I agree with Joshua. All this biz about being honorable is fine when the other side is too. But we have so much evidence that it isn't.
I'm getting some shocking (though unverifiable by me) reports on how the FBI has been treating "friends of friends" of the two Boston Marathon bombers. We know one such "friend" was shot dead (very mysteriously) in Florida; the other reports aren't reassuring. On Nov 1, 2013, at 2:07 PM, Joshua Thorp <[email protected]> wrote: > http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/nov/01/snowden-nsa-files-surveillance-revelations-decoded > > Why does the conversation always hinge on Snowden's morality? We all knew > the US government is rotten -- so no news there? But an individual breaking > an oath to hide this fact -- that is news? How dare he reveal what we all > knew was likely the case? > > Snowden was well aware of how whistleblowers are treated in the US > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_Drake, specifically with > character assassination, legal prosecution, and physical and psychological > intimidation. Why exactly would it be more honorable to sacrifice himself > ineffectually? It seems the manner he chose got his message out and he has > been able to continue to shape and argue his case. Something he would not > likely have been able to do had he given himself up to the US's prison system > that allows for punitive isolation, something he would likely have received > to protect us, his victims, from any more of his dangerous ideas and > information. > > --joshua > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
