It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."
Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of Harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I-it" relationship for an "I-thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus is it that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.
Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal.
Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?
Look at the books I reference and uncovering the conspiracies.
I have uncovered more than Assange has in my lifetime.
I know Wikileaks is doing nothing to make those laws change.
Amazon Review :
Understanding how our government functions and the political forces that influence it is vital for all Americans.
As a comprehensive overview and history of the subject, this book is designed to help anyone interested in learning about our government and the origins of its complex inner workings, our political system, and key elements that have affected our growth as a nation- all while serving as the best supplementary reading a student can get.
*Author is an experienced Advanced Placement teacher
*Students looking to take AP exams are a ready audience-along with citizenship applicants and CNN junkies
*Large renewable market
*Suitable as supplemental reading for coursework
Amazon Review :
Tips and techniques to help your nonprofit thrive in any economy
Due to the recent downturn in the economy, a significant number of nonprofit organizations have experienced a major decrease in funding and contributions.
Nonprofit Kit for Dummies, 3rd Edition caters to these organizations and shows you how your nonprofit can thrive and survive even in the current economic climate.
With 25% new and revised material, Nonprofit Kit For Dummies, 3rd Edition offers new tips and information on everything you need to navigate the process of setting up and effectively running a nonprofit organization.
Covers raising money, applying for grants, and developing the perfect mission statement
Details on how state laws vary; conducting program evaluations; and conforming to accounting standards
CD includes forms, worksheets, templates, and more
Whether you're thinking about starting your own nonprofit or are already working in the sector, Nonprofit Kit For Dummies, 3rd Edition is a valuable source for getting the latest information and practical advice on running a prosperous nonprofit organization.
Amazon Review :
Murray Weidenbaum has been a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a speaker at meetings at the Brookings Institution, the Cato Institute, and the Heritage Foundation and has also written for their publications, and served as a reviewer of ongoing studies.
In The Competition of Ideas, Weidenbaum examines the political economy of these vital institutions, drawing heavily on several decades of involvement in their activities.
He is uniquely able to see their accomplishments as well as their shortcomings.
Because of the importance of the activities of their organizations, and their tax-exempt status, think tanks are held to a high standard.
Weidenbaum shows that sometimes think tanks are more tank than think - major think tanks are often predictable in the positions they take on public issues and are far better at analyzing the shortcomings of other elements of society than of their own operations.
The overarching issue of quality control, Weidenbaum holds, deserves more attention than it has attained in the think tank world.
This book presents a careful, balanced account of where think tanks have been and where thay are now headed.
Given the high levels of professionalism in many think tanks, a fundamental change in the attitude of their management is important.
The compelling need is less for the wielder of policy than for the lucid synthesizer of relevant research and analysis.
Likewise, society needs sensitivity to the long-term concerns of the citizenry more urgently than rapid response to the opportunities of the moment.
Future competition, particularly among the major think tanks, could well be centered, not on achieving greater visibility, but on developing responses to economic, environmental, and national security problems that are likely to be adopted and carried out.
Murray Weidenbaum is Edward Mallinckrodt Distinguished University Professor of Economics at Washington University in St. Louis and Honorary Chairman of the Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government and Public Policy.
He was the first chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to Ronald Reagan and also served as a member of Reagan’s Economic Policy Advisory Board.
He is the author of numerous books including Business and Government in the Global Marketplace, One-Armed Economist (Transaction), and The Bamboo Network.
Amazon Review :
The Bush years have given rise to fears of a resurgent Imperial Presidency.
Those fears are justified, but the problem cannot be solved simply by bringing a new administration to power.
In his provocative new book, The Cult of the Presidency, Gene Healy argues that the fault lies not in our leaders but in ourselves.
When our scholars lionize presidents who break free from constitutional restraints, when our columnists and talking heads repeatedly call upon the "commander in chief " to dream great dreams and seek the power to achieve them--when voters look to the president for salvation from all problems great and small--should we really be surprised that the presidency has burst its constitutional bonds and grown powerful enough to threaten American liberty?
The Cult of the Presidency takes a step back from the ongoing red team/blue team combat and shows that, at bottom, conservatives and liberals agree on the boundless nature of presidential responsibility.
For both camps, it is the president's job to grow the economy, teach our children well, provide seamless protection from terrorist threats, and rescue Americans from spiritual malaise.
Very few Americans seem to think it odd, says Healy, "when presidential candidates talk as if they're running for a job that's a combination of guardian angel, shaman, and supreme warlord of the earth."
Healy takes aim at that unconfined conception of presidential responsibility, identifying it as the source of much of our political woe and some of the gravest threats to our liberties.
If the public expects the president to heal everything that ails us, the president is going to demand--or seize--the power necessary to handle that responsibility.
Interweaving historical scholarship, legal analysis, and trenchant cultural commentary, The Cult of the Presidency traces America's decades-long drift from the Framers' vision for the presidency: a constitutionally constrained chief magistrate charged with faithful execution of the laws.
Restoring that vision will require a Congress and a Court willing to check executive power, but Healy emphasizes that there is no simple legislative or judicial "fix" to the problems of the presidency.
Unless Americans change what we ask of the office--no longer demanding what we should not want and cannot have--we'll get what, in a sense, we deserve.
Second, I never suggested Wikileaks was for the purposes you said.
Third, there's much more in those books, than Assange has uncovered.
Other people, however have, I suggested he is not a conspiracy theorist.
In answering both this post, as well as your last one, the information is out there, without Wikileaks, if you understand and comprehend Government, period.
If people seriously think Assange has anything relevant to stopping Government, they are wrong, again, embarrassing, possibly, but it will not stop them.
I can watch anything on Government, through any venue, and tell exaclty what is going on, without the assistance of stolen documents and stolen information.
It is called using God given common sense.
Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
In other words, work smarter, not harder, without cheating, like Julian Assange.
Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
When it comes to topics like Julian Assange, I have to say something, specifically I find his usage of classified documents as approaching criminal action.
So sorry for anyone who disagrees with me, because I see hackers and crackers as criminals.
And anyone who supports them, speaks well of them, and or believes in their methods.
Quote from : Wikipedia : Hacker (Computing)
Hackers are individuals who come up with novel, complex, simple or elegant ways of writing new software that restates or replaces the existing constraints thereby exposing either some new functionality or some of the original flexibility of the underlying machine.
This community is notable for launching the free software movement. The World Wide Web and the Internet itself are also hacker artifacts.
The community included Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak and Bill Gates and created the personal computing industry.
Today, mainstream usage mostly refers to computer criminals, due to the mass media usage of the word since the 1980s.
This includes script kiddies, people breaking into computers using programs written by others, with very little knowledge about the way they work.
This usage has become so predominant that a large segment of the general public is unaware that different meanings exist.
While the use of the word by hobbyist hackers is acknowledged by all three kinds of hackers, and the computer security hackers accept all uses of the word, free software hackers consider the computer intrusion related usage incorrect, and try to disassociate the two by referring to security breakers as "crackers" (analogous to a safecracker).
Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
Originally posted by MemoryShock
This is one of the few times I disagree with you, Spartan.
Good presentation...but I disagree...
That's fine, MemoryShock, I expect people to disagree with me.
Care to elaborate where you disagree?
I believe we must not become those which we are opposed to.
By committing a crime Assange has compromised anyone he was connected to.