You are exactly correct about the US's activity in foreign interventions. I would say that "we" are very active in that regard. And frankly, I think that we ought to get out of other people's sovereignty and be content with our own. Hence why I support Ron Paul as a candidate.
However, I disagree strongly on one point:
> Most people are upset because the gains (to "Big Media") do not seem worth the cost of foreign entanglements and limitation of free speech (domestic and abroad).
The takedown of TPB is not about freedom of speech. They could say whatever they want (and did) without getting taken down. But as soon as they assisted US citizens to commit crimes as defined by the US, the TPB became a target. Any country that has a foreign power aiding its citizens to commit what it perceives as a crime will either: pressure the other country to put a stop to it, or will take internal measures.
As I tried to lay out in my previous post, TPB is in the position of an accomplice, according to US law, and will be targeted by the means the US has at hand. Pressuring a power via the ambassador is rather above-board, compared with the "removal" of Osama bin Laden.
I find the definition of "intellectual property" to be too broadly defined and protected. But piracy is just theft, pure and simple...
