Edward Snowden, Hero or Traitor?

[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."

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."

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?

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/...-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

[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 ...

[Beskar]

Looks like there is poltical will for greater transparency - http://allthingsd.com/20130717/apple...-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-af...-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.

(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?