Edward Snowden, Hero or Traitor?

[Papewaio]

How can you say they failed? The USA is full of mostly white Europeans, and certainly run by mostly white Europeans. Ditto Australia. All of the nations of South America were built on the European model (after they had been bled dry, of course).

I'm not saying they sat down in the late 1400s and said "Alright guys, this is it--we're taking over this crap." I'm saying that Europeans are the only ones who could have done it, accidentally or otherwise, the way that it happened.

There is literally only one other example of a "Nation" that had a chance to do something like this, and that would be China. They chose not to, for reasons we'll never know.

I think you are still mistaking technology and disease for morals and tactics.

If you think China has a different moral direction towards outsiders you are wrong. The Chinese name for China is Zhongguo, it essentially means central whilst all surrounding countries were/are barbarians.

China was exploring, was trading, was invading. What stopped it all isn't a mystery it was well documented arrogance and politics. Essentially a key political group decided they knew everything and that exploration was expensive, not a good return on investment and that any new knowledge might undermine their all knowing beliefs.

Over nations that have invaded throughout history other nations include the Mongols, Polynesians and South Americans. Most of these took over their lands from older technology weaker nations. Maori of New Zealand for instance are Polynesian group who due to a superior technology suite wiped out (and ate) the prior indegionous Moa Hunters.

It's a fact that whoever had a technology advantage has used it. Only thing that holds it back is internal disunity. There is no moral high or low ground for the Europeans just a fortunate mix of geography. If the Native Americans immune system had exposure to African-European-Asian diseases they might still be the majorities in their countries.

It's not morals its luck.

[Papewaio]

From a Civ point of view (Sid's that is) EU should be a single choice much like India or China is. Mind you in that format US should just be part of the EU collective.

[Papewaio]

Just remember for a lot of Europeans the US-UK alliance is seen as an Anglo-Saxon alliance.

It's not helped that the five eyes are US, UK, Canada, Australia and NZ.

All should/could be a single CIV faction... Just no where as cool as Poland in Space.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I hate people like you guys. Civ should have as many factions as possible, not trying to consolidate them. Fricken casuals man.

[Tellos Athenaios]

They had a technological advantage. The Chinese decision to close up shop to the world was not exactly an enlightened one, but it is not a decision Europeans would have ever made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_He

Splendid Isolation.

[Tellos Athenaios]

That's cool. I'm not saying you should. I'm just saying that empirically, objectively, without the bias of giving a damn about "national" pride, Europeans are all the same. You speak different languages, that's it. The European peninsula is kind of like the Indian subcontinent in that regard, I guess. Which makes it even wierder that the British object so strongly to the idea of Europeans being Europeans.

Anyway, here's what I was gonna edit into the post up there:

Look, I just want to clarify here. I'm not trying to demean Europeans or re-write history. History as it is written is pretty good. But it is also often missing the point. What matters is when cultures clash. When entire peoples clash. When entire peoples are overwritten, disappeared, or moved. On such a scale, ever since Rome fell, individual European nations have almost never mattered. It has been European civilization against all other forms of civilization. America is European civilization. European civilization is all that is left. It won. Not just the individual countries, but the entire culture and way of life.

I'm not demeaning Europeans at all. Quite the opposite. I think our conquering ancestors should be thought of as great conquerors first and foremost. Like sea-faring Mongol hordes. I'd give a limb to be able to travel forward a thousand years and read the history books.

That would the great conquering peoples of India and Indonesia, Africa and the Americas? I think you seem to be missing the point of just how the Europeans were successful despite being vastly outnumbered and with no way to call for backup: they had local allies. Or rather they were the enforcers for local alliances, which is much the same: Europeans exchanged technological and military advantage for trade and political concessions. Only in the late 19th century does that turn into conquest and rule, and even then they use the local peoples to subjugate other local peoples and often left the job of ruling mostly to local petty lords.

[Greyblades]

I leave my computer for three hours to attend my philosophy class and I come back only to say: What the hell happened here?
It's merely what happens when brits start arguing collectivism(or whatever -ism this is) at 2 in the morning.

That's cool. I'm not saying you should. I'm just saying that empirically, objectively, without the bias of giving a damn about "national" pride, Europeans are all the same. You speak different languages, that's it. The European peninsula is kind of like the Indian subcontinent in that regard, I guess. Which makes it even wierder that the British object so strongly to the idea of Europeans being Europeans.
Except for all your protestations, europeans are not all the same, we speak different languages, eat different foods, appreciae different trends in music at differnet times, there are racial differences between "white" nations in the north and "latino" nations in the south. We treat our families and friends differently, in the north an insult to one's mother is brushed off, in the south it's taken so seriously it causes intergenerational vendettas. In the north and west of Europe racism is considered its own taboo, in the east it's political capital. Open Jew haters in the west are ostracised, in the east they are prominent government parties.
To the rest of the world we might seem as one unanimous entity out to get them, and we might be closer to eachother than anyone else but to a Briton, a Frenchman or a German, serbia, greece, russia, are all foreign countries and certainly different enough to refuse to allow them any control over us willingly.

It is especially true for Britain because we have spent the last thousand years waging wars to prevent that, to roll over to Brussles without so much as a fight is the greatest betrayal we could make to our heritage. Think the amount of historical betrayal america would commit if they meekly transferred all thier power to a British King without so much as a wimper in defiance.

Now imagine it happened after 1000 years and hundreds of failed invasion attempts by said British Kings.


They had a technological advantage. The Chinese decision to close up shop to the world was not exactly an enlightened one, but it is not a decision Europeans would have ever made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_He...Dude, you ever heard of Switzerland?

[Husar]

Except for all your protestations, europeans are not all the same, we speak different languages, eat different foods, appreciae different trends in music at differnet times, there are racial differences between "white" nations in the north and "latino" nations in the south.
Hamburgers, pizzas and European fries are not "different foods". Other than that similar differences also exist between Wisconsin, Oregon and Louisiana, yet they're all part of the USA and mostly proud of it, too.

