RT Times reports that Alexanderplatz square in Berlin has become the stage for a provocative art piece which celebrates whistleblowers and encourages ordinary citizens to speak out. "They have lost their freedom for the truth, so they remind us how important it is to know the truth,” says sculptor Davide Dormino. The life-sized statues of the three whistleblowers stand upon three chairs, as if speaking in an impromptu public meeting. Next to them is a fourth, empty chair. "The fourth chair is open to anyone here in Berlin who wants to get up and say anything they want," says the artist. Dormino, who came up with the idea together with the US journalist Charles Glass, specifically chose a classical bronze statue for his depiction – and not an installation or abstract piece – since statues are usually made of establishment figures. According to Domino while men who order others to their deaths get immortalized, those who resist are often forgotten, so “the statue pays homage to three who said no to war, to the lies that lead to war and to the intrusion into private life that helps to perpetuate war.” Activists and members of Germany’s Green party unveiled the life-size bronze statues on May Day.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday May 03 2015, @02:56PM
1. Snowden. An American who gave up a modestly lucrative career to expose crimes being committed by our government.
2. Assange. A journalist who published information that was sent to him.
9*1012 Manning. An immature turd who stole information to get back at the people who made fun of him.
Perhaps they can be lumped together is some manner or another, but I have listed them in the order of the admiration they deserve.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Sunday May 03 2015, @03:28PM
Manning gave us a lot of real information about the world and the way the US rolls. You give us the bullshit company line.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @03:36PM
I agree. The fact that Manning was unhappy with his work environment is unsurprising. People who are content are much more likely to go along to get along. Maybe Runaway should be condemning all the other people who were happy to let malfeasance continue unchallenged because they loved their jobs so much.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday May 03 2015, @04:15PM
"Maybe Runaway should be condemning all the other people who were happy to let malfeasance continue unchallenged"
Maybe you should get to know Runaway better. Runaway despises all the damned fools in Washington who insist that it is necessary to spy on America's citizens, as well as the world's citizens. Runaway despises all the cowards in Washington, who quake in fear each night as they fall asleep. Runaway despises all of those cowards who use that fear to justify the police state that they are building.
Runaway admires Snowden, because he gave up so much to make us all aware of what is happening.
Runaway also admires Assange, to a lesser degree, for honoring the profession of journalism and reporting.
Manning? Manning had no great reason for exposing anyone. He was just out to embarrass the establishment which had no sympathy for a "gender confused" person. Liberals admire him, primarily because he is "gender confused". I despise him because he helps to justify the general distrust and fear of homos, trannies, and all the rest.
An act of spite doesn't define a great man or woman.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @04:31PM
I don't trust people who refer to themselves in the third person, as if they're dictating a biography or Wikipedia entry.
Lighten up please.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @07:22PM
Bob Dole approves this message.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @04:32PM
> Maybe you should get to know Runaway better.
You are far less complicated than you imagine. All you've done is restate your original post with more verbosity and extremism, but no more explanation, logic or rationale.
Perhaps you have a rich inner life going on, but all that matters to anyone else is how that manifests where we can see it.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @06:02PM
> Liberals admire him, primarily because he is "gender confused".
I think that says everything about your ability to analyze the situation.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday May 04 2015, @09:36PM
So Manning actually rates pretty high on your list of people who deserve admiration then? 9108 seems like a pretty High rating, if including the entire population of the USA.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @03:56PM
What an unconscionable oversight. I'm boycotting this event.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @04:11PM
I doubt anyone in the general public in Europe knows who that chap is.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @04:20PM
Neither did anyone in the USA until he killed himself.
I'm guessing that's part of why he did it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @04:36PM
Yeah... since killing himself his life is soooo much better.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by wantkitteh on Sunday May 03 2015, @04:36PM
Not surprising - "American kid commits suicide due to heavy-handed prosecution" doesn't exactly do much for the evening news headlines outside America. Other countries have their own domestic issues to make the news. I only heard about it on tech news sites, zero newspaper/TV/radio coverage came to my attention (not that I watch a lot of channel TV or pay for newspapers)
(Score: 0, Disagree) by looorg on Sunday May 03 2015, @05:12PM
I can agree with Domino about the idea that it's establishment figures that gets remembered in history, which in turn gets the statues and painting etc. But to claim that those who resist are often forgotten is a very vague statement. Lots of people and groups of people that resisted gets remembered forever. It's just somewhat harder to make statutes of them all, it's easier if you have a single person.
