Snowdon is a dummy

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

What do you have against giving him a fair trial?

Nothing. I just dispute that this can be done in the US. I also dispute that this is really what you want. You want punishment.

More importantly, whether Snowden broke the law or not is a minor issue IMO, a distraction really, from the much more important issue of whether the US broke its own laws as well as international law. The question is not a petty legal case, and it's not a math problem either mind you, it is about what society we want to live in. I was raised in a society and age which FEARED the 'beast'. No pasaran. Never again. This is the issue for me: the rise of a soft dictatorship that got people unprepared and unsuspicious because it doesn't make the Nazi salute and enlist the masses in the Hitlerian youth or kills opponents and Jews and 'misfits', but nevertheless silence them and manipulate them very effectively. The beast has mutated and is back in force.

Whether Snowden can have a good defense team, I couldn't care less.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

Who wants to know, and why?

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

No, the government hacked into our communications. That's against the law in accordance with our Constitution. They broke the laws, and should be punished.

Snowden revealed this illegal activity of our government, and he's more of a patriot than our government who break laws at will. When the president and members of our judiciary and congress swore into office, they promised to uphold and defend the Constitution.

Whose the law-breaker here?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
What do you have against giving him a fair trial?

Nothing. I just dispute that this can be done in the US. I also dispute that this is really what you want. You want punishment.

Well...you have an opinion that this man cannot get a fair trial in the US...and that I am a liar.

I thank you for sharing your opinion. I think you are incorrect on the former...and I know you are incorrect on the latter.

Why do you think Snowden cannot get a fair trial in the US?

Quote:

More importantly, whether Snowden broke the law or not is a minor issue IMO, a distraction really, from the much more important issue of whether the US broke its own laws as well as international law. The question is not a petty legal case, and it's not a math problem either mind you, it is about what society we want to live in. I was raised in a society and age which FEARED the 'beast'. No pasaran. Never again. This is the issue for me: the rise of a soft dictatorship that got people unprepared and unsuspicious because it doesn't make the Nazi salute and enlist the masses in the Hitlerian youth or kills opponents and Jews and 'misfits', but nevertheless silence them and manipulate them very effectively. The beast has mutated and is back in force.

Once again, thank you for your opinion.

Whether or not Snowden broke the law IS ANYTHING BUT a minor issue.

The hatred and mistrust of government in the US has, in my opinion, gotten completely out of hand...and I think it has to stop. Guns all over the place in order to insure that "government" is not going to enslave us and so-called whistle blowers stealing and disseminating intelligence secrets.

I have no problem with the rampant paranoia of some people...but it cannot lead us in the direction it is.

Nobody should be able to steal government secrets and publish them without facing the legal system. We would have anarchy and chaos if we allowed that to happen.

In any case, there still is the possibility that if Snowden were tried, he would be acquitted. If he is...we all have to live with it.

But as a citizen, I feel I have an obligation to demand that the government at least attempt to try him for what it charges he has done. The fabric of our society is much more at risk from letting him go without attempts at prosecution...than from awarding him hero status.

Quote:

Whether Snowden can have a good defense team, I couldn't care less.

That is your right.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Nobody should be able to steal government secrets and publish them without facing the legal system. We would have anarchy and chaos if we allowed that to happen.

I agree that secrecy is a reasonnable expectation for a government to have, at least a government that respects its citizens's rights and expectation of secrecy. A state that denies secrecy and privacy to its citizens should have no expectation of secrecy itself.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

A state that denies secrecy and privacy to its citizens should have no expectation of secrecy itself.

LOVE that statement...............

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

Quote:

I cant see either country protecting him without some reward.

They value openness and democracy, unlike the US.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Thanks... Simple logic, no?

Any staff working in the heart of the NSA can:

- start a profitable blackmailing business
- steal and sell industrial and commercial secrets
- make billions on the stock market by getting privy info on deals (an insider trader's paradise; i'd be surprised if some smart ass hadn't done so already)
- break up marriages / couples by prying on affairs
- dig up dirt on political candidates and thus weigh in on elections...

Should I go on?

