为啥讲到福柯了？
据我在美国的文科朋友说，福柯的思想出发点很深，我们在谈这些所谓规训之类的东西的时 ...
说的没错.不谈价值判断,我和你的朋友看法类似.:handshake
福柯给我最深的印象就是,他真的是一位"后现代"理论的集大成者----------所谓后现代,其实就是"反现代",具体地说就是反对现代性,这里说的现代性,小到工业化,人文主义,民主宪政自由......大到你说的“康德以来这套”，实话说，我觉得在我阅读范围内，从“破”的角度，他大概是最深的（之一？）了。也难怪西左推崇他。
不过我个人的阅读出发点，完全是为了领导对付期末考试:P 本帖最后由 Dracula 于 2014-7-26 02:23 编辑
Daniel Ellsberg: Snowden Kept His Oath Better Than Anyone in the NSA
That sort of civic courage should inspire other Americans to follow suit, he said.
CONOR FRIEDERSDORFJUL 25 2014, 6:00 AM ET
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/daniel-ellsberg-snowden-honored-his-oath-better-than-anyone-in-the-nsa/375031/
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/newsroom/img/mt/2014/07/daniel_ellsberg/lead.jpg?n99xwk
Daniel Ellsberg, the celebrated leaker of the Pentagon Papers, said in a conversation last weekend with National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden that every human sometimes bites their tongue when they witness something that they know to be wrong—and blood often flows as a result. Due in part to lies during the Vietnam War, he said, millions of people were needlessly killed. At home, tobacco executives successfully hid the cancerous nature of their products. More recently, as GM customers died in their cars, the company kept mum about a defect.
The standard he'd like to see set instead? "Snowden was the one person in the fucking NSA who did what he absolutely should have done," he said. "How many people should've done what you did! We all took the same oath to protect and defend the Constitution. There are people who violate it all the time. There are people who are against it, like Cheney and some others. But when it comes to upholding that oath, no one in the U.S. military services, including the commander in chief, has fulfilled her oath to defend and support the Constitution like Chelsea Manning. And no one in the executive branch, or in any branch, has fulfilled the oath to uphold and protect the Constitution as well as you, so thank you."
Snowden and Manning should inspire other Americans to speak out upon seeing what they know to be wrong, Ellsberg argued, even when doing so entails personal sacrifice. The remarks came at the end of a monologue during Hope X, a hacker conference in New York City. The whole part on "civic courage" is worth a read.
I was struck by something you said in Vanity Fair, which was that every one of us has seen things that are wrong, that should be known, that should be exposed, and we have turned our eyes away because we were intimidated. I believe that's true of every human on earth. There are times when they bite their tongues or keep their mouths shut because to reveal it would lose a relationship, or a job, or a career. Then you said, but there comes a time when the level of wrongness or inhumanity is so great that you have to cross over that line.
I thought, that's Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning who did that. How many others? Most people never do reach that line. They never do reach a point where they decide to risk their own status, their relationships, their job. And many of them have been tested on things like the continuation of a wrongful war; hundreds of thousands of lives, 500,000 lives lost each year in the case of tobacco. And only two people spoke out. Look at GM. It's a only a handful, but it's striking how they covered it up. How many people at GM knew that lives were being lost? Who spoke out? Nobody, I don't think so.
What I hope, Ed, is that you will inspire more people to take even significant risks ... there will always be risks. And the willingness to take that risk, for civilians, is very rare.
As you may know, it was Bismarck of all people who said courage on the battlefield is very common in our country, Prussia at that point. But civil courage is another matter, it's very rare. Before Manning and Snowden I'd almost given up on it.
You're an example of it.