The languages are a small "problem" but not an insurmountable one, Belgium and Switzerland both have people speaking three different languages and yet they're united in one single country. You and I speak different languages and yet we can communicate because I'm flexible enough to adapt.

[Pannonian]

You and I speak different languages and yet we can communicate because I'm flexible enough to adapt.

True. There's nothing wrong with speaking foreign languages, as long as one speaks English as well.

[Ironside]

Right. Which is a very different approach than, say, Zheng He up there (or, rather, the people he was representing--Zheng He acted very un-chinese on his voyages, probably because he wasn't very Chinese himself). European adventuring (and, by extension, American adventuring) is a special kind of adventuring.

For reference: Name another block that you consider be as equal as Europeans.

I do find the notion about a historical unified Europe, when a large chunk of that "unified drive" is speculated to come from the constant rivalry and the need to be one step a head of your enemies.

[Brenus]

“in the north an insult to one's mother is brushed off, in the south it's taken so seriously it causes intergenerational vendettas”: Err, you probably don’t understand the local language in the south. Ask our Serbian Friend what is the favourite insult/swearing in Serbian and its translation, and you might have a surprise… Of course he can't as it would cost him a "notification" for bad language.:sweatdrop:

“europeans are not all the same” nor the USAnians as a French who travelled long time ago from Las Vegas to Salt Lake City can witness. They speak the same language, true…

“we have spent the last thousand years waging wars to prevent that”. This can be said for almost all European Countries. England is probably the last country falling entirely to the yoke of a foreign ruler (William), nearly lost it identity.
The last battle (against Foreigners others than the Scott) on English soil is 1217 (battle of Lincoln), but you had a (small) French Army in Ireland in 1798. I do not count small raids on the coast, nor the incursion of the Dutch Fleet in London.
Then the Royal family is from German Origin, whose Coat of Arm is written in French with French Symbols.

[HoreTore]

Hamburgers, pizzas and European fries are not "different foods". Other than that similar differences also exist between Wisconsin, Oregon and Louisiana, yet they're all part of the USA and mostly proud of it, too.

The languages are a small "problem" but not an insurmountable one, Belgium and Switzerland both have people speaking three different languages and yet they're united in one single country. You and I speak different languages and yet we can communicate because I'm flexible enough to adapt.

Turn the clock back a few centuries, and you'd be hard pressed to find a single European country without a zillion different languages, where few of them understood each other. France is the stand-out example of course, but countries like Spain or the UK weren't that far behind.

The ruling classes all spoke French, though. I guess that helped.

[Montmorency]

Its all well and good that the little tiny "nations" of Europe think they're special.


Be real here, Europe... you're special. Admit it.

:grin:


Europe is a distinct political entity, today, right now. Like the USA, or Russia, or China. The nations that make up Europe aren't. That was my point. All the side-tracking was just Europeans getting indignant.

Er, no, you were talking specifically about the early modern period, not about the political situation of contemporary Europe. That's what the entire debate was about...

I'm pretty sure we all agree that Europe today tries to project a unified foreign policy, though that still ignores the outsized mercantile power of Germany (with respect to China and India and Russia) today. And it would be dangerous to assume that Europe can not fracture in the future, that we can not ever have France + USA vs. UK + China vs. Germany + Russia...


Its a pretty weak definition either way. I would say the USA is no nation-state under his requirements, because the Corporations are autonomous bases of power that move across national borders and scheme at will

Um, no. The definition specifically excludes firms, churches, and kinship groups. The US is still a national state because it quite clearly has priority within its territory over all "corporations", no matter what some conspiracy theorists would have you believe. What multinationals pose for the future of the national state is of course a matter of debate - but not really relevant to either our definitions or our discussion at large.


I'm just saying that empirically, objectively, without the bias of giving a damn about "national" pride, Europeans are all the same.

Which you still have not substantiated.


On such a scale, ever since Rome fell, individual European nations have almost never mattered. It has been European civilization against all other forms of civilization. America is European civilization. European civilization is all that is left. It won. Not just the individual countries, but the entire culture and way of life.

So you read Huntington and bought into it, huh?


And I'm not so sure how well England or France fits it.

No, no, we're still talking about the early-modern period as far as I can tell. Historically speaking: the two above were the first to develop along those lines, and thus they were able to wage war more efficiently, and the political concessions that were linked with the improvements in efficiency led to the era of mass-mobilization (which ended the era of mercenary armies), which forced other European states to adopt these models to some extent, which were spread throughout the world via Anglo-French colonialism in the late 19th c., and which were adopted to a large degree by virtually every state in the world following WW2 - in a nutshell.

Are you sure the term "capitalized coercion" doesn't ring a bell?


If that is your definition, then China fits that bill perfectly.

China is an interesting case in that it has fluctuated continually between the three forms for millenia, probably owing in part to its size; England and France on the other hand became progressively more national over the Medieval and early modern period. With increasing (native) mercantile activity in various parts of China, central control weakened, as is expected for empires and city-states: strong commercial activity tends to produce city-states or similar agglomerations of fragmented sovereignty. In Europe meanwhile, more commercial activity in England and France led to the central authority enforcing cooperation between the merchants and the nobility, while appropriating the resources of both to increase their own war-making capacity. In European city-states such as Venice, however, the merchants subordinated the landlords, and in empires such as Poland, landlords subordinated the merchants. Chinese typical imperial levies were certainly not comparable to the mass-mobilization of citizenry that we can see, for example, in Napoleonic France; don't conflate mass with massive[I] mobilization, or else we'll have to include the Persian Empire of Antiquity. It's also important to recall that mass mobilization accompanied the extension of increasing numbers of privileges to the citizenry, as well as acquiescence to demands from the citizenry for deeper state intervention in the economy and for the cause of equitable adjudication. Furthermore, China was never very strongly unified and remained far more feudal than, say, 18th or even 17th c. England or France. There were many semi-autonomous nobles doing their own thing in China even as the English bureaucracy grew its remit to encompass all corners of the realm, for instance; that is to say, national states replaced indirect rule through local magnates owing nominal loyalty with direct rule through local representatives of the national government [I]itself, which China only rarely attempted to do and in a limited, typically unsuccessful/short-lived fashion at that.


