Snowdon is a dummy

@JTT,

Hey JT--you got a mention today on the Intelligent Design/ Casino Universe thread.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Which ignores the fact that America (and Britain) carried out mass surveillance in contravention of its own laws.

WHO is ignoring it??????

WHO?

I certainly am not ignoring it; you certainly are not ignoring it; none of the people posting in this thread are ignoring it.

It is discussed in every newspaper on the planet, Izzy.

Nobody seems to be ignoring it.

Quote:

You can't put down the feelings of those who are outraged by this as general anti-Americanism.

Nor am I trying to. But to suggest that "general anti-Americanism" (as you call it) is NOT a factor, is every bit as much a mistake.

NO country could allow for its classified papers to be taken and release with impunity.

NO COUNTRY!

Yes, spying of all kind leaves decent people with a lousy taste in one's mouth...whether it is nation against nation; husband against wife; parents against children.

But sometimes spying HAS to be done.

The various intelligence communities around the world are dealing with things so different from other days that they are going to make mistakes on the "too far" side. They are flailing around in trying to find the right level on which to operate. It is not the easy process some second-guessers want to paint it to be.

And they probably are doing things that make this spying nonsense seem like cupcakes.

But Snowden decided on his own that he was going to steal classified documents and release them.

That CANNOT be tolerated...not without taking action.

He still has a chance to be exonerated in a court of law. If the legal team eventually charged with his defense cannot find an adequate defense...then he will have to pay a price.

But no matter what...he must stand trial...or stay in exile with asylum granted.

4 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I agree.

This thread started out with CI saying "Snowdon is a dummy" somewhere along the way he changed his mind, I must have missed it, (did he call you wishy washy?) since then I think it has been me and you and a just a few other others against the rest of the posters on this thread repeating the same arguments in regards to Snowden. I suppose our positions on that aspect of the issue are pretty well fixed. At least I know good and well mine is. I would suggest that a new thread be made just dealing with the spying issue and its related new events and updates so that we don't get bogged down into this, but more than likely someone will mention Snowden on that thread and it would happen again.

I really don't know how I feel with the spying issue to tell the truth, there I am whishy washy.

I do think that fellow Clapper (whatever his name is, don't feel like googling at the moment) should have to be punished for lying to congress.

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

I think the issue is the definition of "fair".

First, he has no passport. He cannot return to this country without permission of the DOJ. They have indicated that the only condition they are willing to consider for his return is in exchange for a guilty plea. There would be no trial.

Second, even if they should change their minds and allow him to return for a jury trial, either a) he would not be allowed to present a "public interest" defense, or b) the jury would be instructed to ignore it. Neither of which is "fair" by the definition of the people who are saying he can't get a fair trial. There is no "public interest" defense allowed in this country.

Do you honestly think that the DOJ is going to give him a public platform to make his case to the American people and a jury of his peers? I don't. And that's not fair.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

But sometimes spying HAS to be done.

Yes. I totally agree.
Atill, the question is on whom (own citizens?), with what lawful reasons (is 9/11 really an all-for-one-reason?) and from where (which foreign countries besides the UK and Germany?).

Frank Apisa wrote:

But Snowden decided on his own that he was going to steal classified documents and release them.

I agree here as well that Snowden decided on his own.
From where did you get the information(s) that he released those documents?

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

But no matter what...he must stand trial...or stay in exile with asylum granted.

Thanks for changing your mind. I suppose, he really will have to stay outside the influence of the USA (= reach of "commandos") for some time.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

From where did you get the information(s) that he released those documents?

Haven't you been saying that he released the documents to the free press?

1 Reply

@revelette2,

Not to my memory. But if I really did so, it was done by mistake and contrary to what I've read and thus know.

All I know is that he gave the documents to Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras. Obviously they decided to give them to the media and/or others.

3 Replies

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

I think the issue is the definition of "fair".

Fair enough!

Quote:

First, he has no passport. He cannot return to this country without permission of the DOJ. They have indicated that the only condition they are willing to consider for his return is in exchange for a guilty plea. There would be no trial.

Even if true (I am not agreeing those are his only options)...that is a situation he should have considered before stealing classified documents...if he did steal them.

Quote:

Second, even if they should change their minds and allow him to return for a jury trial, either a) he would not be allowed to present a "public interest" defense, or b) the jury would be instructed to ignore it. Neither of which is "fair" by the definition of the people who are saying he can't get a fair trial.

