Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship

Wikileaks Now Hosted By the Swedish Pirate Party 438

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the i-voted-for-the-other-guy dept.
oskii writes "During his visit to the the Swedish capital Stockholm, Wikileaks spokesman Julian Assange has struck a deal with the local Pirate Party. The party, which participates in the national elections next month, will host several new Wikileaks servers to protect freedom of press and help the whistleblower site to carry out its operation."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wikileaks Now Hosted By the Swedish Pirate Party

Comments Filter:
  • Nice move (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mmcuh (1088773) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @03:38PM (#33280670)

    While it's a nice publicity stunt for the Pirate Party (with the Swedish elections coming up in little more than a month), WikiLeaks may also gain from it. Swedish politicians may well be pressured by the US government, or by others depending on what WikiLeaks publishes in the future, to close down those servers like they did with The Pirate Bay. But now that they are hosted by the Pirate Party that would be seen as a direct attack on a political opponent, with the obvious effects on public opinion. That will likely make them think twice before ordering a shutdown, which probably wasn't the case with The Pirate Bay.

    And yes, government representatives giving direct orders to police and prosecutors is illegal in Sweden. But in practice it happens all the time due to widespread patronage and cronyism and few legal checks against it.

  • by Zeek40 (1017978) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @03:40PM (#33280708)
    Looks like the RIAA finally got that army of copyright enforcers they've been looking for.
  • Re:Nice move (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MBGMorden (803437) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @03:43PM (#33280740)

    to close down those servers like they did with The Pirate Bay

    You know, I keep hearing about stories about the final nail in The Pirate Bay's coffin, but it's still there. The founders may have lost that suit, but I'm not believing a word of the stuff about TPB finally being killed until it's been offline for more than a month.

  • Source (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @03:44PM (#33280758)

    I feel so bad for Bradley Manning, the 22 year old that is taking the shit for all of this. Some douchebag congressman wanted to execute him. Why is getting truth out so bad guys?

  • By "go wrong" do you mean "embarrass the hell out of the US military"?

  • by $RANDOMLUSER (804576) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @03:46PM (#33280794)
    Sure, because Faux News is held so terribly accountable whenever they get something wrong.
  • by Barrinmw (1791848) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @03:48PM (#33280806)
    Why would anyone ever have to be held accountable for telling the truth?
  • by bistromath007 (1253428) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @03:51PM (#33280840)
    That's completely irrelevant. We're talking about politics, here. Conflation is the order of the day. The Piratbyran have associated themselves with an organization that every government hates. Talking heads will brand them security risks, and their agenda will be completely torpedoed.
  • by Un pobre guey (593801) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @03:53PM (#33280874) Homepage
    he also needs to be held accountable if things go wrong

    That is an empty, meaningless phrase. What do "held accountable" and "things go wrong" mean? What applicable law covers it? Is the Pentagon "held accountable" when "things go wrong" and Afghan citizens die like chickens? Or when friendly fire kills US and NATO troops?

    If you don't want things to "go wrong," pressure your elected representatives to withdraw our forces from the profoundly corrupt interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Don't shit on the very people who are trying to expose the scammers and the war criminals.
  • Re:Nice move (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bistromath007 (1253428) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @03:53PM (#33280876)
    >those too ignorant to matter anyway

    What you don't know about politics could fill an ocean. :/
  • by mckinnsb (984522) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @03:54PM (#33280878)
    Correct. It would be much easier for a foreign government (lets say the U.S), to pressure ISPs within its borders to prevent access to the website and/or persecute those who host leaked information within their borders. That's not necessarily easy or without political repercussion, however, and would probably draw some negative press coverage. Given the sometimes inexorable spread of information, if the Pirate Party were to become elected within the Swedish Parliament, then it would ensure that most of the information on Wikileaks would be available in some form or another, even if foreign governments succeeded in the aforementioned pressure efforts - as long as they remained elected.
  • Re:Nice move (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @03:57PM (#33280926)

    Even if the fights seem impossible,

    it is refreshing to see people saying what they think, and take a real stand on issues.

    The important thing is to bite, not to chew.
    You must be able to say "no" to what is not ok, even if they are much stronger than you.

    The Pirate Party is showing integrity and courage, as does wikileaks.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @03:57PM (#33280930)

    Wikileaks is free to publish anything.

    If their actions result in deaths, there is due process. Wikileaks employees are charged, tried, and convicted of accessory to murder. See you back in the streets in 2070 or whenever.

    They know what they are getting into. Alternatively, if not, well then, stupidity has its price.

  • Re:Source (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Wyatt Earp (1029) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @03:57PM (#33280936)

    Because he violated operational security which lead to the two charges filed against him.