So yes, information is precious; it has a value, including a commercial worth, a great deal of which is lost when many other people get to know the same info. That's one reason for an expectation of privacy, eg on behalf of private firms and citizens. They are many others, such as the right to privacy in health, sexual and amourous matters, the right to not publish one's private thoughts or a dairy, etc. For the state, there is a justification of secrecy for national security, eg when at war, but also more broadly for reasons of division of powers, as well as for tactical, short-term secrecy in negotiations, disputes, etc. Diplomacy has an expectation of secrecy because of this, like poker.

Either you respect that principle or you don't. But why accept it for governments and refuse it to citizens and companies?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Look what Hoover did with far less resources in the way of blackmailing both members of congress and presidents over decades to say nothing of trying to get Rev. King to commit suicide over tapes of his private sexual activities.

An we still have the FBI building name after him for some strange reason.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

I want to know so I can weigh your statements more judiciously. If your a foreign poster than I will better know how to take your statements. More than one poster here is anti american and I disreguard their posts. Others post with forethought and I listen to them with more interest.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

If he had stayed here and defended his actions I would agree. But he turned tail and ran. Two wrongs dont make a right. I guess well just have to disagree on this one.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

I'm French. What do you make of that?

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

I want to know so I can weigh your statements more judiciously. If your a foreign poster than I will better know how to take your statements.

Sheesh! Just take everyone's posts at face value and address what they have to say no matter where they are from.

I know the answer to your question, BTW, but I'm not tellin. Razz

RABEL222 wrote:

More than one poster here is anti american and I disreguard their posts. Others post with forethought and I listen to them with more interest.

What does location have to do with whether someone is anti-American?

I know of plenty of natural-born Americans who are against everything that America stands for. And many Israelis have had the unfortunate experience of having to listen to the idiotic rants of self-hating Jews.

I don't think location is a good indicator of anything.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

I dident think you were a yank. Too much bitterness toward the U S of A. But thats ok. It seems most foreigners mistake citizens for government. Yours isent without sin but I dont blame french citizens for their government screw ups.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Yes, they call them tea party members.

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

The idea that he didn't stick around to get "US justice" is rational thinking on his part. He already sacrificed a lot from revealing the crimes of our government. He must have thought trough his options before he shared what he had with the Guardian-NYT. He made the right decision. Any country that would break its own laws can't be trusted to provide real justice. He didn't; I wouldn't.

He risked a lot, and I admire him for his bravery.

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

I dident think you were a yank. Too much bitterness toward the U S of A.

Nonsense. I certainly disagree with him on some issues (for instance, I want that Snowden freak DroneStriked), but I have never seen any bitterness toward the US from Olivier.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
Nobody should be able to steal government secrets and publish them without facing the legal system. We would have anarchy and chaos if we allowed that to happen.

I agree that secrecy is a reasonnable expectation for a government to have, at least a government that respects its citizens's rights and expectation of secrecy. A state that denies secrecy and privacy to its citizens should have no expectation of secrecy itself.

I appreciate you feeling that way...and that is your right, Olivier.

But the laws of the land do not give you the right to judge that the government has done something that allows its citizens to do whatever they want.

Snowden is accused of breaking several serious laws...and should face a trial. The jury can decide if the argument you are making is valid...and if they do, they can acquit him.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

But the laws of the land do not give you the right to judge that the government has done something that allows its citizens to do whatever they want.

Nor does the law of the land IE the constitution allow government officers to break the constitution ban on illegal searches and seizures at their whim or to openly lied to the congress under oath for that matter.

Until the government officers clean up their act and start to obey the constitution they have zero moral right to bring charges against a whistle blower over this matter such as Snowdon.

When the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper is put on trial for lying to congress for example I will feel more kindly to your position that Snowman should allow himself to be try for his actions.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Hey...c'mon. Tell me if you've seen any good movies lately.

No.

When are you going to answer the question about whether you think PRISM should have remained a secret?

When are you going to address the matter of the "chilling effect" which caused the collapse of the East German government? Fortunately for East German citizens a rescue was near at hand. What will rescue the US from the "chilling effect"?

Everybody with any mildly serious interest in these matters knows that the main enemy of government is the governed and that the main enemy of the governed is the government.

No PRISM was needed to detect the Boston bombers. The Russians had warned US intelligence about them.

1 Reply

Snowdon is a dummy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know