Picking Assange, Manning and Snowden as icons of resistance tho is quite frankly preposterous. They are a trio of traitors that gets glorified for all the wrong reasons. Assange was always more about glorifying himself then anything, so having locked himself up in the embassy of Ecuador must really be killing his ego. Manning was angry with the military about his own personal "gender" issues so he wanted vengeance, so he stole large amounts of classified information and shared with the organization Assange had set up, his actions makes him a traitor. Neither Assange or Manning was out to save the world or do good in that regard, they did what they did or do for personal reasons. Snowden had some idea about how he wanted to blow the whistle on what he interpreted as wrong, but just like Manning his actions of stealing and disseminating large amounts of classified information makes him a traitor. If he had just wanted to do what he said he would there was no reason to leak all these documents, he was gone so far beyond what he claimed he was doing and what would have been necessary to do to achieve his goal. He is a simple traitor just like Manning or so many cold war spies before him. The only difference between him and the others are the size or quantity of the information.
The common theme between these three individuals is that they all royal fucked up their lives for some misguided belief in what they though was good and right. The world didn't become a better place in any regard due to their actions. The sad thing is how they will eventually figure out how insignificant they are in the grand scheme of things and their actions amounted to nothing. Manning probably most of all, but then he is the only one that had the balls (no phun intended) to face justice for what he did while the other two hide like little children.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday May 03 2015, @05:29PM
Snowden had some idea about how he wanted to blow the whistle on what he interpreted as wrong, but just like Manning his actions of stealing and disseminating large amounts of classified information makes him a traitor.
Copying. Also, he didn't betray freedom or the American people. Betraying immoral thugs who conduct mass surveillance on the population and ignore the constitution is perfectly fine.
If he had just wanted to do what he said he would there was no reason to leak all these documents
That doesn't even make any sense. If the government is violating people's fundamental liberties and/or the constitution, or doing unethical things, The People need to be informed. To inform them, documents were leaked. There is no problem here.
Pretty much the same for the others. Why do you so strongly support unlimited government?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @05:40PM
Copying.
Two can play that game you're playing.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday May 03 2015, @06:09PM
What game? I never referred to their actions as stealing. They are, however, violating people's privacy and ignoring the constitution.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by looorg on Sunday May 03 2015, @05:43PM
Copying. Also, he didn't betray freedom or the American people. Betraying immoral thugs who conduct mass surveillance on the population and ignore the constitution is perfectly fine.
Stealing was a proper word here. If he copied or however he transferred the files out of it's proper storage isn't really important. He did it. He was not supposed to. He betrayed his employer, the NSA and the US government. You can spin that anyway you want. You might not like what the government does. But that doesn't mean what he did was right.
That doesn't even make any sense. If the government is violating people's fundamental liberties and/or the constitution, or doing unethical things, The People need to be informed. To inform them, documents were leaked. There is no problem here.
Pretty much the same for the others. Why do you so strongly support unlimited government?
If he just wanted to show what was going on and blow the whistle there was no need for the quantity of information he stole and shared. It could have been showed with quite few documents. Most of the documents that he stole and helped spread had (have) very little to do with what he claimed to be against.
We clearly disagree. I don't think the people needs to know everything. Nothing became better by knowing this. How did the world become a better or less shitty place by you knowing the NSA (and similar organisations across the globe) spies? You didn't know that already?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday May 03 2015, @05:46PM
We The People employ the people in government. Snowden worked directly for government, and indirectly for We The People. There was no betrayal on Snowden's part. The man stayed true to his real employers - you and me.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Sunday May 03 2015, @05:55PM
I have never actually seen Snowdens employment papers, but without having ever seen them I'm fairly sure there is something in there that he totally violated by doing what he did even tho he thought he had a good cause.