    Misconduct charges were brought against him for "transferring classified data onto his personal computer and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system" and "communicating, transmitting and delivering national defense information to an unauthorized source".

    Both are violations of the UCMJ.

    When he became a soldier in the US Army he performed this oath

    "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; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

    So he disobeyed the orders of the officers appointed over him and violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice, why shouldn't his ass be sitting in a cell?

  • Re:Source (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bsDaemon (87307) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @03:57PM (#33280940)

    Because he violated his orders and actively breached security protocol. **IT DOES NOT MATTER** what he "leaked" or why, it just matters that he broke the law. And in breaking the law by providing classified (even if most of the content was "common knowledge") documents to the 'public', he also provided classified documents to the enemy, in this case the Taliban. And those documents contained the names of Afghan citizens who were "collaborating" with NATO. And that puts them in danger, and makes putting them in danger a lot easier for the Taliban.

    You could say that he aided the Taliban. Sounds like about half of "giving aid and comfort" or "aiding and abetting". No, where have I seen that phrase before? Oh, yeah... the definition of treason. And last I checked, treason is a hanging crime. Not only that, but the very center of hell is reserved for traitors, turncoats and informers. So, assuming hell exists and it is as Dante wrote, then he'll likely have some time to discuss the morality of his actions with the people he outed to the Taliban who were subsequently offed.

    At least, that's probably what the congressman in question was thinking.

  • Whistleblower?? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by johnlcallaway (165670) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @04:00PM (#33280976)
    You mean media whore....

    A whistle blower would go through the data and make a something that at least resembles a case. He doesn't want to do any real work, like analyze the data, strip out names to protect innocent parties, or provide only truly relevant data. Instead, he prefers to vomit data and let other people make sense of it.

    Assange suffers from attention deficit disorder .. he gets upset when he isn't getting enough attention.
  • Re:Nice move (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mea37 (1201159) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @04:01PM (#33280980)

    If you mean to say that wikileaks's mission is not aligned with the core political principles of the Pirate Party, you might have a point; I don't know their overall platform well enough to say.

    But to claim that wikileaks is, or ever could be, anything other than a political issue just strikes me as silly.

  • The Human Race... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by chaboud (231590) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @04:05PM (#33281038) Homepage Journal

    Sorry, you must be new here.

    The truth is not nearly as important as their truth, or my truth, as told to me, by me (and others).

    Beyond self-deception, there are many who are drawn to the idea of being a sort of "information royalty." The idea that you know more than others, and deserve to know more, because you're special, is very attractive.

    Then there's the reality of tactical and strategic advantages. Sometimes you're just better off knowing more than others (information asymmetry), and sometimes you're just better off with others dead. It's a matter of personal assessment. I'm not talking about morality here, just power. For most of us, killing someone else would be something that we would at least say is unthinkable. For some of us, punishing someone for telling the truth would be in the same boat. Both of these proportions may be significantly smaller than you or I would hope.

  • by budgenator (254554) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @04:07PM (#33281064) Journal

    It's obvious to me that by aligning with a particular political party, Wikileaks is publicly announcing the abandonment of any semblance of editorial neutrality. Their Noble effort to bring additional transparency to the world is now forever tainted.

  • by Surt (22457) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @04:07PM (#33281080) Homepage Journal

    For the same reasons we have to have laws restricting the dissemination of top secret truths. Some truth-tellings result in people dying.

  • Re:Source (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mongoose Disciple (722373) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @04:08PM (#33281082)

    Basically there's two possibilities:

    1) Bradley Manning chose to leak the documents, knowing that he would be punished for the leak. In this case I can't feel sorry for him -- he knew what the consequences would be and made a choice. That's his right as an adult.

    2) Bradley Manning was dumb enough to think that releasing the documents, which pretty well narrow down who and where he, the leaker, could be, under the alias 'bradass87' rendered him anonymous, and the U.S. government would never figure out who he was. In this case I can't feel sorry for him because it would mean he's one of the stupidest people alive.

    So, either way I don't feel bad for him.

  • Re:Whistleblower?? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @04:14PM (#33281154) Homepage Journal
    So, you'd rather he bias whatever documents are leaked to his organization with his own personal views and analysis? I thought one of the defining creeds of slashdot was open and free data. If Assange posted nothing more than a personal analysis of the documents he's leaked, he'd be criticized for keeping secrets from the public and letting his personal bias take over objective analysis. It would be that whole stupid climate-gate scandal thing all over again.
  • by Un pobre guey (593801) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @04:17PM (#33281200) Homepage
    Now that we're on the subject, could you please cite credible reports showing that wikileaks did in fact result in "putting specific innocent people at greater risk?" I'm not nearly as interested in spin and rhetoric from politicians and the commercial news media.
  • Not really. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ebbomega (410207) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @04:18PM (#33281206) Journal

    It's more just falling in line with the party, and offering another level of protection for the site.

