When a US Diplomat is asked about Snowden, he replies "He broke the law. I am a big fan of following the law." /r/IAmA reacts as expected. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
185 ups - 56 downs = 129 votes
123 comments submitted at 18:03:27 on Feb 14, 2014 by ONE_GUY_ONE_JAR
"I am a big fan of following the law."
-Every cop arresting a black guy at a sit-in at Woolworth's.
-Richard Nixon, on the prosecution of Daniel Ellsberg
-Ron Paul, attempting to use the law to unmask an anonymous critic
-Every hunter of fugitive slaves, as the bounty money clinked into his wallet.
-Every federal prosecutor when they charge a whistleblower.
-Every redditor, when it's a black guy in the bracelets.
:D
You forgot:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842
Don't like the law? Change the law.
While yes, there has been some unjust laws, you can't just pick and choose. If you don't like the law, get off your ass and advocate for a change. Don't try to fake being philosophical.
But... but... that involves effort! You know we hate effort on reddit!
You can pick and choose. You just have to be ready to deal with the consequences. Rosa Parks accepted being arrested. She didn't fight the police, she didn't try to run. Snowden fled to not only another country but a country that still perceives us as its greatest enemy. If he had decided to stay and try his luck here, then I would be sympathetic.
Yeah. By picking and choosing, I mean that you can't expect to go off on a crime, even if the law is unjust. Now, are some laws unjust? Yes. Should some laws be rid of? Definitely. Deal with the consequences, use civil disobedience.
>you can't just pick and choose
Actually, our entire system is built to allow this:
Police choose which perpetrators they arrest, and which they let off with a warning.
Prosecutors choose who to prosecute, and who not to charge. They also decide what sort of a deal to offer, and what the specific charges might be, offering lesser charges in exchange for plea deals, despite the factual descriptions of the actions that brought the charges fitting the legal requirements for the higher charge.
Juries can nullify a case.
Governors and Presidents can offer clemency or pardons.
So there is a shit ton of picking and choosing that goes on.
If you don't like the law...just don't enforce it. It's a pretty common practice among law enforcement leadership to prioritize where their efforts go.
By picking and choosing, I mean that you shouldn't bitch about being prosecuted when you break a law. I'm all for civil disobedience, but you have to know that that's what you're getting into when you break a law.
Whistleblowers should know that they could be doing treasonous acts. They can't get off scot-free. Just because a law is unjust, it does not mean that you can break it and expect to not be punished.
>but you have to know that that's what you're getting into when you break a law.
That was the point of the Wall Street Journal article I posted earlier. You often may not know you're even breaking a law.
Not every law is just. Nuance-free "respect for the law" is just as silly and ill-conceived as childish anarchism.
>Whistleblowers should know that they could be doing treasonous acts.
Treason has a very specific definition, and I can't think of a whistleblower since the Vietnam era for whom that definition was remotely applicable.
>Just because a law is unjust, it does not mean that you can break it and expect to not be punished.
You can't expect to not be punished, but I don't see the moral necessity of accepting punishment for unjust reasons, or the moral depravity in avoiding unjust punishment.
>Treason has a very specific definition, and I can't think of a whistleblower since the Vietnam era for whom that definition was remotely applicable.
Fine, volating multiple clauses of the Espionage Act. Happy?
>If you don't like the law...just don't enforce it. It's a pretty common practice among law enforcement leadership to prioritize where their efforts go.
That's incorrect. They aren't ignoring the law, they're exercising discretion that the law itself allows. When a law is permissive (rather than mandatory), it grants whoever is enforcing the law some lee-way as to whether they apply it.
They aren't ignoring the law, they're applying it by electing, within the bounds of the law as drafted, not to exercise a particular power or function.
There is a slight problem with changing laws when some of the laws themselves are secret.
Do you normally play Che on reddit? Revolutionary popcorn is an excellent friday treat.