Not that I think it matters but I'm not included in 'we the people' since I'm not a citizen of the USA. If that should mean I would have more or less to cry about remains uncertain; after all they potentially spied on me to, but then that was their job.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday May 03 2015, @06:18PM
Yessss . . . and I'm more than certain that government itself is violating the terms of it's own employment. THAT is what Snowden exposed. If you're concerned that people should adhere to their terms of employment, then you should be cheering Snowden.
(Score: 3, Informative) by tathra on Monday May 04 2015, @08:17PM
the oath of office [opm.gov] for all federal emplyees:
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
every government employee's first duty is to the constitution. snowden did what he could to defend the US constitution from domestic enemies.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday May 03 2015, @06:16PM
He did it. He was not supposed to.
Doesn't matter. He didn't steal anything.
He betrayed his employer, the NSA and the US government.
The People are his employer, ultimately. The NSA and the government are filled with immoral thugs, so any 'betrayal' there was more than justified.
You might not like what the government does. But that doesn't mean what he did was right.
Yes, I tend not to like it when the government violates people's fundamental liberties and ignores the highest law of the land. Incidentally, I tend to be in support of people who inform us that the government is doing that, because that is the only way to maintain what little democracy we have.
If he just wanted to show what was going on and blow the whistle there was no need for the quantity of information he stole and shared.
The leaked information show unconstitutional and/or unethical behavior on the part of the government. I think we need to know everything about what they're doing in this case. If they didn't want this to happen, maybe they shouldn't have been violating people's liberties to begin with.
I don't think the people needs to know everything.
They need to know when the government is doing unconstitutional and/or immoral things.
You didn't know that already?
I pretty much did, but many didn't. Thanks to that, more people know now, there is more evidence, and we understand more about the scope of the surveillance. I don't have to be surprised to be opposed to egregious violations of our liberties.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Sunday May 03 2015, @06:50PM
Doesn't matter. He didn't steal anything.
You are seriously arguing here that you can't steal digitally stored information? It can only be copied. Where is my /eyeroll emote when I need it.
The leaked information show unconstitutional and/or unethical behavior on the part of the government. I think we need to know everything about what they're doing in this case. If they didn't want this to happen, maybe they shouldn't have been violating people's liberties to begin with.
If Snowden had just wanted to blow the whistle on some domestic mass-surveillance program then why does so much of the documentation describe international programs and agreements? Those should never have been leaked then. He leaked two much information in that case, which is my point.
I pretty much did, but many didn't. Thanks to that, more people know now, there is more evidence, and we understand more about the scope of the surveillance. I don't have to be surprised to be opposed to egregious violations of our liberties.
Considering that you seem believe that the government is made up of immoral thugs I guess what you believe makes perfect sense in your world. The sad part for you must be the realization that the rest of the world just doesn't give a fuck. Snowden is insignificant except to his army of online fans (this goes for Assange to). We are now about two years past the initial Snowden-leaks and the world just have not changed like you seem to want or believe. You have seen the media "outrage" and then big nothing, some proposed legislation and more government oversight and then that was pretty much it. There won't be any massive change to the system. Most people don't even care, they'll care more about who wins the next American Idol or what the Kardashians are up to then about Snowden. Poll after poll of the common people indicate this, you can go look them up at PEW research or even the horrible one from the ACLU. They might be "concerned" when asked in the poll, but most people are if you just ask the question in the right way. Is that frustrating for you?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday May 03 2015, @06:57PM
You are seriously arguing here that you can't steal digitally stored information?
Unless you steal whatever it is stored on, yes.
If Snowden had just wanted to blow the whistle on some domestic mass-surveillance program then why does so much of the documentation describe international programs and agreements?
I knew it would come to this. I happen to have the radical belief that people are not subhuman and less deserving of having their liberties respect simply because they were 'unfortunate' enough to be born in a different country. Mass surveillance is unethical.
Considering that you seem believe that the government is made up of immoral thugs I guess what you believe makes perfect sense in your world. The sad part for you must be the realization that the rest of the world just doesn't give a fuck.