And Manning. He got a lot of attention, but he didn't get the effect in this country, except for getting our troops home from Iraq, that you did. Why? Because I think Manning was showing what we were doing to other people in the Third World. Others. Not us. And in my case, was the effect because of the millions of Vietnamese who were being killed wrongly? Every one of them was wrong. When I read the Pentagon Papers and realized for the first time that from the very beginning we were supporting a French colonial reconquest of a country, which I thought of us un-American, whether it was illegal internationally or not, I saw every death in Vietnam as being unjustified homicide. To me that was murder, mass murder, and I couldn't be part of that anymore. Well, the American people didn't respond, I'm sorry to say, on the whole, to the mass murder, but there were 58,000 Americans in the process of dying then, see. And in your case, Ed, it wasn't so much directly dying, but you exposed what was being done to us. And people are objecting to that.
I think we have to have a different standard, and you show the possibility of it. Your colleagues in NSA, as you said, agreed with you, many of them, that this is wrong. But I have a mortgage, I have a marriage, I have children to send to college. And that was enough. Even though we're talking about this massive intrusion. It's a new world, basically, that people need to know about. So it shouldn't be only you. And I would hope that some of your colleagues, who I would suspect—from my experience, if you were in a room with your former colleagues now, I would expect them to leave that room. If you can tell me that a former colleague from NSA has in any way communicated with you to say you've done the right thing, in any way, I would guess there are zero like that, which was my experience at the Rand Corporation. You lose every friend you have who has a clearance. And that's all your friends.
But you're not made of sugar, as you've shown. I saw you say yesterday, "If I were in chains at Guantanamo, I could live with that." Well, that doesn't surprise me, Ed. That's the person I find you to be. It's a pretty unusual statement, isn't it? Well, let's make it a little less unusual. You went in the special forces and had your legs broken, didn't go over. I used my Marine training in Vietnam as a civilian. I'd been a Marine company commander in peacetime. And so I used that training in Vietnam. I saw combat. I walked with troops in combat. There you see courage, physical courage, every minute, every day. People doing the job, going to save their comrades. That kind of courage is marvelous. As a marine once said at Iwo Jima, uncommon courage was a common virtue. Okay, right. When you're doing it for the commander in chief, for the boss, with the applause of your country–usually you don't get the applause, most of it is anonymous, but you know they would approve you if they knew of it, and would hold you accountable if you didn't do it.
We should have a different standard for our civilian officials, as well as, I don't know if you regarded yourself as an official, but also for the middle level person.
It shouldn't be that you are the extraordinary hero that we thank. It should be that we should ask the question of those other people, "What made you think that you could keep this secret for so long? Keep it totally secret, keep your mouth shut?"
A lot of blood has flowed because people bit their tongue and swallowed their whistles, and didn't speak out. And it's time I think that we not prosecute them, but tell them, "That is not the way to preserve a democracy."
"You're not fulfilling your oath."
And I'll just end by saying, people ask, is he a patriot or a traitor? That drives me nuts, the very thought that people could regard you as a traitor. The ignorance of the media and the congresspeople and the other interviewers who raised that question offends me as an American, that they think that it can be traitorous to tell the truth to your fellow countrymen. Here's the standard I would like to see set: "Snowden was the one person in the fucking NSA who did what he absolutely should have done." How many people should've done what you did! I said this about Chelsea when that came out and I say it now. We all took the same oath to protect and defend the Constitution. There are people who violate it all the time. There are people who are against it, like Cheney and some others. But when it comes to upholding that oath, no one in the U.S. military services including the commander in chief has fulfilled her oath to defend and support the Constitution like Chelsea Manning.
And no one in the U.S. executive branch, or in any branch of government, has fulfilled the oath to uphold and protect the Constitution as well as you, so thank you.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGgo7MSJVVA
sitan 发表于 2014-6-3 13:49 static/image/common/back.gif
美国司法部长在这个含义上相当于中国最高检察长，中国的最高检也管不了地方法院。当然中国的最高党政当局 ...