I'd say Pax Romana

By-the-book empire. Led directly to feudal Europe. Next you'll be saying Imperial Russia was a national state? Bulky bureaucratic apparati for the purpose of military organization and maintenance are a classic feature of empires, and stem from inherent imperial instability.

EDIT: I'll probably have better opportunity to expound further on this in a response, but I should have mentioned more than obliquely is that one important factor of transition to national-statehood is the civilianization of administrative structures and purposes. So yes, many of the states in the developing world post-WW2 could habe been or still be called national-states in name only; what is important is that they adopted the surface organization of European (i.e. Anglo-French) states, pretty much universally.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Right. Which is a very different approach than, say, Zheng He up there (or, rather, the people he was representing--Zheng He acted very un-chinese on his voyages, probably because he wasn't very Chinese himself). European adventuring (and, by extension, American adventuring) is a special kind of adventuring.

Only in scale of the expedition, but not really in terms of objectives. Removing pirates, forging new trade & military alliances, reaffirming and refining existing knowledge of geography and topology, and displays of nautical might? How about the Portuguese?

[Kadagar_AV]

Estonia, former part of Soviet Union...
Turkey, an Islamist state...
Switzerland, with their neutrality...
England, the former colonial empire...

This is just 4 examples of national identity. I see GC's point though, and he is not all wrong.

There IS a European identity, just that it isn't "European", it's racial. A European Swede of course feel closer to a white USAnian compared towards a European guy from Turkey.

GC's point only made sense to me when I read "Europe" as the "Western White World". And yes, the western white world tend to bicker amongst itself until a common enemy can been found.

[Greyblades]

“in the north an insult to one's mother is brushed off, in the south it's taken so seriously it causes intergenerational vendettas”: Err, you probably don’t understand the local language in the south. Ask our Serbian Friend what is the favourite insult/swearing in Serbian and its translation, and you might have a surprise… Of course he can't as it would cost him a "notification" for bad language.:sweatdrop:When I said south I mean spain and Italy, not the balkans.
“europeans are not all the same” nor the USAnians as a French who travelled long time ago from Las Vegas to Salt Lake City can witness. They speak the same language, true…What's your point?


“we have spent the last thousand years waging wars to prevent that”. This can be said for almost all European Countries. England is probably the last country falling entirely to the yoke of a foreign ruler (William), nearly lost it identity.Debatable, considering we actually asked william to invade and most of us supported his "invasion". Also we didnt lose our identity, not even close.

The last battle (against Foreigners others than the Scott) on English soil is 1217 (battle of Lincoln), but you had a (small) French Army in Ireland in 1798. I do not count small raids on the coast, nor the incursion of the Dutch Fleet in London.And again, your point? All that seems to point out is that we were so successful we didnt get a foriegn enemy on our soil for 800 years, we fought off enemy invaders before they made land almost every time someone tried.

Then the Royal family is from German Origin, whose Coat of Arm is written in French with French Symbols.
We changed from scottish/english kings to scottish/english/german kings... and? Different Kings, same parliament, same country. Again, what exactly is your point here?

[Greyblades]

Ok then, I see his/your point as you have said it, so what is your argument?

[Greyblades]

Yup. It's also prevelant, quite hard to shift, and arguable that it needs addressing.

[Kadagar_AV]

His point is that all European countries have these intricate nationalistic histories that just so happen to be totally inter-dependent with other supposedly intricate nationalistic histories. All the little pieces hold the whole concept together.

All of these European "states" had the same idea of what constituted a "Barbarian" or the "Other." Once again, the Indian subcontinent is a good cultural comparison. Tons of languages, identities, and conflicting views of the past. Lots of regional "nationalism" that goes back hundreds of years. I would say, in many cases, that the differences they overcame were much deeper than the ones Europeans are still trying to overcome.

When?

No really, when did India overcome their differences? The last place I was to in India, 2 years ago, had quite clear social distinctions between Marathi speakers and the "others".

There are more than 30 languages spoken by people measured in the millions, and the nation does not have an official language.

So, when you say they overcame their differences, I just very mildly question "In what regards?"

The different cultural groups speak different languages and opt for different positions in the society's hierarchy, is what I understood from my visit. I am quite flabbergasted to understand you have such a different viewpoint!

[Kadagar_AV]

They overcame them by submitting to one government. That's the reality that they acknowledge, while still enjoying their petty differences when they can. To be fair, they only got to this point because of brutal imperialism, but hey... what does that suggest about the future of Europe?

Overcome = submitting?

The historian in me revolts...

There is a rather big gap between a culture overcoming something and submitting to something. I agree with you that they are submitted though, just like Yugoslavia.

But see, Yugoslavia was submitted. I stress to add that they in no way had overcome their cultural grievances though.

[Kadagar_AV]

I'm not saying the grievances ever will be reasonably overcome. The human condition lends itself to creating differences, not bridging them--observe how different parts of the USA become more and more distinct over time.

What I am saying is that the differences between European nations are so small that when you are talking about a global world, its just silly. Hardly a one of Europe's nations can afford to truly stand alone, and it has been like that for a very long time.

I was writing a refusal but thought twice.

Again, I very much go against your idea of "Europe". But the same argument for the western white world holds true.

The idea of "Europeans" just doesn't stick with me. In a global world compared to Europe, there are still racial and cultural ties FAR more important than some "European allegiance".

Honestly speaking, I think that the "Europe" you talk of would rather spend their money helping Japan deal with an earthquake than they would helping the European Nation of Turkey if they were hit by an earthquake.

Not because Japan is more European than Turkey, but because Japan more closely adhere to the "European" culture you talk about.

