42
   

Snowdon is a dummy

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Sat 2 Nov, 2013 04:23 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
Now...if you want to do what I do with you just about every post...and actually quote in box something I have said...and question me about it...I may accommodate you.

Hmmm thank you but I think I'm good. I said what I wanted to say and got the answers to my questions.


Yup, you did.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Sat 2 Nov, 2013 04:24 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
We don't need him to surrender. We need to get him on the inside of a thermobaric fireball. Nice and crispy.


That a fate I would must prefer befall both the NSA headquarter and the Utah NSA storage center.


Sounds like something that ought be discussed with a psychiatrist!
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Sat 2 Nov, 2013 04:48 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Couple of things:

First, thanks for more good information on this issue in general, Walter.

As I have mentioned, I am not one of the Americans who think Snowden is a traitor. I think he is a naïve individual with a grandiose notion of personal involvement…and I think the charges of him stealing classified documents and releasing them to unauthorized people seem credible. The charge of being a traitor is a step too far in my opinion.

The article seems to indicate that President Obama considers him a traitor. I don’t get that from what I have heard the president say about the issue. Obama has mentioned that he does not view Snowden as a “patriot: or a “hero”…but he even left (a small bit of) room open concerning the question of “whistleblower” protection for Snowden. I certainly do not consider Snowden a patriot or a hero...but that does not mean I consider him a traitor.

I think Germany should want to get more information if they think spying against them has been going on…but all of their attempts to get that "more information" should be weighed against the apparent tendency of most nations to do spying against most other nations. Glass houses…and all that bit.

If Snowden actually were to go to Germany (I seriously do not think he will)…I would expect that the US would make every effort to get Germany to hold him in custody and arrange for him to be brought back to the US for trial on the charges pending. Anything less would indeed be a breech of protocol…and would impact (I suspect not especially severely) in relations between the two countries. If we have indeed done wrong toward Germany…Germany doing wrong back at us is not the reasonable remedy. We can work this out between us…but Snowden is charged with serious crimes and should be returned to the US for trial. Refuge or asylum in Russia is one thing (no treaty)…doing it in Germany is another.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Sat 2 Nov, 2013 06:31 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Members of Chancellor Merkel’s center-right Christian Democrats have expressed openness to receiving testimony from Edward Snowden. But they are skeptical that the US whistle-blower can travel to Germany.
...
CDU spokesman for domestic affairs Hans-Peter Uhl told the daily Berliner Zeitung on Saturday that a German delegation could possibly travel to Moscow to question Snowden about the surveillance operations of the US National Security Agency (NSA).
"A trip by Snowden to Germany would be problematic because it is questionable whether or not he would receive asylum here," Uhl said. "If he didn't receive asylum, then there's the extradition application from the Americans."
[...]
German representatives are currently negotiating a "no-spy agreement" to end the NSA surveillance operations in the country. However, Greens chief Simone Peter called on Merkel to confront US President Barack Obama in person over the issue.
"A no-spy agreement isn't enough," Peter told a German regional newspaper on Saturday. "Angela Merkel needs to immediately meet with President Obama in Washington, and put US snooping in its place."
Source
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Sat 2 Nov, 2013 07:08 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Several other German politicians now say that they want to speak with Snowden in Russia. It is suggested that the special parliamentary committee could meet in the German embassy in Moscow and question Snowden as a witness there.

According to the Swiss daily newspaper "Blick", Swiss members of parliament want to interrogate Snowden as well.

The Russian paper Kommersant wrote in a report today that the Kremlin believes former US National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden is free to cooperate with German law enforcement agencies as concerns reports on the tapping of Chancellor Angela Merkel's telephone conversations by U.S. special services.
It was not from Russia that the German media received that information, the Russian President’s press secretary Dmitry Peskov told the Kommersant daily. Snowden is not allowed to violate the Russian President’s condition. But Edward Snowden has been officially granted temporary asylum in Russia, so he is free to meet anyone, Peskov added.

US intelligence leaker Edward Snowden will not be able to leave Russia to be questioned by German prosecutors in a spying probe but can provide testimony inside the country, his lawyer Anatoly Kucherena says.
"Snowden will not go to Germany. This is not possible because he has no right to cross Russian borders," Anatoly Kucherena said, AFP reports citing Echo Moscow.
"Within the framework of international agreements Snowden can give testimony in Russia but this should be decided by the German authorities," he added.