别想当然，据我所知，就有不听所谓你嘴里的所谓“最高当局”的一个电话的，最高当局？最高当局是谁啊！ 本帖最后由 巅峰背影 于 2014-8-9 02:42 编辑
南京老萝卜 发表于 2014-6-3 08:39 static/image/common/back.gif
很久以前看过一篇文章，丁林写的，五角大楼泄密案的报道。它的内容比较长。说实话，美国的权力制衡确实运行 ...
谁说行政权最大？搞的好像自己啥都晓得似的
如果广州番禹的事儿发生在美帝，你怎么评价？肯定会说免煮石油国家就是牛，最高法院都敢顶吧？{:191:}
"最高法院法官Hugo Black在言论自由问题上是个绝对主义者。对他来说，既然第一宪法修正案说政府不能制订任何法律限制言论自由，那么 政府就无权对言论自由作任何限制。即使是国家安全也不成其为理由。第一宪法修正案保护媒体发表任何政府的机密，不管其多么重要。最高法院法官William O. Douglas历来对言论自由也是极其支持。他的判决意见承认公布这些文件可能会给国家安全造成严重影响，但是认为这不足以作为prior restraint的理由。最高法院法官William J. Brennan Jr. 比较中庸，在这个问题上没有HugoBlack 那么激进。他同意在特殊情况下，比如如果这些文件包括美军未来的作战方案，直接威胁士兵的安全的话，政府可以申请prior restraint。但是这个情况必须非常特殊，政府申请的理由必须非常强。"
这些都太牵强了，按照这样的解释，间谍可以通过媒体来公开发布自己掌握的政府信息，而只要这种做法不会明显导致美国的利益受损，政府就拿媒体没辙。可是基于情报的预测分析结果也可以是很重要的情报，例如左尔格做出的日军不会北上进攻苏联的分析结果，这要是把日本换成美国，再在纽约时报上公开出来，就可以没事了，这岂不荒唐。 老兵帅客 发表于 2014-8-9 03:50 static/image/common/back.gif
"最高法院法官Hugo Black在言论自由问题上是个绝对主义者。对他来说，既然第一宪法修正案说政府不能制订任 ...
所以任何“绝对主义”都不能要~：） 本帖最后由 Dracula 于 2014-8-9 14:50 编辑
老兵帅客 发表于 2014-8-9 03:50 static/image/common/back.gif
"最高法院法官Hugo Black在言论自由问题上是个绝对主义者。对他来说，既然第一宪法修正案说政府不能制订任 ...
我没看懂你的贴。如果媒体发表不会明显损害美国国家利益的信息，那这些信息就不会对国家利益发生多么大的损害，这句话是tautology。既然没有大的损害，为什么要将其禁止呢？全面禁止媒体发表classified information的问题是，什么信息是classified，做出这一决定的并不是一个中立的，完全为了国家利益的机构（美国人并不相信这种机构可能存在），而就是行政部门自己。行政部门的倾向是overclassify，很多同国家安全无关的也都变成了机密信息，比如发表的五角大楼文件，或者在中国土壤的污染情况也是国家机密。尤其是很多时候这种overclassify 是为了掩盖行政部门的错误甚至是违法行为。象五角大楼文件，Edward Snowden泄露的PRISM项目，以及最近闹得沸沸扬扬的CIA用刑的问题。美国政治和文化的特点之一就是对政府的不信任，认为政府获得没有限制，没有制约的权力就会滥用，就会威胁国民的自由。因此最高法院平衡国家安全和公民自由两方面的利益，按照William Brennan的意见，政府要想禁止发表某一机密信息，必须要有非常好的理由，不能只是泛泛的说，这是机密信息。所以你要是认为左尔格德的情报和结论符合这个条件，政府还是可以通过法院来发出禁止令，但是你得首先要说服法官，不能是行政部门单方面的决定。我觉得这个平衡是合适的。而且在这个判决之后的40多年里，美国也没出现媒体大规模泄露机密信息，威胁国家安全的情况，包括去年Edward Snowden泄露的PRISM的信息。连行政部门的司法部都认为这种安排是正确的，类似的案子都没有再次到达最高法院。
Dracula 发表于 2014-8-9 01:11 static/image/common/back.gif
我没看懂你的贴。如果媒体发表不会明显损害美国国家利益的信息，那这些信息就不会对国家利益发生多么大的 ...
