Point taken. And thanks for the slack on the number goof. But I still say most of the media carrying a story about Brown intentionally gave the impression that he could actually get a 105 year sentence, and using that impression to paint a picture of a government gone wild. Without regard to whether the government has gone wild with Brown, I still find that disingenuous, and off-putting with regard to my building much significant outrage for him.Vrede wrote:I highlighted the "up to", which was missing from your "faces 107 years", I wasn't quibbling over 107 vs. 105.
I don't know much about most of the security firms he mentioned, but I do know Blackwater, and I don't like them. Let's say he became aware of data that clearly showed an unlawful relationship between Blackwater and some politicians (let's call them "Cheneys") and, knowing the data was illegally obtained, still decided to publish it in his NYTimes column. I'd call him a "journalist" who had conducted an investigation and was reporting his findings for the betterment of the US. But let's add a few parameters. Let's say that included in the information that incriminated Blackwater and the "Cheneys",was information about a Blackwater assignment that as a result of his publication, ended up with a Blackwater guy (who had just been doing his job) drawn and quartered and strung up burned on a bridge. I'm thinking maybe he'd have more responsibility than just an "oh well, collateral damage." Is a bit of government corruption worth getting people killed over? Does it make a difference how many people or how much corruption?
In Brown's case he may have had noble intent. I don't know, but let's say he did. But he also had reckless disregard for the people affected by all that identity theft gold mine he publicized.