It's not sad, and I figured that would be the case. All that means is that I believe the rest of the world is wrong. People who care about freedom must now make the rest of the world understand why these things are important, even if that will be a long and difficult battle. Giving up would only ensure failure.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @10:52PM
I happen to have the radical belief that people are not subhuman and less deserving of having their liberties respect simply because they were 'unfortunate' enough to be born in a different country.
The constitution does not limit itself to citizens, only people.
Unless you steal whatever it is stored on, yes.
The whole steal/copy thing is a red herring because we all know exactly what Snowden did whatever words are used to describe it. You should never have bothered arguing about it. That he picked a phrasing which would appear to someone ignorant of the situation slightly less favorable to Snowden is the least of the problems with his post.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @11:07PM
I am in a different country, and I am very concerned about it. My government is currently allowing the US to wipe its arse with our people our intelligence services, all in the name of getting a better deal from the US.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday May 04 2015, @04:44PM
Not just unethical...it's a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, regardless of the location of the victim. The Bill of Rights doesn't talk about "citizens", it talks about "people".
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 04 2015, @05:11PM
Try getting the courts to recognize that. They usually just modify the constitution with invisible ink as it is convenient so they can grant the government more power than the constitution gives it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday May 03 2015, @10:46PM
He betrayed his employer, the NSA and the US government. You can spin that anyway you want. You might not like what the government does. But that doesn't mean what he did was right.
While there are probably a few people who think that is morally right just on that basis alone, the usual reason we think it is morally right is because it brings criminal and dangerous behavior on the part of the US government to light.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Sunday May 03 2015, @05:30PM
... so in conclusion: just bend over and take it in the ass, citizens.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday May 03 2015, @05:43PM
Traitors? Hmmmm. You might make a case against the two Americans. The third? He's not capable of committing treason against the United States. Let me think. The first? As I've already said, you might make a treason case stick against Snowden. But, I really believe that he was serving a higher cause than "the government". The third? Yeah, as I've posted above, he had no good reason for what he did. He felt that he didn't get a fair shake from a mostly heterosexual and traditional organization, so out of spite, he tried to embarrass that organization. Yeah - treason.
And, I'll argue that the world DID become a better place due to the actions of both Snowden and Assange. Maybe the misguided Manniing actually improved life on earth a little bit. Before Snowden, we all suspected that the NSA was spying on us. Some of us were more certain than others, but as a whole, we merely suspected the capabilities of the NSA. Thanks to Edward Snowden, damned near everyone in America has a better idea of what the NSA is doing.
Imagine my shock, when I realized that most Americans simply don't give a damn.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday May 04 2015, @04:47PM
Exposing war crimes is not treason. Full stop. The people *committing* those actions are the ones guilty of treason.
Yeah, he passed along a number of other documents as well. Documents he hadn't examined yet. But hell, you only get one shot at that, and the stuff he had looked at contained a lot of evidence of a lot of criminal activity; seems quite reasonable to just dump all of it and sort it out later. NOT doing so would have been traitorous and irresponsible.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 04 2015, @06:01PM
Funny thing about those "war crimes". All those people in the world who claim to have found "war crimes" point unanimously to the reporter and his cameraman being killed, along with a unit of insurgents.
Let me explain something. When the US took "embedded journalists" into action, those journalists were out there - legitimate targets for any who would take aim at them. They were part of a United States military unit, subject to the UCMJ, and the articles of war.
Now, that Reuters reporter was in the same situation. He was EMBEDDED with an insurgent unit. He was part of the unit. He was privy to that unit's operations, he filmed it, he reported on it. He was PART OF a military unit.
As such, he was a legitimate target.
Watch the video again. I've watched it several times. The unit under observation was carrying weapons, in an area from which a US ground unit had taken fire, only minutes before.
YOU KNOW that the camera is just a camera - but only because you've been told so, before watching the video.
The helicopter crew had no reason whatsoever to believe that there was a camera with the unit. They saw something that resembled a rocket launcher being pointed in the direction of troops on the ground. They fired.
No crime here.