So I agree and disagree. I agree with your meaning, it's the specifics I question.

[Kadagar_AV]

Yeah... You'r not allowed to be a racist unless you get a dog. *side topic - just started*

[Greyblades]

I'm sure the Indians thought the same before the British showed up.

But the indians had no nukes. The days of conquest are done, we are in the age of stalemates now, any threat that looms becomes moot with a mention of Mutually Assured Destruction, and failing that one call to America. Today we are by defintion untouchable, the only viable threats we face is from eachother and until that changes we have the luxury of going on as we allways have been.

A united Europe might come one day, but we dont have any imperative to rush it.

[Greyblades]

Right, A united Europe might come one day, and it probably should, but we can take our time doing it.

I can only imagine the amount of crap we'd have to deal with if we were to forced to implement a united europe under what we currently have.

[Fisherking]

Back on topic, there are some things going on you should know about.

Dick Durbin wants to pass a law giving free speech only to “Real Journalists”. We don’t count!

Another attack on the bill of rights?
http://venturebeat.com/2013/07/04/restore-the-4th-galvanizes-over-100-nation-wide-protests-against-nsa-prism-and-government-spying/

I would rather have posted Durbin’s article rather than an Op-edd but if you wish to read his you have to register at the Chicago Sun-Times to read it so the link doesn’t work otherwise.





Was this noticed? http://venturebeat.com/2013/07/04/restore-the-4th-galvanizes-over-100-nation-wide-protests-against-nsa-prism-and-government-spying/


From their web site:

Beyond the Edward Snowden Question
Posted 1 week ago
by Robert Heldreth
The man who leaked the NSA's surveillance program, Edward Snowden, has received a lot of positive attention lately, especially from blogs and social media. Many think his act was heroic, and that the people of the United States deserved to know about this program. But it is a more controversial issue than it may appear to you. Many believe that Snowden is a traitor whose publication of secret documents aided our enemies and hurt our country. Still more do not trust his motivations for leaking the information, or fleeing to Hong Kong and then to Russia.#
Yet no matter how we feel about Edward Snowden, all of us have to face the fact that our government has been actively spying on us without probable cause. Remaining silent about this blatant violation of the Bill of Rights is no longer an option, regardless of your opinion of the man himself, or the other issues that have divided us.
We must now shift the bulk of our attention away from Edward Snowden. The most pressing and urgent question is this: How will we respond now that we know that the government is violating the constitution on this scale? And what actions must we take to ensure that our leaders not only hear our voices, but listen?#
Many organizations are taking a stand right now. Mozilla started the website stopwatching.us, the ACLU is preparing a# fight in the courts, and grassroots movements are popping up across the country to speak out. But there are many more actions that must be taken, and the person who can most make a difference is you.
The first action is to force our representatives to take notice of us.# Call or email your congressperson and senators# daily from now until the fourth of July, holding them accountable for their complacency regarding the NSA and PRISM, and demanding action to protect us from all unconstitutional surveillance methods. Visit# restorethefourth.net# and sign up for your local protest. Even if you can’t make it, you can use the website to# print out flyers# or join the conversation on# social media sites. The more we blog, tweet, post, and comment about this issue, the more citizens that take notice, and the louder our voices get. Your skills can help out as well. From computer programmers to musicians, all are welcome and needed in local movements and by the# national organizers.
July 4th 2013 will be a fun filled celebration of our independence and the birth of our great country. It will also be a day that we can all join together as citizens, and demand that our government uphold our constitution.


http://www.restorethefourth.net/blog/

And also this:http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/06/20136279224388386.html

[Ironside]

You could absolutely replace my usage of Europe with white western world. I avoid doing that because I don't want to be confused for a racist.

Do the latinos count into that?

[Husar]

Keep in mind that I've been arguing for a way of looking at things, not for an actual campaign of unification. If I was a European, I would be very politically opposed to the EU not unlike Frags himself (minus the strange Islamophobia).

What's wrong with you now? :stare:

Oh wait, you're an American and need to protect your hegemony. :whip:

[Montmorency]

An interesting thought:

These telecomms spying operations must require a lot of data storage, likely meaning consumer-model HDDs. That sort of magnetic storage doesn't last forever, however, or even that many decades.

So the NSA probably has a metaphorical mountain of hard drives in some storage facility somewhere. Hopefully, at least. (If it's on a consumer-available cloud of some sort, then I would worry about long-term security...) So, while all that must be expensive, I imagine that beyond that quite a lot of labor-cost must go to maintenance of this stuff and the transfer of data to storage.

At some point, will the NSA take on the task of moving over all the data onto newer modes or items of storage? Who will they hire - temps, as for the census? How will these deal with it in a secure fashion? How much will it cost the taxpayer to continue to continue handling secret recordings of their grandparents?

Gnomesayin'?

[Fisherking]

That is an utterly ridiculous statement! Culturally singular Europe? Did some one hijack the GC account?

It sounds more like someone with a V or a W is behind this stuff.

Are you smoking something funny ATM?

[Empire*Of*Media]

of course hero! Like Julian Asange! standing against a powerful worldwide imperialism is heroic! but still, many many many more is to be revealed of USA secrets! this secrets that he revealed was not that much!
This Superclass or called the ELITE will not let their good top secrets be revealed!!

[HoreTore]

Anna Chapman has asked Snowden to marry her.

The guy is definitely the winner. You all lost.

[Strike For The South]

Arabs exploded out of the peninsula and swept away 600 years of Eastern Christendom.

How is that not colonization?

Do they need sailing ships?

[Husar]

Anna Chapman has asked Snowden to marry her.

The guy is definitely the winner. You all lost.

Like I said, dumb move not to stay in Russia.

Excuse me while I try to get some secret government documents.... :sweatdrop:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Apparently so: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4997662/anna-chapman-asks-edward-snowden-will-you-marry-me.html

So - Traitor, and now international laughing stock.