    The reason that Sweden's Pirate Party got political support in the first place was because Americans pushed political pressure on the Swedish government to take action, thus causing the first raid on The Pirate Bay. When the public got wind of this, there was massive public outcry saying that they shouldn't allow American corporate interests (and American copyright law) dictate what the Swedish government did. So all of a sudden there was a ton of political support for people that opposed American-style copyright.

    This is a political move not to equate wikileaks to the Pirate Party, but instead to show that the Pirate Party operates as a safe haven for information so it cannot be tampered with by foreign interests (most notably, the American government and American corporations, who seem to believe that they are the authorities to determine what copyright law SHOULD be rather than the constituents of these so-called democracies).

    This just falls in line with what the party represents. I think that the Swedish people would sooner resent America for trying to impose its beliefs on their democratically elected governments than they would be worried of the consequences of staving those companies off. It's not like America is about to bomb them because they run filesharing sites. And if they did, then Sweden would have an entire international body of allies who would object.

  • Re:Whistleblower?? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @04:19PM (#33281224)
    Thus explaining why they have spent the past few months pouring through the documents that major newspapers indicated could contain the names of civilians, and removing those names. And why they asked for the Pentagon, who undoubtedly knows which documents contain those names, to assist them.

    Yup, they don't care.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @04:26PM (#33281318)

    If causing the deaths of NATO forces in Afghanistan is a crime, why hasn't anyone tried to prosecute Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld?

    Side note: The CAPTCHA for my first attempt to posting this was "invasion".

  • by Surt (22457) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @04:26PM (#33281324) Homepage Journal

    So would you like to offer up the truth of your home address and some times when your family will be home alone?

    There are truths that people shouldn't have to be prepared to defend their lives against, and there is no perfect security system.

  • Re:Source (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jpapon (1877296) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @04:26PM (#33281334) Journal
    How can you "hide" behind freedom of the press? Do you only consider "press" to be the corporate propaganda mass-media drivel fed to you by Fox and Friends? If anything, Assange is much more of a reporter than anyone in the US media. He takes information, and he disseminates it freely to the public, without modifying it (except for removing names and the like). That's much more in line with what the "press" should be than the constant editorializing you get from Glenn Beck. We live in an open society (or rather, we purport to...), and with that comes danger. We claim to hold ourselves to a higher standard than the rest of the world, but then cover up our actions by burying them under the cloak of "National Security".
  • Re:Source (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @04:28PM (#33281352)

    **IT DOES NOT MATTER** what he "leaked" or why, it just matters that he broke the law.

    Geeze, get a grip! Of course it matters. I don't mean to Godwin this thread, but I just talked to my father about this sort of thing yesterday, and he brought up the example of people hiding Jews in their basements etc. during the nazi era in Germany. Imagine someone back then said the same thing:

    **IT DOES NOT MATTER** why he hid those Jews from the nazis, it just matters that he broke the law.

    Seriously, I don't think this needs any further comment.

  • Re:Source (Score:3, Insightful)

    by vux984 (928602) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @04:31PM (#33281398)

    "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;..."

    Its perhaps ironic that the only credible threats to the constitution reside near the top of the chain of command. Terrorists have never threatened our constitution. A succession of American senators, congressmen, and presidents have done all the damage.

    "So he disobeyed the orders of the officers appointed over him and violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice, why shouldn't his ass be sitting in a cell?"

    No good deed goes unpunished.

  • Re:Dick Cheny (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Motard (1553251) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @04:31PM (#33281408)

    First, it's Cheney. Second, it was Armitage and Novak.

  • by GrumblyStuff (870046) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @04:32PM (#33281416)

    Clearly, he means that if anyone dies in Afghanistan, it's Assange's fault.

  • Re:Awesome (Score:2, Insightful)

    by miffo.swe (547642) <daniel.hedblom@g m a i l .com> on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @04:34PM (#33281442) Homepage Journal

    Youve got it wrong. The Afghan informants blood is on US military that does an half assed job of protecting their informants. Do you seriously beleive this is the only leak of this and other sensitive information? Spies didnt suddenly become unemployed last month you know.

