

The first global civil war - dn2k
http://falkvinge.net/2013/08/28/the-first-global-civil-war/

======
danso
I can't help but think how naive the OP sounds, with statements like these:

> _40 years ago, two journalists showed the world that the president of the
> most powerful nation used the Secret Services to wiretap his political
> opponents. This investigative work granted them the Pulitzer Prize and led
> to the resignation of the president._

First of all, winning the Pulitzer Prize doesn't validate journalism. It's a
prize given by journalists to journalists, and despite what the OP thinks of
today's investigative journalism, journalists are still giving each other
Pulitzer Prizes for investigative work, so not sure why he uses it as some
kind of metric.

Second, I'm not familiar with all the details of Watergate, but I don't
remember it being a scandal involving the Secret Service.

Details, details, I know. But the OP approaches this issue with incredible
wide-eyed naivete, with no real knowledge of what's happened in the past. I'd
hate to think what kind of jaded essay he'd write if he really studied world
history pre-2001.

~~~
simonh
His division between an entrenched 'class in power' and a utopian ideal
consensus-seeking liberal 'digital generation' also seems like a bit of a
fantasy, which he admits - "Despite the popularization of tools such as
Twitter or smartphones, this divide was not resolved. Instead, it only gets
worse."

Yet even accepting strong evidence that his world view is at least flawed, and
more likely completely fanciful, this doesn't in any way stop him from
persisting in vigorously applying it to everything that's happening around
him.

Watergate was a clear case of a president implicated in patently illegal acts.
In contrast, the NSA's activities were overseen by a court and a few self-
confessed infractions aside were entirely legal. We can argue whether they
should be legal, or whether the legal framework is constitutional etc, but
everyone involved in the NSA's activities can honestly and truthfully claim
they had very good reason to believe what they were doing was legal. I'm not
supporting what they were doing in any way, but there's simply co comparison
whatever between the Snowden case and Watergate.

Comparisons with Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers are far more apt, but if it
wasn't for the FBI's inept and illegal harassment and wiretapping of Ellsberg
fatally tainting the prosecution's case, it's quite likely Ellsberg may have
faced a prison sentence just as much as Snowden might. Certainly there's no
particular reason to think that prosecution of Snowden is unprecedented.
Furthermore the harassment of the press relating to Snowden's revelations has
largely taken place outside the US. Within the US the press is publishing away
with little to no legal restraint or obstruction and until a journalist in the
US actually faces prosecution or restraint over the affair, rumblings about
such being in the works are just noise.

~~~
Fuxy
We all know the British Intelligence lives to please the American Intelligence
for all the funding they get. It just happens that British law offers more
flexibility to the so they can pull this crap off. And this is one of their
"selling points" as they like pt point out all the time.

Given this very close friendship and their ability to spy on American People
since their not US agencies it is not far fetched to think the US is involved.

The only thing preventing the Intelligence Agencies from ruling the world is
just a few laws that they are desperately attempting to change by bringing up
the terrorist threat every time they get the chance.

------
devx
I wish Obama's Nobel Peace Prize would be retracted. He never deserved it, and
he deserves it now less than ever. It would send a strong message that you
can't just bullshit your way into the presidential office of the world's
strongest nation, as a champion of civil liberties and peace, and then do the
_exact opposite_.

I support his impeachment for the very same reason. In a way, I almost hope he
intervenes in Syria despite a vote against in Congress (hopefully), if that
means his impeachment will be inevitable - even though I care about him
getting impeached over the NSA surveillance state a lot more than him getting
impeached over Syria, but I know there's a lot smaller chance to impeach him
over that, so I'll take whichever reason works best.

~~~
samatman
I'd like you to at least consider a far scarier possibility: Obama is not in
fact in charge of the country.

This perspective really helps me understand the last, say, 20 years of US
history. Your mileage may vary.

~~~
chasing
This should help you understand the past 230+ years of American history,
because it's by design that the President is not "in charge" of the country.
(And it's a pretty good design.)

------
yk
I think it is a bit too far into the right direction. But it seems to me that
nowadays everybody outside of the halls of power seems to be unhappy with the
lunatics who run the asylum.

------
chasing
We are not at war. Jesus Christ. Have some historical perspective.

------
mabbo
This website looks like a bastion of sanity and rational debate.