[Kadagar_AV]

I'd like mentions of the future Mrs AV in a separate thread... Preferably with pictures.

[Fisherking]

Apparently so: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4997662/anna-chapman-asks-edward-snowden-will-you-marry-me.html

So - Traitor, and now international laughing stock.


It is fine that you choose to follow the axiom, My Country Right or Wrong in assessing his guilt.

I, on the other hand, and a larger number of Americans, tend to follow Mark Twain’s definition “Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.”

Snowden obviously betrayed that government but he did a service to the American People and the rest of the world in pointing up those abuses.

The rest of what he has done or said is of little weight beside that.

It was not anything some of us did not know or some of us may have suspected but he brought us the proof of those activities which could possibly stop or slow down their abuses.

[Brenus]

“Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” Agree. Once upon a time, we (the West) were welcoming the Heroes coming from the Eastern Block, after having denounced the KGB heavy hand on USSR and the rest of the World…

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It is fine that you choose to follow the axiom, My Country Right or Wrong in assessing his guilt.

I, on the other hand, and a larger number of Americans, tend to follow Mark Twain’s definition “Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.”

Snowden obviously betrayed that government but he did a service to the American People and the rest of the world in pointing up those abuses.

The rest of what he has done or said is of little weight beside that.

It was not anything some of us did not know or some of us may have suspected but he brought us the proof of those activities which could possibly stop or slow down their abuses.

I disagree - he has floated US law - he is quite clearly a traitor under the law, and he has fled to avoid prosecution. Had he been a hero, he would have stayed and submitted himself to the legal system. Either he would be acquitted, demonstrating the strength of American Justice, or he would be convicted and his conviction would spur change.

I support of this argument - I submit the case of Socrates.

[Montmorency]

I submit the case of Socrates.

Do we know that this meant anything to anyone other than Plato?

[a completely inoffensive name]

I support of this argument - I submit the case of Socrates.

I have read the Crito and I seem to recall Socrates argument to be as follows. Correct me if my reading was off please.

P1: It is worse to do harm than to suffer it.
P2: To violate the law, is to go against the wishes of the populace who have put these laws in place, and is to do an act of harm against them and the rule of law.
P3: Therefore we must follow the laws no matter how just or unjust they have been crafted and implemented.

If you wish to present Socrates as a case, you must be ready to defend this defense. Premise 1 is certainly not set in stone among many people here I would think. Premise two is also certainly up for debate as well.

Do you mean to tell me that since you follow Socrates' example that you are a complete pacifist?

[Papewaio]

Justice =/= Law

Socrates view is that group think drones trump individual freedom.

That point of view might work in a facist society it clearly is at odds with the founding documents of the US.

[Brenus]

Socrates’ case: I take (I didn’t check) it as ACIN describes it: So the German’s traitors are the anti-Nazi, the Russian’s traitors are the ones against U.S.S.R., the Cubans traitors are the Anti-Castro ones, and so on. So the Baroness Thatcher was right when telling that Nelson Mandela was a terrorist…
This is a strange view of the justice and the world. If injustice is the law, it is justice because it is legal…

More seriously, what about the “justice” at Guantanamo Bay and “the strength of American Justice”? I would say he Knows it and decided wisely not to go for it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I just don't get it. Its never wrong alert the world to an injustice.

If your argument against that is that spying isn't injustice, its government, then I respond by saying that it has never been properly put to the people in the first place. Of course its an injustice.

Your notion that he should have stayed and gone to trial is just silly. That's asking someone to fall on their sword in a way you can't possibly relate to, or have the moral standing to ask of them.


I have read the Crito and I seem to recall Socrates argument to be as follows. Correct me if my reading was off please.

P1: It is worse to do harm than to suffer it.
P2: To violate the law, is to go against the wishes of the populace who have put these laws in place, and is to do an act of harm against them and the rule of law.
P3: Therefore we must follow the laws no matter how just or unjust they have been crafted and implemented.

If you wish to present Socrates as a case, you must be ready to defend this defense. Premise 1 is certainly not set in stone among many people here I would think. Premise two is also certainly up for debate as well.

Do you mean to tell me that since you follow Socrates' example that you are a complete pacifist?

The title of the thread was "Hero or Traitor".

My argument is two fold.

1. Under US law he is a traitor - once for disclosing classified information that harms the US, twice for running from the authorities after.

2. He is not a hero because he ran - by running he abandons the country he purports to benefit, by running to Her enemies he benefits then and harms the US. If Snowden faced the law of the US he would be putting up a defense, as it is he has run and to me that suggests he thinks he is guilty. He knew the law when he did what he did, subsequently he has made every effort to avoid the consequences of his actions.

Oh - yes - ACIN is fundamentally correct about the Crito - and it seems Xenophon agreed.

[Papewaio]

Which US is he harming?

The government with secret courts and by implication laws?
The Consitution?
Or the people?

Which is the most important?

[HopAlongBunny]

He showed the wisdom of a messenger with bad news for people who don't want to hear it.:bow:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Which US is he harming?

The government with secret courts and by implication laws?
The Consitution?
Or the people?

Which is the most important?

Trying to separate the three is absurd - 9/11 happened to people in the US because of how other people saw the US Government. The suggestion that the US has "secret laws" is totally unjustified - per definition a law has to be published in the Statute Books to be enforceable.

Now - just in case people missed it - I'll state it again. My argument stands specifically on the classified information Snowden has released about foreign espionage acts carried out by the US against other states. All states do this for their own security, including Germany, and the US has not been "caught" at it, the US has been betrayed by one of its own spies.

Had Snowden stopped short of that and confined himself to domestic abuses of the Constitution, he would be on fairly solid ground as a Whistleblower. If memory serves - didn't he only flee the US once the foreign files had been released?

[Papewaio]

There is a difference between the three.

One is the State bureaucracy and apparatus.
The other the ideals it is founded on.
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

The third the people it is supposed to be governed on behalf of.