  • News Flash (Score:4, Insightful)

    by copponex (13876) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @04:35PM (#33281458) Homepage

    **IT DOES NOT MATTER** what he "leaked"

    You heard it here first people: if bsDaemon came across documents that showed the US Military was shoveling terrorist suspects into ovens, he'd ignore it and continue to do his job. Or maybe not that... maybe if he came across documents showing that we were burning women and children to death with phosphorous weapons, he'd just ignore it and continue to do his job. Okay, maybe not that...

    Of course the line is drawn somewhere. To pretend otherwise is ***FUCKING INHUMAN*** and a good way to end up doing a lot of evil shit for the paltry reward of state loyalty.

  • Re:Source (Score:2, Insightful)

    by jpapon (1877296) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @04:39PM (#33281510) Journal
    I don't think you're allowed to call your opinion "humble" when its calling for anyone who's ever committed treason to be shot. Should Schindler have been shot? The thousands of families that hid Jews? The Quakers who ferried slaves to freedom? Oh wait, I guess we don't need to shoot THOSE people because God's on our side, right?
  • by miffo.swe (547642) <daniel.hedblom@g m a i l .com> on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @04:42PM (#33281536) Homepage Journal

    If you take a quick gander at The Pirate Party you soon discover they are very nicely aligned with free speech activists all over the world. Their only goal is free flow of information without restrictions.

    I guess if you consider free speech a bad thing it may be a sad day, join the complaint department along with china, north korea and the rest of the fine states agains free speech.

  • by MozeeToby (1163751) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @04:51PM (#33281678)

    The Pirate Party believes that websites like The Pirate Bay and Wikileaks are legal and should remain up. Since they have the power to act on those beliefs directly (while also trying to change and/or clarify the laws to ensure their legality) they have chosen to do so by hosting the sites in such a way that it is almost impossible for them to be taken down. They are simply standing up for their beliefs in a very public and open way, it doesn't necessarily mean that they support the actually things these sites do. Imagine a police officer doing his duty to protect a KKK member from a violent mob, it hardly means that the police officer supports the KKK.

  • Re:Nice move (Score:5, Insightful)

    by saleenS281 (859657) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @04:53PM (#33281720) Homepage
    You're making the incorrect assumption that the Swedish public wishes to cater to America's every want/need. The basis of the Pirate Party was BECAUSE the existing politicians caved in to America, and the Swedish public was PISSED. They don't want America meddling in their politics, or their country at all. Attacking wikileaks in Sweden would be America attacking Sweden's sovereignty once again, and you can bet your ass the public there won't stand for it. I get the impression you're a right-wing American who has been brainwashed to believe the rest of the world is just there to do your bidding. Wake up.
  • Re:Nice move (Score:2, Insightful)

    by PeterBrett (780946) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @05:05PM (#33281858) Homepage

    So let me get this straight ... they (pirate party) make an obvious move to turn it into a political fight when it isn't ... and you're saying the Swedes are too stupid to figure it out, so they'll assume anyone attacking Wikileaks is attacking the Pirate Party?

    Wikileaks is extremely political. I don't see any basis for you to assert that this isn't a political fight.

    The point is that anyone attacking Wikileaks in Sweden will be generating publicity for PPse... and that's a handy thing indeed when there's a general election in Sweden coming up in a month's time.

    This was a stupid move, but fitting considering the parties involved. Kill two birds with one stone.

    But never mind, it looks like I'm feeding a troll. Silly me.

  • Re:Source (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Huntr (951770) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @05:07PM (#33281890)

    Because he's in the military. If an order is unlawful, he has a duty to disobey it. But, he'd better be right that the order, in this case, following operational security, is unlawful. He will have his day in court. If that order is found to not have been unlawful, he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

    IMO, it's not really for a 22 yr old E-4 to go about deciding which information should truly be secret and which shouldn't. That decision is way above his pay grade and a lot more than 1 guy decides what is secret and what isn't. If Manning didn't want to be in the Army and do wtf he's told, he shouldn't have joined.

  • by spyfrog (552673) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @05:12PM (#33281942) Homepage

    Please do. If you find any Swedish secrets we would sure want to know.
    Some thing we would like to know about is:
    *) What did happen in the government during the tsunami in Thailand? Why do we need to keep these e-mails secret for 50 years?
    *) What did happen to Raul Wallenberg?
    *) Why is a big part of the Palme murder still classified?
    *) Why can't we all see the old Stasi files handed over from Germany?
    *) Did we really had submarines here during the cold war and where they US or Soviet?