Sources: Spiegel, reuters, Voice of Russia/Stimme Russlands
revelette
 
  1  
Sat 2 Nov, 2013 07:15 am
@Walter Hinteler,
I have been busy with personal concerns, haven't really kept up with the latest, still haven't.

I am curious though, I thought Snowden handed over all of his information and copies of the materials he stole from NSA. What else would he have to testify about that the newspapers don't already have in their possession? I am sure there is more coming from the newspapers, wouldn't he be scooping out the newspapers if he reveals what else is coming?

Also, wouldn't his lawyers be afraid whatever he reveals could later be used against him in the US?
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Sat 2 Nov, 2013 07:17 am
@revelette,
revelette wrote:
I am curious though, I thought Snowden handed over all of his information and copies of the materials he stole from NSA. What else would he have to testify about that the newspapers don't already have in their possession?
He would be a witness (like in court). What's written in the papers is thus only "hear-say").
revelette
 
  1  
Sat 2 Nov, 2013 07:22 am
@Walter Hinteler,
In that case, I think, his lawyers should be careful.
BillRM
 
  1  
Sat 2 Nov, 2013 07:23 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Sounds like something that ought be discussed with a psychiatrist!


An this from a man who think that Snowdon should surrender himself to the US government instead of building a new life for himself in Russia or any other nation that is not in the control of the US.

By the way let me address your comment that the US would not hang him. Yes indeed all they would do is locked him away in a small cell where he would have little contact with anyone or be let out for more then an hour a day for the rest of his life.

Sound like hanging would be far kinder.

Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Sat 2 Nov, 2013 07:39 am
@revelette,
revelette wrote:

In that case, I think, his lawyers should be careful.
His lawyer agreed with that, as far as media reported.

But why should his lawyer or he be careful?
revelette
 
  1  
Sat 2 Nov, 2013 08:33 am
@Walter Hinteler,
As you may or may not know, I am just a regular old grandma/housewife and it has been a long time since I have been in school, married young, only completed (early) high school and never went farther than that, and I was only average on a good day. Having said all that (maybe not needful) but, it would just seem to me, if he testifies in some kind of legal setting to anything, it could be later used against him by the US if he should ever be apprehended. Seems sort of obvious to me anyway.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Sat 2 Nov, 2013 09:33 am
@Frank Apisa,
As I said, 'don't know' is a perfectly valid answer.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Sat 2 Nov, 2013 09:46 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Sounds like something that ought be discussed with a psychiatrist!


An this from a man who think that Snowdon should surrender himself to the US government instead of building a new life for himself in Russia or any other nation that is not in the control of the US.


Yup. You ought to discuss that matter with a psychiatrist. Anyone who wants to nuke American facilities should.

Quote:
By the way let me address your comment that the US would not hang him.


Please do.

Quote:
Yes indeed all they would do is locked him away in a small cell where he would have little contact with anyone or be let out for more then an hour a day for the rest of his life.

Sound like hanging would be far kinder.


They would try him, Bill. They would give him a fair trial...and if found guilty, he would be punished according to the law. If found not guilty, he would be released.

Olivier5
 
  1  
Sat 2 Nov, 2013 09:47 am
@revelette,
If he is apprehended by the US and trialed there, chances are he'll be sentenced to 3000 yrs of high security prison... Seems to me nothing he does could possibly worsen his legal position...
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Sat 2 Nov, 2013 09:47 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

As I said, 'don't know' is a perfectly valid answer.


It most assuredly is...and should be used more often.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  2  
Sat 2 Nov, 2013 09:51 am
@BillRM,
Everything was wunnerful when Bush was president though, right Bill. Say dident Bush start two unfunded wars and a drug program that was attached to the Social Security fund but not funded itself. And he started the spying on U S of A citizens and drone strikes but Obama is a awful president. Why? Because he wont stick our nose in another middle east civil war? Personally I think his main problem is the fact he is too much like Bush and Chaney, not that he too different.
BillRM
 
  1  
Sat 2 Nov, 2013 10:07 am
@RABEL222,

He is an awful president as he is not honoring his oath to defend and protect the constitution of the US and that included the Bill of Rights and the fourth amendment along with the imply rights of privacy that the SC had found that the constitution contain.