"that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

It is supposed to be a government of and for the people. One which protects the people's liberties, freedoms and pursuit of happiness.

A government which spies on its people's every communication at whim. That denies that is does so even as it pursues broader and deeper methods of doing so. A government which will use these powers out of context and out of proportion for crimes that do not materially impact on the safety of its people.

Yes there is a definitive difference between the three. It has been a staple of these boards for people to denounce a government yet embrace a nations people. What is rarely a odds is a country to veer so far and hard from its own character.

As the man of steel is out. Lets remember how the US used to be summed up "Truth, Justice and the American Way" these used to be synonymous not juxtapositions.

[Fisherking]

Well said Pape


And yes, they have secret courts. Snowden’s case would not be an open trial. Chances are he would get a military tribunal, but I am not sure on that.

As the programs etc. are secret, which kept people from taking the government to court on them, it is unlikely he would get anything like a normal trial but he was charged under the WWI espionage act which in its self has serious constructional issues.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This would be true if you could trust the system to give him a fair trial. As has already been pointed out, that's unlikely to be the case.

Now I find that you seem to be unable or unwilling to separate the government and the people. One is perfectly capable of being a patriot and being hated by one's government.

I'm not saying they're inseparable - I'm saying that separating them is a false distinction. Saying "oh, it only harms the government" is an excuse with an extremely short lifespan.

If you know your history you'll know that one of the first shots in the Colonial fight for rights and representation came in of a case against a printer. That aside, the US can have his trial behind closed doors but they can't pretend it isn't going on.

I believe that if Snowden had only exposed the Verizon abuses, he would have a fair trial because of public opinion. By overstepping into the genuinely treasonous he has allowed himself to be painted as an Enemy of the State - running has only made that worse.

Snowden's actions have undermined any good he might have done.

[Fisherking]

I believe that if Snowden had only exposed the Verizon abuses, he would have a fair trial because of public opinion. By overstepping into the genuinely treasonous he has allowed himself to be painted as an Enemy of the State - running has only made that worse.

Snowden's actions have undermined any good he might have done.

No, I don’t think so.

He has surely harmed the government, one guilty of disregarding their own founding laws and documents while perusing the theft of rights and freedoms granted their own citizens.

So we spy on China, and China spies on us, big deal. We also spy on the EU and there governments and citizens. How does knowing this harm the American people?

It only shows the extent of government abuses that are taking place world wide.

The secret courts don’t use the Constitution in assessing the legality of an issue or determining its legality. They use the Patriot Act and the Defense Authorization Act for that. And the Constitution be damned.

There is no justice in federal law, it is just a legal system. What happened with Nuremberg? Isn’t an illegal order still illegal? If you don’t disobey are you not guilty of the crime?

Crossing the government is like crossing the Mafia. You would have to be mad to turn your self in.

The NDAA allows for government detention without trial or representation in a secret location indefinitely. People who are a problem for them need never be charged or tried. Only disappeared.

[Fisherking]

hum, double post...

see below

[Fisherking]

I love the Nuremberg trials. If we were to obey the precedent we ourselves set there, George W. Bush and much of his cabinet would be in prison for conspiracy to wage aggressive war.


LOL, Uncle Joe vetoed that part, or did you not recall? A little matter of Poland & Finland with parts of Romania thrown in.

Anyway, I will see your war of agression and raise you drone assassinations

The Republicans took us over a slippery slope and now we see the Democrats greasing the skids. Pardon me if I see little difference in how they behave in office, just which lies they tell to get there.

[a completely inoffensive name]

From the June 6th interview.

"The US government will say I aided and abetted our enemies. They will say I violated the espionage act." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/jul/08/edward-snowden-video-interview)

Congrats PVC, I applaud your loyalty to a foreign government.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

From the June 6th interview.

"The US government will say I aided and abetted our enemies. They will say I violated the espionage act." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/jul/08/edward-snowden-video-interview)

Congrats PVC, I applaud your loyalty to a foreign government.

Shockingly - that's how the US justice system deal with what he's done.

Treason Act basics - this - foreign government, release of secret information into public domain, perpetrator flees country?

He'd be strung up in any Commonwealth country too.

[drone]

So we spy on China, and China spies on us, big deal. We also spy on the EU and there governments and citizens. How does knowing this harm the American people?

This is not what Snowden revealed, and it is not what he deserves to tried for. As has been mentioned several times in this thread, the fact that the US spies on friends and enemies alike is not a mindblowing revelation. What Snowden revealed is how it is done. Disclosing means and methods is how people get killed and information channels lost. Read up on the hoops the US and British went through to keep the Enigma secret during WW2.

So I will say it again: He should have stayed in country, kept on message with possible illegal actions by the government only, and acted like he thought he was right. Now he is just a huge leak that the US is trying to shut off by any means necessary, because he has given no indication that he can keep his mouth shut about anything.

[Papewaio]

What happened to Aaron Swartz again?

[drone]

What happened to Aaron Swartz again?

He was targeted by an over-zealous Massachusetts prosecutor for breaking a website's ToS. He committed suicide. He also didn't sign a contract stating that he would protect classified information. Your point being?

[Papewaio]

He was targeted by an over-zealous Massachusetts prosecutor for breaking a website's ToS. He committed suicide. He also didn't sign a contract stating that he would protect classified information. Your point being?

If an Internet activist is hounded to death what are the chances of a fair hearing for Snowden?

If that is the standard of justice for something far more benign (the liberating of scientific papers) then imagine the personal toll the system will be willing to unleash.

Gives reason to run.

[drone]

The contract is another thing. It is outside of the law in almost every concievable way. If there was even a chance that the legitimacy of the NSA's secrecy could be challenged I would say yes, he should have stayed, but there isn't. His choices were between life in prison (or worse) and running away. Don't tell me you'd have done something different? This guy deserves a hefty fine and a blacklisting at the very worst.
You only gave two choices. As far as I can tell, he had four:
life in prison (or worse)
running away
not disclosing anything
blabbing about everything he knows, legal or not
He chose 2 and 4, and he chose poorly.