In other words, you and those "other people" are saying that the trial would not be fair unless we change the law enough so that a directed verdict of "not guilty" can be obtained????

That is not a "fair" trial no matter how you define fair.

Quote:

There is no "public interest" defense allowed in this country.

So?

Quote:

Do you honestly think that the DOJ is going to give him a public platform to make his case to the American people and a jury of his peers? I don't. And that's not fair.

Because you THINK the DOJ will not "give him a public platform to make his case to the American people and a jury of his peers"...it is not fair???

The case is not supposed to be made to the American public...it is supposed to be made to a jury...with existent law applied by a judge.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
But sometimes spying HAS to be done.

Yes. I totally agree.
Atill, the question is on whom (own citizens?), with what lawful reasons (is 9/11 really an all-for-one-reason?) and from where (which foreign countries besides the UK and Germany?).

That is for the duly elected government to decide, Walter...not Edward Snowden!

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
But Snowden decided on his own that he was going to steal classified documents and release them.

I agree here as well that Snowden decided on his own.
From where did you get the information(s) that he released those documents?

From newspaper interviews with Snowden and the people to whom he gave the documents.

But I will concede this is all heresay.

So...a trial should be held to determine if Snowden did indeed steal the documents...and if he did release them to people who are not authorized to receive them.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
But no matter what...he must stand trial...or stay in exile with asylum granted.

Thanks for changing your mind. I suppose, he really will have to stay outside the influence of the USA (= reach of "commandos") for some time.

On what are you suggesting I have changed my mind.

I can think of nothing in the quoted statement that rises to a change of mind.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Not to my memory. But if I really did so, it was done by mistake and contrary to what I've read and thus know.

All I know is that he gave the documents to Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras. Obviously they decided to give them to the media and/or others.

Walter...are you actually saying that giving the documents to Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras...is NOT releasing them to people who are not authorized to receive them?

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

That's been my position -- that he took them to the free press called out for in our constitution. You are technically correct - that he gave them to two individuals - but I've read their accounts of the first meeting and believe his intention was for the information to be released to the public via the media.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

In other words, you and those "other people" are saying that the trial would not be fair unless we change the law enough so that a directed verdict of "not guilty" can be obtained????

No, I think it should be changed enough so that his defense can be considered. It should be up to the jury whether or not it is reasonable to determine guilt based on that defense.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

On what are you suggesting I have changed my mind.

I can think of nothing in the quoted statement that rises to a change of mind.

As far as I remember, you didn't say before that he could "stay in exile with asylum granted".

But I can be wrong here.

1 Reply

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

That's been my position -- that he took them to the free press called out for in our constitution. You are technically correct - that he gave them to two individuals - but I've read their accounts of the first meeting and believe his intention was for the information to be released to the public via the media.

Whether he gave them to two individual members of the "free press"...or to the media institutions itself...is not germane.

His release of the classified documents to anybody not authorized to receive them is arguably a crime. Whether it is or not...has to be determined by the rules of law...and probably ultimately a trial.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Walter...are you actually saying that giving the documents to Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras...is NOT releasing them to people who are not authorized to receive them?

No. If I wanted to say that, I had written that (or something close to it).

0 Replies

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

Quote:
In other words, you and those "other people" are saying that the trial would not be fair unless we change the law enough so that a directed verdict of "not guilty" can be obtained????

No, I think it should be changed enough so that his defense can be considered. It should be up to the jury whether or not it is reasonable to determine guilt based on that defense.

Well that is not the way things work, JPB.

Edward Snowden is charged with crimes committed under existing law...and to suggest that unless new laws are made which make the crimes no longer crimes a trial would not be fair...is ludicrous.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Whether he gave them to two individual members of the "free press"...or to the media institutions itself...is not germane.

Perhaps. But I responded to revelette, who asked me.

(Laura Poitras isn't really a member of the "free press" but a film maker.)

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I didn't say it would no longer be a crime. Is justifiable homicide a crime? A person who commits homicide is charged as such and then is given the opportunity to say that his crime was justifiable based on certain conditions. The jury gets to hear the circumstances and use that defense in their deliberations. It's not ludicrous to say that a public interest defense should be allowed before a jury for their consideration.

2 Replies

Snowdon is a dummy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know