I also find it ironic how a group "dedicated to transparency" aren't themselves transparent with their finances.
>The WikiLeaks chief said the US investigation of himself and others involved in leaking sensitive government information is a prime example of Washington engaging in lawfare
>"I'm an Australian, Why Is the US Investigating Me for Espionage?"
Is he serious?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_(news_agency)#Receptio...
And don't forget, BBC is also funded by a government. So is Canadian CBC. CNN also gets a lot of gov contracts and gov crossover.
And just recently, it was revealed that even 60 Minutes is engaging in propaganda on behalf of State Department [1].
Propaganda is truly everywhere now.
Of those 3, only Canada's CBC is government-owned or government-financed. BBC is financed by a separate levy on televisions, and CNN is and has always been a private corporation funded by advertising revenue. CNN doesn't have any government contracts, and any government crossover is simply them employing a few former/washed-up politicians as talk show hosts.
Snowden's Twitter doesn't reveal that 60 Minutes is engaged in propaganda...it merely indicates that it asked about a few issues suggested by the government. This is not propaganda.
I don't know if BBC is, what is your source on that? As for the others, they may receive money from the government but they are now owned by the government like sputnik. I don't think either are remotely comparable to sputnik though.
The source of the news always matters and it's fair to point out if they are heavily biased.
Of course, this is one reason why I'm not in politics.
He's talking about application of laws in foreign territories. Naturally, for the benefit of US and its own industry. How is that substantially different from what you're saying?
[1] Canada: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/google-ordere... [2] France: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2984524/privacy/france-reject... [3] Germany: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98593
The very idea of the UN and treaties by nature undermine the sovereignty of governments, and that is obviously not an inherently evil thing. Yes there will always be criticisms when balancing the creation of an international legal framework that supports a stable international community at the cost of relinquishing sovereignty. However, I assure anyone that as deplorable as one might find US "lawfare" (if you buy into this argument) against Snowden or Kim Dotcom, that the US political actions are far better than military operations such as Russia into Georgia, and I am left wondering why SputnikNews seems to be suggesting that use of armed force (military) is a more legitimate way of expanding international influence than through international organization and bi-lateral treaties...why advocate for military protection of territory over diplomatic means, are we that far removed from WW2 we simply forget the consequences of might is right?
Because you are Vladimir Putin and your economic policies of cronyism have led to a general long-term economic decline (exacerbated by sanctions for things like invading Ukraine). You want your various media mouthpieces to play up a threat from competing powers; it will justify your actions to your countrymen, explain away your economic woes, and drive a wedge between them and people who advocate for political freedom.
