heroism, and he doesn't deserve this kind of condemnation.
What if, just maybe, the laws you defend so adamantly are unjust? What about the consequences for all of us that live under them? Why not defend those that tell us the truth?
You can argue about whether they're unjust laws or not, but they still exist and if you break them, you should face the consequences. That's what the civil rights leaders in this country did, among others.
But honestly, from my reading, I'm mostly okay with what the NSA's doing and most of what he revealed isn't all that new or surprising (others reported on PRISM long ago, local governments have kept track of phone records for decades, it only makes sense the feds would as well). This is also what many citizens want their government to be doing, hence the many complaints about the Boston bombers not being adequately tracked beforehand.
The one part that troubles me is the storing of 'inadvertently' collected communications from US citizens for five years without a warrant. That seems wrong. Other than that, I only think there should be a bit more transparency. If Snowden's leaks lead to that, that's a good thing.
Yeah, there's not much saving for me either. It'll cost $200 less over the course of two years if I go with 2 lines and T-Mobile's unlimited data plan (compared to the 2 lines and 6GB share everything plan I have from Verizon).
But, as you say, the Verizon plan lets tethering be as much as that xGB as you want. And for me, T-Mobile only offers very slow 2G service in my area while I get LTE from Verizon.
After those first two years, you do start to save real money ($40 every month, in my case), but that assumes you don't then upgrade to the latest iPhone or whatever and start all over again.
I really don't understand how people get sucked into these for-profit (scam) schools. Or why the federal government provides student loans for students going to such places.
Presuming Ms. Parker lived in Georgia, in-state tuition at most public universities there would've cost her much less, and provided a better education. (and that's not including things like Georgia's Hope scholarship program)
The schools have excellent marketing campaigns. Their TV commercials run all day, with emphasis on the daytime market. They show up to high school college fairs with slick marketing material and huge promises of careers that appeal to teenagers. Plus, they make signing up for loans as streamlined and easy as possible.
In-state tuition is still rising well ahead of the means for most to pay for it out of pocket. It's not six figures by any means, but I envy the stories of generations past that managed to live at home, work part time year round or full time in the summer, and come out four years later more or less unscathed. It's frustrating to watch prices rise while state funds stay constant or decrease.
Hmn, arithmetic reality check. Georgia State, $11k per year in-state. Hmn, my alma mater is still charging about half that, for any Canadian student.
Full time minimum-wage work for the summer? $7.25/h (GA min wage) * 40h/w * 17 weeks = $5k income (basically untaxed). So you're in debt for $24k over your 4-year degree.
That's a lot more than I would have guessed. Guess the student had better figure out something valuable to do (more valuable than minimum wage).
There might be more worthwhile things he could work on, but sports and politics are what interests him.