If you have no understanding of warfare, you only look a fool when you presume to comment on it.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday May 04 2015, @07:02PM
"Unit"? What "unit"? You must have watched a different video than I did. The one I watched had them firing on a van where they had no idea who was in the van, what it was doing, or why. Turned out to be kids on their way to school.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 04 2015, @07:21PM
If that be true, then you only watched a portion of the video, beginning near it's conclusion. That van pulled up AFTER the reporter's death, AFTER all the insurgents had been killed. The two men in the van were attempting to rescue one or more of the insurgents. You've got part of it right - the guys in the helicopter really didn't know who was in the van. Along with the two adults who exited the van, there were two children. The two adults may or may not have been members of the militia - they may well have been innocent passerby who were simply trying to help some wounded men. If so - then they were mistaken for insurgents, attempting to rescue their fellows.
If you are being honest, if you only saw the van being shot up, then I would suggest that you view the entire video.
A tragedy unfolds, but it is not a war crime.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0 [youtube.com] At first glance, at least, this seems to be the entire video. Please note that multiple persons are indeed carrying rifles. Saed is obviously carrying SOMETHING - the Apache crew assumes it to be a rocket launcher, or an RPG. They are mistaken - but being mistaken is not a crime, not even a war crime.
It is pretty much a certainty that these people are the same people who had fired on US troops only minutes before the video starts. Remember, Saed and his partner are EMBEDDED WITHIN AN INSURGENT UNIT.
Now that you have that much information, go ahead and watch that video.
Tragic? Yes. Crime? Nope.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday May 04 2015, @07:51PM
So...what, because there were once enemies on that ground, anybody who later steps there is automatically fair game too?
The fact that they may have tried to help some of the injured "insurgents" makes it worse, not better. That's like bombing a freakin' ambulance.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 04 2015, @08:12PM
Well, you seem to be harboring a lot of hatred for the troops. Fact is, it was a hot combat zone, with people firing from that position. Our troops were taking fire from the people in the video. That is so near a certainty, I'll bank on it. There is little opportunity, negligible chances that some OTHER armed unit fired from those positions, only to fade away, and be replaced by THIS armed unit, in the few minutes that elapsed.
And, you're neglecting to address the fact that Reuters intentionally EMBEDDED this reporter and his cameraman with an insurgent unit. Before this incident, he released some coverage within the unit. He knew the risks, and he took them.
Now, stop sniveling. Bad things happen in war. If you have problems with what you've seen in this video, you should address Herr Bush, who lobbied long and hard for the invasion of Iraq. Given that the troops are there, and dealing with wartime conditions - the troops are not to blame.
The children? Were YOU able to tell that there were children in that van? Watch the video again. Hell no, you can't tell that there are children in there.
And, no, it's not like bombing an ambulance. An ambulance is clearly marked, often times with uniformed attendants. These are random people, dressed in mufti, in an unmarked vehicle - and they look just like any other potential insurgents.
Got a beef about shooting non-uniformed personnel? Take that up with the insurgents, who can't be bothered with uniforms.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday May 05 2015, @12:38PM
I'm not neglecting to address anything. That's a separate incident from what I'm discussing. I haven't said a single word about the Reuters employees.
Oh absolutely; Bush ought to be rotting the Hague already. But the fact that he gave the orders doesn't excuse those who obeyed them. That's what we call "The Nurnberg Defense" -- after America's refusal to accept it when prosecuting Nazi troops. So let's be consistent. If it wasn't a valid excuse for their soldiers, it's no excuse for ours either. The guys who carried out the orders are just as guilty as those who gave those orders.
That's exactly my point. They shouldn't be firing on random civilians. That's a war crime.
That's because we went to war not with an army but with the goddamn citizens. Never should have happened.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @06:23PM
Assange does seem occupied with bringing attention to himself to feed his ego. An alternative explanation might be that he understands the idea of a cult of personality, and that by giving his abstract beliefs and ideas a face or embodiment, he might actually bring some attention to them in the sound bite media. I am sure many more people are aware of "Conspiracy as Governance" [cryptome.org](pdf) than they are with Julian Assange.
Not comment on Manning.