我的意思很简单，谁来定义什么叫做大的损害，是媒体发行人呢，还是国家的管理者。我相信专业的力量，而不相信什么良知，因为绝大多数人都会为自己的利益而扭曲良知，要是指望圣人，那就太天真了。
举个最简单的例子，你知道我是做软件的，在我所服务的客户，甚至即使是我所在的部门，能够明白我所从事项目的具体细节的不超过三个人，其余的人对我所从事的项目的评论基本上可以视为扯淡。为此我经常要花不少时间来跟他们解释一些术语和细节，否则项目会议就没法开了。你可能会问不是有文档嘛，问题是有多少人有足够的时间和知识基础去理解这些文档，这里假定他们的确有兴趣而不只是混饭吃。
就是在软件部门，大家都是做软件的，业务也都是为我们的客户，银行，服务，相互间的知识距离还能有如此的大，我怎么可能相信一帮只精通法律的家伙能对管理国家的细节有足够的理解，于是我上面所引用的那些东西能出来就一点都不奇怪了。
话题扯回到佐尔格这个案例，假使他在美国从事情报工作，他往苏联发布报告的方式可以很简单而且极其安全，那就是用笔名加上几个特定位置的特殊单词就可以了。这样的东西除非检查人心存恶意，否则是不可能看得出来的，更不要说有明显的证据损害了美国利益。事实上这种把戏在中国以前的科举考试里早就用来通关节以作弊了。
我理解你的意思，为了防止行政部门滥用权力而需要制衡。这些在理论上是对的，但是现实中则行不通，否则罗斯福也不需要在珍珠港损失那么多的海军力量以便在国会通过对日战争了。事实上，美国也就是因为自己的生存空间太优越了，两边都是大洋，南北没有强大的邻国，不会有非常快的外国致命打击来临，这才可以允许这样扯淡的东西存在，否则是不可能的，这就是海洋国家（美英）与大陆国家的区别。
同时，我需要说的是，我尽管对小布什很不屑，但是对他通过爱国者法案却是很赞成的，那才是切合实际的做法，因为历史上第一次，有非常快的外国致命打击来到美国本土，美国需要些改变了。
说句过分点的话，事实上这就是文人与工程师的区别，前者想的是如何在理论上尽可能完美，而后者想的是如何在不完美的世界以可以接受的成本让事情可行，这里的距离可以非常的大。 老兵帅客 发表于 2014-8-9 20:40 static/image/common/back.gif
我的意思很简单，谁来定义什么叫做大的损害，是媒体发行人呢，还是国家的管理者。我相信专业的力量，而不 ...
