Read Snowden’s Comments On 9/11 That NBC Didn’t Broadcast

[Magda Hassan]

Too true David. TPTB are quite content with a passive ignorant mass of consumers and they don't go out of their way to enlighten anyone.
.

[Dawn Meredith]

I don't think Clapper should get away with lying to Congress, any more than I think Snowden should get away with his crime. A government of laws, not people, should mean that everyone is equally accountable. I know that works a lot less well in practice, than in theory; and I'm especially outraged by the socio-economic disparities involved in the criminal justice system, but that doesn't mean its time to raise the barricades. Or give up.

CRIME??? Wow. Accountable? Tell that to say Poppy Bush or Dick Cheney?

[David Guyatt]

Technically speaking I suppose what Snowden did was a crime - even though he was making public criminal acts within the security state.

But that simply highlights how the system has used and abused the law to protect itself against citizens - and when that happens it means that the law no longer is fit for purpose.

Besides that, there is the general international view of what justice should be. A great deal of what Hitler's nazis did was within the bounds of the modified laws of Germany at the time. When you hold the keys to the justice system - as Hitler and his goons did, and as the Bush family and others did and do - then the time has arrived to entirely disengage with the whole stinking thing.

[Drew Phipps]

The "disengagement" part is what allowed the original Nazis to commit their atrocities. I fear that if there are still Nazis among us that this feeling of futility will only assist them.

Just because the rich and powerful have not yet been held accountable for their actions, doesn't mean that it won't happen in the future, unless we decide its hopeless.

[Magda Hassan]

Technically speaking I suppose what Snowden did was a crime - even though he was making public criminal acts within the security state.

I will never accept that it is a crime to expose crimes.

[Drew Phipps]

I will never accept that the ends justify the means.

[David Guyatt]

The "disengagement" part is what allowed the original Nazis to commit their atrocities. I fear that if there are still Nazis among us that this feeling of futility will only assist them.

Just because the rich and powerful have not yet been held accountable for their actions, doesn't mean that it won't happen in the future, unless we decide its hopeless.

Trying to change things from inside the pseudo-democratic matrix is no longer a viable option in my opinion. I tend to see it as a case of hugging hopelessness because you're never going to dislodge the rottenness and corruption. It's now far too ingrained.

Personally, I think the only possibility is to try to help educate people about the reality of the corrupt world we live in. This is what this forum tries to do.

In my experience a very large number of people resist wanting to actually know the truth. They resist every opportunity to face reality and the wealthy and powerful bolster this attitude at every turn. My guess is that deep down the ordinary person understands reality only too well, but are terrified of admitting it to themselves as then they would have a real choice to make. They refer to stay asleep. Thus education is an entirely uphill battle, but what the hell. People do have their eyes opened and their ears unplugged and when it happens they never want to go back to the sleeping state they were previously locked in.

For what it's worth, the legal system has always been the special reserve of the rich and powerful. It was introduced - certainly in the UK anyway - for kings to find ways of settling disputes with their barons without resorting to civil war (of which there was a great deal at one time). The Magna Carta was never designed for the benefit of the ordinary serf or freeman (this is what I meant in the above comment Maggie - the law is their special system of control and therefore they decide what is a crime and what isn't - it has nothing to do with justice at all). In the UK the legal aid system is the only resort the ordinary person can turn to, to seek any sort of access to the legal system as otherwise it's inhibitively expensive (and corporations know and abuse this all the time rottenly breaking the law because they can!). The sad fact is that legal aid is simply a tax-payer funded charitable handout to lawyers to keep them comfy and in gin. Justice does't really come in to it, except as a side product.

[Drew Phipps]

Whether the "justice" is an objective of the program, or a mere side-effect of welfare for the lawyers, its worth having.

[David Guyatt]

In the sense that it's better than nothing at all, I agree with you Drew.

But in any meaningful sense, isn't it simply a sop for most people because they can never afford to access the system?

[Drew Phipps]

In my area of work, access to the justice system for clients is guaranteed. Willingly or unwillingly.

But for the civil side of the court system, it's true that some litigants are more equal than others, to borrow an Orwellain phrase.