Leaking documents to the public has about as much relationship to spying as copyright infringement does to theft, and I think the difference compared to passing weapons secrets to a foreign government [wikipedia.org] is more qualitative than quantitative. But sure, Snowden is the traitor, not the people abusing and breaking their oaths to the Constitution, the supposed foundation and source of their legitimacy. Not sure what loyalty we are supposed to have to usurpers and beguilers, but yes, Snowden is a traitor to them.
Hopefully Snowden and Assange can avoid facing "justice" at least as long as Bush and Blair [wikipedia.org] have.
(Score: 3, Informative) by wantkitteh on Sunday May 03 2015, @06:58PM
The folks framing this as an espionage case are either:
1) Blinkered, bitter and angry (they prefer "Patriotic") that someone could do something so hideous to their beloved 'Murica
2) Playing the PR card of trumping up the offences into something far worse, preferably with a juicy-sounding title that'll get people to prejudge the character of the offenders before they hear any other details of the case
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @06:36PM
All humans need something to make them do something... to keep them going.
It could be money, admiration, loyalty to one's race,... and so on.
What was important to those three, and what got them to act is unimportant. Everyone has to have their reasons, and the only reason anyone (the corrupt government/corrupt press/misguided citizens/special interest groups/...) goes into their personal/professional lives is when they wish to throw dirt at them, undermine their heroism, and put doubt in the public's mind.
These are just three who are getting statues. There must be many others who tried, failed, and were murdered. Many others who thought about acting, planned it, got the data, then out of fear did nothing; perhaps they had too much to lose. Humans are lazy creatures, and want to stay in comfort for as long as possible; they do not like taking chances for fear of losing what they have, etc.
Then there are those who overcome their fear, stop caring about what their government/boss/organization thinks, and act. They find someone who listens (who isn't sold out), and gets the public's attention. Without them, we're lost. And yes, they deserve admiration.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @07:17PM
> they all royal fucked up their lives for some misguided belief in what they though was good and right.
> The world didn't become a better place in any regard due to their actions.
Leaving aside the question of whether that is true or not, your criticism is a recipe for failure.
If actually achieving your goals is the criteria for deciding the legitimacy of your actions, then nobody would ever try to do anything in life because failure is the norm in all things, but especially when challenging the powerful. For example, gay marriage was first challenged in court in 1970 [wikipedia.org] and there was many more unsuccessful attempts in the nearly 40 years before the first state recognized that institution.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @07:55PM
You're the only traitor I see around here.
(Score: 1, Troll) by looorg on Sunday May 03 2015, @08:14PM
You can't even write anything these days that questions saint Snowden before all his true believers come of woodwork, rushing to his defense. But it's quite pathetic that everything that disagrees with or tarnishes the image of Snowden as a glorified hero gets moderated as being flamebait- and troll-posts. But it's ok with me, I have the karma points to spare.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @09:08PM
What have YOU done that Snowden couldn't, didn't?
People like you are muddying the waters, to make sure the real issue never comes to light and never gets discussed, and people fight over unimportant details.
Manning was angry with the military about his own personal "gender" issues so he wanted vengeance
I believe those are your words. If Manning were a macho man, would you then be okay with what he did? If he didn't want vengeance, would you be okay with it then?
What makes you think you (and your corrupt government) are right, and everyone else is wrong? What do you have to gain from supporting your corrupt government (who actively worked against the country's constitution)? Why are you muddying the waters and not discussing the real issues?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by arslan on Sunday May 03 2015, @11:23PM
This is about the trio getting a statue in Berlin. Germany. Unless I'm mistaken and its Berlin in the middle of the fucking North American mid west or some sorts, crying "traitors!!" is kinda moot as no-one else outside of the U.S. (political shills being butt-fucked by the U.S. does not count) considers any of them traitors.
Attack their personality and means all you want, the fact is the results of their action did more good to the world, except maybe the U.S., than anyone did in the last decade.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @04:19AM
When did Cold Fjord get a SN account?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by maxwell demon on Sunday May 03 2015, @09:21PM
So has anyone yet used the opportunity to use the fourth chair?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.