Ah well. When they start going after activist leaders for being too outspoken, then I'll say I told you so.
They already do that, where have you been? ~D

If an Internet activist is hounded to death what are the chances of a fair hearing for Snowden?

If that is the standard of justice for something far more benign (the liberating of scientific papers) then imagine the personal toll the system will be willing to unleash.

I still fail to see how a State prosecutor with political ambitions abusing the absurd penalties of the CFAA relates to a federal espionage/treason case.

[Papewaio]

If the state can casually cause so much damage for letting loose journals. Just remember Aaron Swartz was investigated by the Secret Service for his activities and it wasn't just a single prosecutor.

What would be the outcome of a focused anger of many different layers of state do to Snowden?

[drone]

If the state can casually cause so much damage for letting loose journals. Just remember Aaron Swartz was investigated by the Secret Service for his activities and it wasn't just a single prosecutor.
The Secret Service is tasked with computer crimes/fraud, it's been that way for years. IIRC it is because they are part of the Treasury department. Same with counterfeiters.

[Fisherking]

The polls on the American Peoples’ take on this are all over the place.

I attribute that to the way the questions are phrased.

I think a lot of that has to do with the PR aspects of the case.

There are several overlaps in groups from the left and right. Some of the rhetoric in these so called anylisess even borders on scurrilous.

It is not only the loony left and the black helicopter Tea Party right that is concerned with rights.

The Law And Order right is also allied with the zero tolerance and gun control left in wanting to see Snowden put to an end.

They already portray you as mad or extreme if you take a position.

Snowden has revealed very little. He has named a few programs and said we are spying on everyone. He said his greatest fear was that people would do nothing.

He spoke of turnkey tyranny and the ability of the government, or people in the government to target anyone. This is real and this is now!

Some people say he should have followed the whistleblower procedures, but there really are none. People have come out in different ways at different times and been subjected to ruinous litigation, marginalization, imprisonment, suicide, or untimely death to get their stories out. Usually without people paying enough attention.

Did he aid the enemies of the US? I seriously doubt it. I would imagine most if not all foreign intelligence services already knew this and more. It is just governmental posturing and distraction for people concerned with loyalty issues or the war on terror.

The government assault on rights is much larger than this issue alone. We have been pressured on gun rights and free speech been treated to the demonstration in Boston of police regard for the 4th amendment and this only pointing up more a first and forth amendment abuse.

Now some in Congress want to legislate who is a journalist and who is not.

All I see is a government so bent on making and keeping secrets, supposedly for the sake of security, that it trumps our rights as individuals.

Our founders were all traitors to government. The founded a system to guarantee individual rights and liberties and to give the people a voice in government. If they broke with their government over quartering troops, imposing taxes, and restrictions on arms and speech, what do you think they would make of this?

[Fisherking]

Sorry about a double post but as I said of the left and right agreement on the issue at hand:

http://www.alternet.org/print/media/how-do-you-know-when-president-obama-lying-msnbcs-progressive-hosts-wont-tell-you

As it is altenet and a former MSNBC senior produce writing an article about Snowden and liberal media bias I thought it might just be pertinent to the discussion.

[HopAlongBunny]

Escaping threats and possible execution freedom fighter looks to Russia for asylum!

Wow! never thought in my life I would be reading that

[Husar]

Escaping threats and possible execution freedom fighter looks to Russia for asylum!

Wow! never thought in my life I would be reading that

Doesn't surprise me at all, see my previous posts on the subject. It's a good choice but one he may not have made as a permanent one.

Apparently he did it because he can't leave the country anyway due to his passport having been revoked.
What surprises me about all that is how he seems to be in such trouble despite allegedly having flown there with several wikileaks lawyers.
They don't seem to be of much help concerning this whole escape issue or why is all of that taking so long?

[Brenus]

“Did he aid the enemies of the US? I seriously doubt it”: Yes and no. Yesterday, French news: Microsoft gave to the US government agencies the keys and codes to listen (hack) into Foreign Accounts. Problem in France is that when modernising the Secret Service's Computer System, the French Government gave the contract to … Microsoft.
So, I suppose that now, Microsoft will have to come up with solid explanations or will have to face big compensation for breach of contract…
Well, it is how it should be with a proper French Government, not the one you have actually…

[Furunculus]

I understand that temporary retention of communication metadata is the best way to harness internet interception, but I am delighted that the Snowden's of the world exist.

Society must have at least a basic understanding of what is done in their name.

Moreover, they must understand that in tacitly accepting this secrecy the only assurance they have that this does not turn into total surveillance is the hope that they can continue to generate data faster than GCHQ can store it. Thus the current three month retention limit on communication metadata.

This next is difficult to express; it is a good thing that torture is deemed illegal, but it is necessary thing that the intelligence services will go outside the law in extremis, which makes it an essential thing that the public is appalled when it comes to light that such things occasionally need to be done.

Society must never come to accept total surveillance, or torture, so if this required blanket of greys is not to smother the society it shields then the likes of Snowden are a necessary sacrifice from time to time.

He is a traitor, without doubt, but thank god.

[Franconicus]

I understand that temporary retention of communication metadata is the best way to harness internet interception, but I am delighted that the Snowden's of the world exist.

Society must have at least a basic understanding of what is done in their name.

Moreover, they must understand that in tacitly accepting this secrecy the only assurance they have that this does not turn into total surveillance is the hope that they can continue to generate data faster than GCHQ can store it. Thus the current three month retention limit on communication metadata.

This next is difficult to express; it is a good thing that torture is deemed illegal, but it is necessary thing that the intelligence services will go outside the law in extremis, which makes it an essential thing that the public is appalled when it comes to light that such things occasionally need to be done.

Society must never come to accept total surveillance, or torture, so if this required blanket of greys is not to smother the society it shields then the likes of Snowden are a necessary sacrifice from time to time.