Footnote I did not vote for either of the Bushes however I did vote for Obama and I feel betrayed.


0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Sat 2 Nov, 2013 10:13 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
punished according to the law.


Any law that would punish the man would be as morally wrong as the laws that return runaway slaves happen to had been or placed mixed race couples in prison for marrying and on and on and on.

By revealing what acts the government was doing in secret against the American people Snowdon did more to defend our constitution then Obama by far.

Footnote one of the laws he is charge with violating was used during WW1 to placed a movie director in prison for creating a movie that show the British in a bad light during the Revolution.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Sat 2 Nov, 2013 10:59 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
punished according to the law.


Any law that would punish the man would be as morally wrong as the laws that return runaway slaves happen to had been or placed mixed race couples in prison for marrying and on and on and on.

By revealing what acts the government was doing in secret against the American people Snowdon did more to defend our constitution then Obama by far.

Footnote one of the laws he is charge with violating was used during WW1 to placed a movie director in prison for creating a movie that show the British in a bad light during the Revolution.


Thank you for sharing that.

As I noted, I feel considerably different from you on this issue.
BillRM
 
  1  
Sat 2 Nov, 2013 12:16 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
As I noted, I feel considerably different from you on this issue.


About the morality of laws that once force the return of run-away slaves back to their owners or imprisoned mixed race couples who married?

Or the very law you are now supporting in regard to Snowdon that have a movie director imprison for releasing an anti-brit film and others who stated anti-war feeling during WW1?

All such laws are fine with you as long as the people charge under them get "fair" trials?


Quote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_World_War_I

the Espionage Act of 1917 was passed to prevent spying but also contained a section which criminalized inciting or attempting to incite any mutiny, desertion, or refusal of duty in the armed forces, punishable with a fine of not more than $10,000, not more than twenty years in federal prison, or both. Thousands of anti-war activists and unhappy citizens were prosecuted on authority of this and the Sedition Act of 1918, which tightened restrictions even more. Among the most famous was Eugene Debs, chairman of the Socialist Party of the USA for giving an anti-war speech in Ohio. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld these prosecutions in a series of decisions. Conscientious objectors were punished as well, most of them Christian pacifist inductees. They were placed directly in the armed forces and court-martialed, receiving draconian sentences and harsh treatment. A number of them died in Alcatraz Prison, then a military facility. Vigilante groups were formed which suppressed dissent as well, such as by rounding up draft-age men and checking if they were in possession of draft cards or not.

Ben Salmon was a Catholic conscientious objector and outspoken critic of Just War theology. During World War I, America's Roman Catholic Hierarchy denounced him and The New York Times described him as a "spy suspect." The US military (in which he was never inducted) court-martialed him for desertion and spreading propaganda, then sentenced him to death (this was later revised to 25 years hard labor).[6]

Around 300,000 American men evaded or refused conscription in World War I. Aliens such as Emma Goldman were deported, while naturalized or even native-born citizens, including Eugene Debs, lost their citizenship for their activities. Helen Keller, a socialist, and Jane Addams, a pacifist, also publicly opposed the war, but neither was prosecuted, likely because they were sympathetic figures (Keller working to help fellow deaf-blind people and Addams in charity to benefit the poor).

In 1919, as the soldiers came home, disturbances continued, with veterans fighting strikers, the Seattle General Strike, race riots in the South and the Palmer Raids following two anarchist bombings. After the election of Warren G. Harding in 1920, Americans were eager to follow his campaign slogan of "Return to Normalcy." Anti-war dissidents in federal prison, such as Debs, and conscientious objectors, had their sentences commuted to time served or were pardoned on December 25, 1921. The Sedition Act was repealed in 1921, but the Espionage Act remains, and Richard Nixon attempted to invoke it in vain to prevent the Pentagon Papers being published in 1971. Many U.S. Supreme Court decisions since then have substantially, but not explicitly, gutted the provisions used to squelch dissent. Media withheld much oppostition to the war.

See also
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Snowdon is a dummy
  3. » Page 177
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 08/13/2025 at 04:01:08