最高法院法官不像你想得那么不切实际，只知道法律条文。我觉得就智力上他们比绝大多数政客要强得多。而且美国common law的特点就是判决注重实际，而不是出自什么抽象的法律理论。实际上，一般对他们的批评是在国家处于战争时期，他们过多地尊重行政部门的要求，允许过分侵犯公民权利，比如我写的二战时期美国对日裔监禁（下）里对这一点的分析，再比如在秘密的FISA法院，法官几乎都批准FBI，NSA的秘密warrant的申请。五角大楼文件同国家安全没什么关系。我文中提到，尼克松本来还挺高兴，打算自己再多泄漏点，彻底把民主党解决掉。今天就是保守派的，我也没有读到什么评论认为纽约时报发表这些文件对国家安全带来什么负面影响。我读到的评论都是认为发表这些文件，从长远来看是有利于美国的国家利益。所以尼克松政府提不出什么有力的理由禁止发表，不是因为最高法院法官太笨、太不切实际，听不懂政府的论点，而是根本就没有什么理由。我说了最高法院这一判决成为美国法律已经是43年，比较长的一段时间了，并没有什么负面效果，今天即使Snowden之后，美国从政治界，到法律界没有什么人认为应该推翻它。我觉得你反而是从一些抽象的原则，而不是实际的效果来考虑这个问题。
你说如果是在美国的话，佐尔格可以用笔名加上几个特定位置的特殊单词来发情报，但是最高法院就是禁止媒体发表机密文件他也可以这么做，这不解决问题。关键是政府公务员的保密措施。我文中说了，最高法院的这个判决，并不阻碍政府对泄密者进行起诉，因此今天Snowden还躲在俄国，不敢回来。象佐尔格那样使用记者身份作为cover，为外国势力进行间谍活动也不受最高法院的这个判决保护。
另外你对政客的决策动机出于国家利益，而不是个人私利这一点，要比我对人性的看法乐观的多。这一点要讨论起来就太长了，我就不多说了。
本帖最后由 老兵帅客 于 2014-8-9 09:03 编辑
Dracula 发表于 2014-8-9 08:38 static/image/common/back.gif
最高法院法官不像你想得那么不切实际，只知道法律条文。我觉得就智力上他们比绝大多数政客要强得多。而且 ...
知识，我不认为高智商或者很高的法律学位就意味着他们具备足够的知识。而只要这点是缺乏的，他们的判断就是可疑的。
给你个具体的例子吧，我今年年初刚做完一个项目，它其实是两年前一个项目的继续。两年前这个项目之所以被停掉是因为我需要使用的资源申请被驳回，于是这个项目没法继续。驳回的原因很简单，理由不够强有力，我们不能拨款，实际上则是审查方不懂我们的技术实际需要，尽管我的老板还算懂行而且已经为此尽力了。这笔款项需要多少钱呢，20万加元，也就是这个团队两个月的开销而已。可是这两年因为这个项目被停掉而导致的商业损失多少钱呢，200多万加元。今年年初，我老板从别处弄了些钱过来，用别的名义继续这个项目，结果一个半月就完事了，银行由此赚钱了，我们团队受到嘉奖。这就是知识的力量。
关于你说的这个案例，问题在于最高法院有没有足够的知识来判定那种泄露是否损害了美国的国家利益。我的经验告诉我他们没有，他们的判断基础不过是美国人传统的不信任政府、限制政府的感觉罢了。于是一旦发生911事件，大家害怕了，感觉需要政府的保护了，这个前感觉就没人理了。
你这个主题的核心应该是媒体对政府的言论自由，按照这个理论，佐尔格完全可以把自己的情报以表面上看对美国无害的方式公开发表在美国媒体上，而只要美国政府没办法证明这个发表损害了美国利益，美国政府就不能禁止这种做法，对吧。这就够了，这里的关键在于你怎么判定它是否损害了美国利益，是专业人士的证词还是最高法院那些法官的感觉，这里面的差别可以大了去了，事实上这些是目前美国陪审团制度出问题的根源，他们缺乏足够的知识以及对知识的适当理解，这点非常关键，它使得看上去合理的东西实际上是在扯淡。
佐尔格不是公务员，他得到信息的方式也完全合法，因此不存在公务员泄密问题。同时，除非你能先证明他是间谍，否则你所说的“为外国势力进行间谍活动也不受最高法院的这个判决保护”是不能成立的，于是佐尔格就可以为所欲为了。
佐尔格在日本出事，不是他自身的问题，而是他下属出事，牵连到了他。假使他在美国有这样的通讯方式，那样的出事就可以得到避免，这难道是好事？ 老兵帅客 发表于 2014-8-9 22:01 static/image/common/back.gif
知识，我不认为高智商或者很高的法律学位就意味着他们具备足够的知识。而只要这点是缺乏的，他们的判断就 ...
