Snowdon is a dummy

@revelette2,

Quote:

I simply don't find the guy likeable, seems a braggart and a glory hound irrespective of any good he did.

I know what you mean, I feel the same about Nelson Mandela... irrespective of any good he did.

<smirk>

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

I responded to what you wrote.

I didn't write it - I just copied/pasted a Guardian report (linked)

Frank Apisa wrote:

I did not listen to the interview.

And didn't read it either.

Quote:

I’m much happier here in Russia than I would be facing an unfair trial in which I can’t even present a public interest defence to a jury of my peers.

Quote:

I made it very clear that I’d like to return to the United States and if the possibility for a fair trial existed, that would be something that could be pursued.

Source for above quotations: Edward Snowden interview - the edited transcript

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
I responded to what you wrote.

I didn't write it - I just copied/pasted a Guardian report (linked)

Frank Apisa wrote:
I did not listen to the interview.

And didn't read it either.

Quote:
I’m much happier here in Russia than I would be facing an unfair trial in which I can’t even present a public interest defence to a jury of my peers.

Quote:
I made it very clear that I’d like to return to the United States and if the possibility for a fair trial existed, that would be something that could be pursued.
Source for above quotations: Edward Snowden interview - the edited transcript

What is your point here?

The guy says he'd be willing to face trial...if it were a fair trial.

It will be a fair trial. He doesn't want a fair trial...he wants an unfair trial...one that will acquit him no matter what.

So...since he can get a fair trial...and is willing to live with the consequences...he should come back and do so.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

How does he know if he can't use that defense in front of a jury of his peers?

1 Reply

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

How does he know if he can't use that defense in front of a jury of his peers?

Revelette...it is either allowed or not allowed according to the laws of the United States. The "fair" thing would be to see if the laws of the United States allow that particular defense. If the laws do not...the "fair" thing would be to deny the accused the right to that defense.

You cannot rob a bank and claim a Robin Hood defense...if one does not exist. If you rob a bank...and claim that you were doing it to level the playing field for people who do not have as much money as the people who have their accounts at the bank...you cannot logically claim that a trial that excludes the Robin Hood defense is not fair.

A "fair" trial on the theft would exclude the defense.

And if the laws of the United States do not allow for the "public interests" defense...a "fair" trial would be one held without that particular defense.

As I said...Snowden's defenders here in this thread do NOT want a fair trial. They want one stacked in Snowden's favor.

So does Snowden.

Essentially...he is not saying he is willing to come back to the United States and face trial if guaranteed a "fair trial"...but rather, I am willing to come back to the United States and face trial providing you guarantee I am exonerated.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

My feeling entirely... The "Snowden is narsisic" charade is ridiculous, and designed to shoot the messenger rather than hear the message.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Perhaps, nonetheless.. not really ridiculous if it is true. Does the messenger have to be held in high esteem in order for the message to get across? It just seems as though when he is out of the spot light, he finds a way to get back into it. I have often wondered why he had to reveal himself at all to get the message across.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Oh, well, I guess, the next thing is to find out if that is a legitimate defense or not. From the way Snowden phrased his words, I got the impression he already knows he can't use that defense. Does he want the US to make a special law just for him by claiming extraordinary circumstances or something?

2 Replies

@revelette2,

Rather than trying to prove what is a legitimate defense or not for Snowden, it has become public knowledge that our government also broke privacy rules and overstepped our Constitution. Why aren't more people concerned how our government can make criminal charges against the person who reveals they also broke the laws with impunity?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-broke-privacy-rules-thousands-of-times-per-year-audit-finds/2013/08/15/3310e554-05ca-11e3-a07f-49ddc7417125_story.html

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Following on the news that Ed Snowden told the Guardian how NSA employees routinely passed around pictures they had intercepted of "extremely attractive" people who were naked, the NSA has issued one of its typical non-denial denials. [Forbes: NSA Responds To Snowden Claim That Intercepted Nude Pics 'Routinely' Passed Around By Employees]

Quote:

Even if we take the NSA at its word that it has a "zero tolerance" policy for this kind of thing, that actually makes the story even worse. Because it just shows how weak (to non-existent) the NSA's "100% auditability" really is. Keith Alexander insisted that everything done by people with access to these databases was tracked and audited. But it's becoming increasingly clear that that's not true at all. And it makes you wonder just how much abuse is going on that the NSA has no idea about -- potentially for things even worse than listening in on phone sex or passing nudie pics around the office.

Source for quotes and full report

1 Reply

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

Oh, well, I guess, the next thing is to find out if that is a legitimate defense or not. From the way Snowden phrased his words, I got the impression he already knows he can't use that defense. Does he want the US to make a special law just for him by claiming extraordinary circumstances or something?

That is what a Robin Hood bandit would do...and that seems to be what he wants. Like I said, the last thing Snowden and the people who think him a hero want...

...is a fair trial.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

If he actually saw this so frequently, he should have reported it.

2 Replies

@revelette2,

No one has been able to stop the usa's two centuries of genocide, raping and pillaging of others lands. You think someone speaking up about nudies is going to fix things, rev. You and folks like you really are far gone, hopelessly lost sheeple.

0 Replies

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

If he actually saw this so frequently, he should have reported it.

Even if it had happened not se frequently.
But that he didn't report it might have had the very same reason that he didn't report all the other stuff.
And by now, it seems it doesn't done anymore.

1 Reply

We can discuss all the ramifications of this issue from now until doomsday...argue all the subtleties on all sides of the issue...but the bottom line is that the only way to reasonably resolve it...

...is for Snowden to come back to the United States and stand trial on the charges against him.

Either that...or stay permanently in exile...and we, and the rest of the world, will live with the consequences of what his revelations have "changed."

Either works fine as far as my personal considerations are concerned.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Either that...or stay permanently in exile...

Well, until now, he isn't in exile.
And if he really would want to stay in exile ... not bad at all:
a) he couldn't get a trial in the USA,
b) he would have permanent residence somewhere.

I wonder, Frank, why you changed your opinion now since exile would now work "fine as far as my personal considerations".

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

You aren't anywhere near bright enough to argue subtleties, Frank. Sheeple can't do subtleties.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Either that...or stay permanently in exile...

Well, until now, he isn't in exile.

He isn't???

What do you mean by that?

Quote:

And if he really would want to stay in exile ... not bad at all:

I agree.

Quote:

a) he couldn't get a trial in the USA,

Yes he could...and it would be a fair trial. Although people like you apparently will never agree to that.

Quote:

b) he would have permanent residence somewhere.

That would be fine with me.

Quote:

I wonder, Frank, why you changed your opinion now since exile would now work "fine as far as my personal considerations".

What has changed about that, Walter. I have never been against him seeking permanent asylum wherever he can. And I have not been against the United States doing everything it can to bring him back here for trial.

Both work fine with me...and always have...so I do not know where our "changed your opinion" is coming from.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Well, he's on asylum. And the USA wants him to be on trial in the USA.

Asylum seekers are persons submitting a claim for refugee status, pending a legal procedure. See e.g. the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

Exile is what's in the name, too: you flee, but could stay without any actual consequences. Or you aren't allowed to return to your home country.

0 Replies

Snowdon is a dummy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know