SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Charles Cooper reports that venture capitalist Marc Andreessen has called former NSA contractor Edward Snowden a traitor for leaking national secrets about US surveillance practices and says that foreign nations may use the disclosures as an excuse to promote their domestic technology suppliers over American rivals. "Obviously he's a traitor," says Andreessen. "Like if you look up in the encyclopedia 'traitor,' there's a picture of Ed Snowden. Like he's a textbook traitor. They don't get much more traitor than that. I will say that I'm in the distinct minority out here. Most people in Silicon Valley would pick the other designation."
Andreessen added that NSA leaks may well wind up getting used as a cudgel by foreign governments against American companies that depend on overseas sales. "There's a big open question right now how successful our companies will be when they go sell products overseas," says Andreessen. "I think there are a lot of foreign companies that are very envious of Silicon Valley and America's domination of tech and wish that they could implement protection policies. And they are going to use this whole affair as a reason to do that ... as an excuse."
(Score: 1) by MickLinux on Sunday June 08 2014, @01:44AM
Couldn't it be that shirking jury duty is doing the best he can with what he's got?I have dreaded the very real prospect of jury duty, not because of the time or cost, but because I have no confidence that the information that is given to me will be full and accurate, representative of the truth. Nor do I have confidence in the rule of law, that the law is applied equally, for its own purposes rather than to increase other illegal behavior.
In common terms, I mean this: I am sure that if Manning had been before me, I would have been sure beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty, and I had to convict. But the reality was that he was innocent, the war criminal murderers and the pentagon honchos were guilty even of treason, and he was a scapegoat and example.
As a result, I am convinced that if on a jury, I would have to ignore all presented evidence and acquit, becaure of the presumption of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Our government of men, not law, has made even no doubt fail that test. And that is a terrifying thought for a prospective juror.
But it says to me that it may not be the citizens' fault for nonparticipation.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday June 08 2014, @02:34AM
That's an interesting insight, and you may be right.
I have noticed, tho, that a lack of participation and a more-liberal political mindset tend to go hand in hand. I just went over the participation rates by county in my state, and there's a very good correlation.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 08 2014, @03:51AM
I have no confidence that the information that is given to me will be full and accurate
DESPITE WHAT A JUDGE MIGHT SAY IN HIS INSTRUCTIONS, the jury is *not* there to rubber stamp a legislature's actions nor to rubber stamp the opinion of the prosecutor nor to rubber stamp the opinion of the judge.
If you get the impression that the state has played dirty, it is your duty to rule against the state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
-- gewg_