Snowdon is a dummy

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
...still waiting for the citations of my many lies.

Here's one--

Quote:
How would I react to what?

You know very well to what. And generally pretending that you don't understand the question, implying that the questioner can't write clear English, when you simply want to evade the question and get onto the next page.

That was not a lie...I simply do not understand what you were asking there. You are not especially clear...since you are always trying to be cute.

There was no lie there.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
He broke American laws.

Did he, now? Which ones?

Evidently, guilty until proven innocent is your idea of a 'fair trial'...

What you really want, Frank, if for Snowden to be PUNISHED, fairly or not.

No I do not.

As to what laws...I have already posted a link to the governments charges. Read it.

What I want is a fair trial. What you apparently do not want...is a fair trial.

I can understand that, Olivier.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Here's another Apisa.

I wrote--

Quote:
I presume you can see an analogy between the NSA's keeping us all safe from the nasty world and the strong, masterful patriarchal saviour figure providing security to the innocent and feeble, clinging female of Victorian times who gets fucked in return along with the maids.

You purport to be in the debate and you didn't comment on that. And it is the essence of the argument. That the public are being fucked in return for a spurious claim that they are being protected.

Wellington is reported to have said that he didn't know whether his troops frightened the enemy but they sure as hell frightened him.

One...that is not a lie.

Two...it is an absurd construct...and I did not want to dignify it with a reply.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

You said he broke the law, therefore you assume he's guilty, and in the same breath you tell us you want a fair trial to ascertain whether he's guilty...

Na, what you want is see him punished.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

You said he broke the law, therefore you assume he's guilty, and in the same breath you tell us you want a fair trial to ascertain whether he's guilty...

Na, what you want is see him punished.

In follow up comments...I used a qualifier.

I apologize for not using a qualifier in the cited comment.

I should have. I was wrong. My wording was wrong. It was a misleading statement as written.

I do, however, think Snowden broke the law...but I am not the final arbiter of that. A fair trial would determine that. And I advocate for a fair trial for Snowden...just as some are advocating that he get a medal.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Snowden is, or isn't, a whistleblower. It depends on who you ask. Those within the gov't who are now saying that he started discussions that needed to be started still can't call him a whistleblower because the whistleblower protection laws within gov't don't apply to contractors. He can't legally be a whistleblower within the position he held. He had knowledge that he felt in his soul needed to become part of the public dialogue. He exposed that knowledge.

For me, I'm willing to let the time he serves in exile be his punishment for whatever barriers he decided to cross. Others want a day in court, or a pound of flesh.

All three branches of the gov't have stated that this is an important discussion. And, yet, he is certainly a most wanted man. Sad, imo.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

And I advocate for a fair trial for Snowden...just as some are advocating that he get a medal.

Then you should write to your congressman about it, advising a recourse to an international tribunal, as evidently the US is not neutral in the dispute.

1 Reply

@JPB,

Those are facts that some seem to not understand.

The government can decide to give him a trial in a military court that keep the media and others unable to know what happens.

The declaration of a "fair trial" by our government doesn't mean much; simply because they can't be trusted.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

There is nothing new in that stated objective. What is new is the technology and it being in the seemingly unsupervised hands of a bureaucracy which has a life of its own involving careers, money and status and power.
No one disagrees with what you say so long as the various programs are used exclusively for the purpose you mention.
But are they? Will they be in the future? Is a bureaucracy capable of resisting the temptations offered by its trawl of the communications of ordinary citizens and who are supporting its existence?

As far as I've heard, these programs were authorized by Congress and are overseen by Congress. And anything that legally requires a warrant from a court, gets that warrant when necessary.

What more oversight is available?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Nonsense these programs go far beyond any need to be looking for a few terrorists and are design to do massive spying on most of the world population including US citizens.

Those few terrorists are hidden amongst the general populace. The only way to filter people out of the general populace, is to comb through the general populace.

BillRM wrote:

The man should get medals for explosing this danger to all our rights to privacy a right that is every bit as important as the right to own firearms if not more so.

There is no danger. They are just trying to save us all from being brutally murdered.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

There is another aspect to this oralloy.
I presume you can see an analogy between the NSA's keeping us all safe from the nasty world and the strong, masterful patriarchal saviour figure providing security to the innocent and feeble, clinging female of Victorian times who gets fucked in return along with the maids.

Some threats are so severe that we cannot defend ourselves as individuals. We have no alternative to banding together and confronting the challenge as a community. And that means having the government do it.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
And I advocate for a fair trial for Snowden...just as some are advocating that he get a medal.

Then you should write to your congressman about it, advising a recourse to an international tribunal, as evidently the US is not neutral in the dispute.

Why?

I am saying it here...among my many friends.

Whatever happens...will happen.

As the government is charging him with a crime...I cannot imagine it should be "neutral."

The US should be the prosecutor...and Snowden should have a defense team. And an impartial jury should render a verdict based on evidence presented.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Those are facts that some seem to not understand.

The government can decide to give him a trial in a military court that keep the media and others unable to know what happens.

The declaration of a "fair trial" by our government doesn't mean much; simply because they can't be trusted.

I think he would be tried in a regular court.

I trust them.

The government is not the enemy to me.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

There is no danger. They are just trying to save us all from being brutally murdered.

Very very strange how you trust the government rulers when it come to the fourth amendment but not the second amendment.

I am sure they would be very willing to protect you from being brutally murder by removing all firearms in the same manner as they are trying to removal all privacy rights.

I happen to support all the bill of rights not one amendment and have no desire for the government protecting me from being brutally murdered by removing any of my rights.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

The US should be the prosecutor...and Snowden should have a defense team. And an impartial jury should render a verdict based on evidence presented.

Your naïveté about these things is almost amusing. Or more probably disingenuous.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

The government is not the enemy to me

The government however is viewing us as all possible enemies who every communication need to be monitor along with such information as our email address books.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

As far as I've heard, these programs were authorized by Congress and are overseen by Congress. And anything that legally requires a warrant from a court, gets that warrant when necessary.

What more oversight is available?

You do know that the head of the NSA was found to be lying to congress?

An the so call secret court had stated that they need to take the word of the intelligence community so what damn oversight?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
The US should be the prosecutor...and Snowden should have a defense team. And an impartial jury should render a verdict based on evidence presented.

Your naïveté about these things is almost amusing. Or more probably disingenuous.

Whatever. I just tell ya what I feel. Sorry you feel you have to be right...and I have to be wrong.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
The government is not the enemy to me

The government however is viewing us as all possible enemies who every communication need to be monitor along with such information as our email address books.

I don't think so...and I think all this hate of government is getting out of hand.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I'm not sure how you arrived at

Quote:

all this hate of government is getting out of hand.

It's the government who isn't showing its citizens any respect - by keeping their promise to uphold the Constitution. How many Constitutional protections are you willing to give up? Me? NONE.

1 Reply

Snowdon is a dummy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know