  • Re:Source (Score:3, Insightful)

    by chrb (1083577) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @05:15PM (#33281974)

    **IT DOES NOT MATTER** what he "leaked" or why, it just matters that he broke the law.

    Some people think that he broke the law. Some people think that he didn't. What matters is whether he is charged and convicted in a court of law. He may deny that he was the source of the leak. There may be insufficient evidence for a guilty verdict. He may admit to being the source of the leak, but be able to argue that the classification of the material itself violated Executive Order 13292 (Sec 1.7) ("in no case shall information be classified in order to conceal violations of law").

    There have been similar precedents of not prosecuting or convicting whistleblowers. Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers, [wikipedia.org] and stated that the documents "demonstrated unconstitutional behavior by a succession of presidents, the violation of their oath and the violation of the oath of every one of their subordinates". "Deepthroat" [wikipedia.org] leaked the details of Watergate to the press and was never prosecuted.

    Hypothetically, if Obama were ordering intelligence operatives to wiretap every American citizen, would leaking this information [wikipedia.org] be a crime of treason, punishable by death? How about publishing it? [wikipedia.org]

  • Re:Whistleblower?? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by johnlcallaway (165670) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @05:18PM (#33282020)
    I seem to recall him stating something along the lines that 'if those that criticize me aren't going to help, then I'll just publish whatever I want to'.

    I still feel his only concern is his public image and how much attention he gets. When he starts to publish documents that show how many civilians have died because Taliban and others house themselves with civilians and refuse to conform to anything in the Geneva Convention, then we will know he doesn't have an agenda to push and is truly a whistle blower.

    When I see those documents, I'll reconsider. Until then, I think he is just another asshole with an agenda and really doesn't deserve the attention the media gives him.
  • by zerospeaks (1467571) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @05:22PM (#33282062) Homepage
    The U.S. government has been leaking classified information of other countries for over hundred years. Make sure there isn't blood on your knuckles before you accuse someone of assault buddy.
  • Re:Nice move (Score:4, Insightful)

    by taucross (1330311) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @05:40PM (#33282244)

    They're just fighting fire with fire.

    So let me get this straight ... they (pirate party) make an obvious move to turn it into a political fight when it isn't ...

    Abortion. Same sex marriage. These are obvious moves to turn something into a political fight when it's not.

    and you're saying the Swedes are too stupid to figure it out, so they'll assume anyone attacking Wikileaks is attacking the Pirate Party?

    The hallmark of a FUD campaign. You don't need to prove anything, just introduce a certain kind of doubt.

    How many people do they intend to take on at one time? The RIAA/MPAA and several governments ... including the US ... I don't know about you, but if I was a Swedish citizen I'd have serious doubts about voting for someone who regularly bites off far more than they can chew.

    The fact is, these groups have teamed up on us first. There is no way to attack one without attacking the others.

  • Re:Awesome (Score:3, Insightful)

    by should_be_linear (779431) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @05:40PM (#33282248)
    the Afghan informants' blood is on your hands now!

    More then 30.000 civilians, many of them kids, died in Afghanistan and many more are seriously wounded since the beginning of occupation. If anybody could handle THAT blood on his hands, Swedes will handle their tiny part you mentioned quite comfortably, I guess.
  • by Peeteriz (821290) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @06:16PM (#33282552)

    The attitude is not "I can do illegal stuff in your country because I'm not there" - the extradition treaties between Sweden and USA work just fine for such criminals.

    The attitude is that "The stuff is not illegal, even if some other government has sold out and outlawed it." Swedish government and Swedish people have absolute sovereign rights to decide that doing X in their country is completely legal.
    (Unless they have also voluntarily made an international treaty saying that they will do otherwise. Then they would be contradicting themselves and the treaty would be overriding. But in this or piratebay case no such obligations prevent Sweden from going whatever way they wish)

  • Re:Not really. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by eulernet (1132389) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @06:23PM (#33282620)

    And if they did, then Sweden would have an entire international body of allies who would object.

    From France: please count us out.

    President Sarkozy is so pro-american that we'll probably bomb Sweden if US asked us.

  • Re:Not really. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by dissy (172727) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @08:08PM (#33283478)

    The reason that Sweden's Pirate Party got political support in the first place was because Americans pushed political pressure on the Swedish government to take action,

    Minor correction: The American GOVERNMENT did.

    A lot of us Americans very much hate the actions of our government.

    Sure there are plenty of stupid Americans, and dare say it might even be possible our government is an actual representation of the majority (Which I personally doubt), but please don't lump an entire nation of individuals together, especially when such a large number of us are very much against it.

    Thanks

  • by shnull (1359843) on Wednesday August 18, 2010 @04:05AM (#33285662) Homepage
    it just sounds a little bit like democracy to me

"Bureaucracy is the enemy of innovation." -- Mark Shepherd, former President and CEO of Texas Instruments

Working...