照你的逻辑，美国总统，乃至各部部长对每个具体的问题也几乎都不是专家，那么是不是也应该完全成为橡皮图章，完全批准属下的建议呢？
你提到的假设，间谍在报纸上发表机密信息，这个机密信息表面对美国无害，而且一般对政府比较同情的法官，根据政府解释半天，还是认为对美国无害，但是实际上却对美国的国家利益极其有害，这是种什么信息呢，我怎么觉得有点象oxymoron呢？能举个具体例子吗？如果政府禁止发表机密文件没有任何危害，那么这种虚无缥缈的可能性也可以作为理由。但是这种危害是实际存在的，平衡起来，这种理论上的可能是远远不够的。
Dracula 发表于 2014-8-9 09:18 static/image/common/back.gif
照你的逻辑，美国总统，乃至各部部长对每个具体的问题也几乎都不是专家，那么是不是也应该完全成为橡皮图 ...
不对，政府内支持政客们工作的专家可是不少，而最高法院却没有，这就是我的意思，你没有专家支持你做出判断，那你顶多是对common sense类能做出合理的判断，再多你的根据是什么呢？
佐尔格当时对日本是否会趁机进攻苏联的预测。这个不能说是很确定的情报，而只是预测，而且信息来自于德国大使与其在日本政府内的朋友，这里其指的是佐尔格，因此严格说起来不能作为间谍来处理，他在这件事上顶多是个消息灵通人士而已，当然其效果就是间谍。
这就是为什么我前面的帖子一直在说如何判断，这是个很技术的活，不可能单靠那帮子法律专家的逻辑头脑来分析，需要具体的专业知识来支持的。 老兵帅客 发表于 2014-8-10 01:20 static/image/common/back.gif
不对，政府内支持政客们工作的专家可是不少，而最高法院却没有，这就是我的意思，你没有专家支持你做出判 ...
司法部的legal brief以及oral argument可以作为最高法院的专家。比如我写的二战对日裔的监禁中提到司法部呈交给最高法院的证据包括美国军方一份618页的报告。美国政府专家对总统的支持，不也就是给总统写报告或者是口头汇报吗？ 总统如果不是那个领域的专家的话，不也是用common sense来判断吗？这没什么大的区别。而且在common law的体系下，法官的判决并不是出于对法律条文的语言逻辑分析，在绝大多数情况下也都是从实际情况出发。你如果对美国最高法院判决的新闻多关注一下的话，也会有类似的印象。我写的二战对日裔的监禁，Jehovah's Witnesses不对国旗敬礼，以及正在写的美国言论自由标准的演变等等，也都体现了这一点。
我还是没搞明白你提到的Sorge的例子。政府如果他没有从事间谍活动的证据，他的下属被捕又如何呢？而用你的传递信息的方法，即使政府不能直接对他起诉，他本人不是立刻就向FBI暴露身份了吗？顺藤摸瓜，下属很快也会被抓到，这种办法被捕的不是更快吗？我怎么觉得这种方法很愚蠢呢？而且就是最高法院禁止媒体发表机密文件，发表文章预测日本是否会进攻苏联也还是从来都是受第一宪法修正案保护的。还是解决不了你的这个假设提出的问题。要想达到这一点，美国必须像中国一样，政府完全控制所有媒体的发行。为了这种即使不是虚无缥缈，也是极其罕见的可能，就完全牺牲掉言论自由，这种反应也太过度了吧。
（这是我这几天最后一贴了。接下来几天不能及时回复，提前道歉一下。）
刚刚读书看到的，Daniel Ellsberg的第二任妻子Patricia Marx 是玩具大亨Louis Marx的女儿。有人怀疑这层关系让FBI局长J. Edgar Hoover 对调查Ellsberg不热心。尼克松不能依靠FBI干这些脏活，只能组织自己的plumber来非法搞材料定Ellsberg的罪。不过他找的那个人G. Gordon Liddy挺没用，从撬Ellsberg心理医生的办公室到水门事件，就没成功过。
页:
1
[2]