It's the duty of every citizen to judge the morality of everything they're ordered to do, or in covering up anything they see. Joining the military obliges you to keep mundane things secret, like troop positions, but nothing legal or moral can justify, let alone obligate, murder or covering it up.

We all (mostly) agree that if it's us or the other guy, it'll be us, and if we have to throw sand in his face to win, so be it. All's fair when he's trying to kill us. But in the real world there are innocent bystanders and bad intelligence. Things we did that would have been okay if they'd been done to a card-carrying enemy were done to innocent bystanders, and often thoroughly unrelated people at weddings, and we've stepped into the realm of politically motivated murder.

Perhaps a subset of the information leaked would have proved this as well, but when blowing the whistle on murderers don't risk them destroying evidence if you've got the chance to get it out. It'd suck to have failed to leak enough to build a case.

If we want a country worth having after this we've got to stop killing wantonly, and torturing, and imprisoning based on rumors. We're ridiculously close to our worst enemies, and getting closer. To change we've got to start punishing law-breakers and that means we've got to find out about them which means encouraging whistle-blowers.

I urge you, as someone who seems to care, to recognize that in a fucked up system crazy things have to be done. It's not a shame someone leaked classified documents, it's a shame that only one did. The cult atmosphere in the armed forces prevented proper moral behavior in everyone else there.

Accessibility for the disabled is hardly the same thing as race or gender-specific rules.

The first helps people in need. (Well, anyone can use the wheelchair ramp, but the able get nothing extra from doing so.) The others are a matter of birth not need and they unreasonably benefit some people who don't need help, but they also ignore other people with equivalently bad situations over things we're supposed to be ignoring (race, sexual preferences, etc).

The obviously correct way to handle this is to offer non-discriminatory benefits to those in need. Don't offer a racial scholarship, examine what perceived thing you're trying to fix (for instance that a minority child will be poor and thus unable to attend school) and adopt a scholarship for all children in a similar situation. Crack-head parents are crack-head parents regardless of race and all of their children are going to need the same types of help. All abused and now single parents need the same help. Imagine an admittedly rare majority-race child being adopted into a minority household and being denied a scholarship that was available to their new siblings.

It's a fundamental right to not be excluded on the basis of "protected" statuses, so it's clearly a violation of the rights of everyone to have any of these exclusionary policies.

Thankfully the non-discriminatory way is far better for society. Educating everyone isn't at all unreasonable and the poorest and most disadvantaged are great to start with. And everyone deserves rescue - from a dictator, a crooked mining town, blackmail/coercion, or an abusive spouse.

Imagine how much simpler a scholarship form and process would be if we spent the time and effort we do in caring about the protected statuses and just helped those who apply. We drop million dollar bombs on people who weren't our enemies, we can trivially afford to educate anyone who asks.

At that, the USA could just end the "illegal alien" "problem" by a one-time ten-year aid package to Mexico providing first-world health, nutrition, and education. By then the country would have a far-higher GDP, and growing too as children raised this way got jobs, and nobody would want to leave home. And it'd cost far less than the ongoing permanent border/fence/humanitarian disaster costs and will keep costing, and the aid package would actually fix the underlying issues.

Religious people can't be moral.

The bible makes sense? Sure it does. And so does the Koran, so they say. In fact, pretty much any ridiculous belief has a ton of supporters.

Never anyone reputable though. I mean, look at the people who say that - idiots who say things like " ... science falsely called, and ...".

I know you get brownie points for trying to convince people of the existence of the sky fairy, and most-importantly you feel like it validates your belief, but it's crap. The book, the teachings, and the institutionalized ignorance required for faith.

Because of the nature of ego I'm sure this post will just drive you to your chosen delusion with more fervor but hopefully it helps someone on the fence decide to investigate more, and with non-cult sources, before ruining their life with it.

No, he means any tablet.

In your world there are only two classes of people

1) Those who think that all tablet devices are iPads and all touchscreen phones are iPhones.

2) Apple haters.

Yeah, Western government pay more lip service to justice.

95%+ of police officers in Toronto took their badge numbers off when kettling and illegally arresting protesters. Despite the extreme number of infractions not a single police officer, RCMP or local, recalls seeing ANYONE without their identification.

This was done specifically so that charges couldn't be laid and sure enough police have been found not guilty for reason of lack of evidence in many beatings, not because nobody beat the person, but because no officer is willing to rat on the rest and they all appear identical in black riot gear. (Amazingly, just like the Black Bloc, who they condemn.)

I think we should have a sting and throw every police officer who refuses to rat on a fellow officer in jail till they die of old age.

If they sold it to someone they should have known would use it for illegal purposes, yes.

It's legal to sell your car. It's not legal to provide the vehicle for someone who's told you they're going to drive over someone - even if the sale would otherwise be legal.

It's obvious that doing anything with a dictator only legitimizes and enables the dictatorship. So yeah, if Cisco sold equipment to Syria, even if that equipment wasn't for censoring, they would be at least partly to blame for censoring in Syria.

Lobbying for favorable laws opens up markets, and part of getting favorable laws is doing whatever you're asked. So to get those #1 customers they'll do anything, even provide them a cut-rate service by allowing warrantless wiretapping, etc.

And they'll bow to whatever special interest makes it more profitable to deal than fight, from government to church groups.

There's no risk for the companies that do this. If someone was discovered to be in the KKK they might get beaten or killed, but build a product that allows Syria to make prisoners and slaves of its people and you're an A#1 citizen.

Following the law needs to be a minimum standard, not a free pass.

No we don't. We get to elect people but I've never been asked by a politician what I want them to do and they few I've offered my opinion to have ignored it.

In an open market I wouldn't pay them a penny. Here they cost millions and we can't get rid of them when we catch them lying.

Heh. Thanks.

The paragon of higher education - a government info session about something the media is in a tither about. That's as likely to be useful as Reefer Madness is to depict reality.

You're arguing from a less-informed position than someone starting fresh.

You parroted, you mean.

What I claim is that arresting people who molest children will change the molestation statistics. Assholes like you making up and spreading legends about pedos and kiddy porn, etc, is just confusing the issue and drowning out useful discussion. Most molestation of children isn't done by people with a specific kid-fixation, they're opportunistic rapists.

And porn isn't the problem, people who rape are the problem.

Since you're taking requests, how about you stuff a sock in it until you realize how little you know. Your 'break the cycle' nonsense is harmful. Yes, it's sick but it's also almost totally uncorrelated to actual abuses.

There's another reason you don't have much to offer. But it's not my rudeness. And thanks, but I can read the source material myself without your teaching.

Well, only the ridiculous and useless laws.

Oh, and how do you know this? Hung out with enough pedos? You know, it's incredibly rare - if you meet any/many you may be attracting them by your behavior.

No, that's the standard rant about porn in general. It'll drive men to not want real women, etc. Never with any evidence.

Of course not, child porn is illegal so there are no numbers. But it's no more likely to be different than the same.

Idiot. Kids were being abused a long time before there were suggestive photos of them. Breaking the cycle doesn't involve cameras, it's far deeper with basic attitudes toward children as property.

I've seen people who wouldn't believe their fence was down. And people who won't believe their information security systems are broken.

In both cases you have to grab someone by the nose and make them look before their cows (metaphorical or otherwise) eat your (likewise, metaphorical if appropriate) garden.

The researcher probably can't countersue to be paid for pointing out this vulnerability, but it's a shame. One bogus lawsuit deserves to be answered with a bigger one.