He is a traitor, without doubt, but thank god.

You think torture and surveillance may be necessary from time to time? Is this what the War of Independence was for? Are you a supporter Stalin's and Mao's ideas :inquisitive:

[Tellos Athenaios]

Society must never come to accept total surveillance, or torture, so if this required blanket of greys is not to smother the society it shields then the likes of Snowden are a necessary sacrifice from time to time.

I find myself in agreement with Furunculus on matters that are not related to gadgetry ... :dizzy2:

[Beskar]

Looks like there is poltical will for greater transparency - http://allthingsd.com/20130717/apple-google-facebook-microsoft-twitter-and-others-to-mount-push-for-more-nsa-transparency/

[Brenus]

“You think torture and surveillance may be necessary from time to time? Are you a supporter Stalin's and Mao's ideas ?” Out dated people. G. W. Bush and his administration are your men of reference now.

[Franconicus]

Just red an article in a German paper. http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/nsa-affaere-klaus-brinkbaeumer-kritisiert-die-usa-a-911799.html

It is citing Nicholas Kristof of the Ney York Time. If this is correct, an average per year of 23 Americans were killed in the "War against Terror" since 2005, most of them abroad. More Americans are killed by falling from ladders.
Since 2001 the USA spend 8 billion dollars for military and home defence.

30.000 Americans are killed each year by guns. That US children are killed by guns is 8 times more likely than at any other western country.
Yet, Americans (and the gun lobby) does not accept to limit the right to have guns.

So why do the Americans accept that their civil rights are massively limited? Why do they accept secret laws and courts? Why do some think that torture is acceptable in the fight against terror. Why do they think that it allows them do break the civil rights of million citizens of allied countries?

I never thought that it would be possible that the terrorists would defeat America in such an extend.

[Husar]

Because made-up outside scare factors have always been a good distraction from actual local problems?

[a completely inoffensive name]

The government has been pulling fast ones over our heads since 1877 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1877).

(It has been argued.)

[Husar]

If the goal of a terrorist is to cause your enemy to react to you politically, then they have succeeded beyond all their wildest dreams. But it would not be fair to lay all the blame for our totally extra-legal intelligence apparatus on the war on terror, since the Cold War is actually where that started. Reagan didn't need a Patriot Act to do all the stuff he did. We didn't need it to start Vietnam on what is now known to be false pretenses. Our government has a long history of playing us for chumps, but the motive is often nothing more sinister than short-term distraction. The sheer scale of the NSA's domestic surveillance program suggests that maybe the motives are a bit more sinister these days.

You mean like, Russia was and still is a convenient outside scare factor that is used to distract people from local issues which are not being tackled by pointing the finger at the devil at the border?

[drone]

We have always been at war with Eastasia. The wars on X (drugs, terror, whatever) are just power grabs. No self-respecting politician would let an opportunity like 9/11 pass without trying to grab a little more, and the media did their part playing it up. For the death toll of about 3 months on US roads, we plundered the treasury, alienated our allies, and have given away our rights. People just freaked out and forgot the basic principle of American society: no one kills Americans better than other Americans, the terrorists are just amateurs.

[Fisherking]

Everyone should know when the government creates a new department you are going to suffer for it.

The DHS was a mistake from the start as was all of the reactionary legislation. It always is, no matter what the emergency.

We are perhaps marginally safer flying today than we were in 2001, but that is debatable. All they needed to do was stop box cutters from being legal to transport and to restaff airport security with US nationals rather than recent immigrants.

We then went after two repressive regimes because there was no place else to look, unless we wanted to go back to Somalia or into Sudan.

We have spent billions on hi-tech toys but no one is any safer and all of us have and are sacrificing our liberties for it.

[drone]

We are perhaps marginally safer flying today than we were in 2001, but that is debatable. All they needed to do was stop box cutters from being legal to transport and to restaff airport security with US nationals rather than recent immigrants.

Locking the cockpit doors is the main improvement.

[Papewaio]

I'd say the biggest improvement isn't legislation nor infrastructue nor hitech toys nor lockable cockpits.

It's passenger not sitting like sheep hoping someone will save them. Not only is this change the most effective, it happened the quickest. The fourth plane didnt crash where the terrorists wanted because the people fought back based on knowledge of what was happening.

Everything since then has been relatively cost ineffective in comparison.

[Fisherking]

Now, back to Snowden.

Just food for thought but:

The Espionage Act is about giving secrets to Enemy Governments with which we are at war.

All these leakers are being charged with it, does this mean the government considers its people as an enemy with which they are at war?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Now, back to Snowden.

Just food for thought but:

The Espionage Act is about giving secrets to Enemy Governments with which we are at war.

All these leakers are being charged with it, does this mean the government considers its people as an enemy with which they are at war?

No - because the leaks are being released to everyone​ and the US is at war with Muslim Terrorists, and the leaks benefit them. The internal logic is sound

[Fisherking]

No - because the leaks are being released to everyone​ and the US is at war with Muslim Terrorists, and the leaks benefit them. The internal logic is sound

Yeah, you bet. They just happen to be benefiting the US public. Government abuse covering its tracks with prosecutions.

No, thank you very much, but hell no!

[Furunculus]

You think torture and surveillance may be necessary from time to time? Is this what the War of Independence was for? Are you a supporter Stalin's and Mao's ideas :inquisitive:

Yes.

With serious terrorism, I do.

I can imagine instances where atrocities are imminent, and a lead is available if uncooperative.

I want that information.

I don't want to waterboard him because he's a bad man, I want him waterboarded because lesser methods have failed and an experienced interrogator believe it will extract the answers needed.

If a pleasant manner and a sympathetic approach gets the answer great.
If blackmailing him with sending his gay-porn to his deeply religious father gets the results brilliant.
If physical harm is considered to be ineffective given the chaps character, absolutely don't do it.

I'm not american, I don't have a dog in the legacy of independence race.