Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New Yorker)   "These charges [against Snowden] send a clear message," the spokesman said. "In the United States, you can't spy on people"   (newyorker.com ) divider line
    More: Ironic  
•       •       •

2481 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Jun 2013 at 8:59 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



210 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-06-23 11:24:21 PM  

some_beer_drinker: Sgygus: The Emperor's New Clothes:  "But he has nothing on at all," said a little child at last.

this times a million. come on people, we all KNEW this before he said it. snowden IS that little kid. for farks sake!


You'd expect an authoritarian government, given the tools, to spy on it's own people.

You would not expect that a freedom loving democracy, given those same tools, to do the same.

So, the only way to have "known" about this before would be to have already been cynical enough to view our government in the same light as say, the Soviet Union.  Or China.

I did not know about this.  I guess I still had a shred of leftover faith in my country, and that blinded me.
 
2013-06-23 11:25:48 PM  
Snowden is a traitor because the government, through the media, controls the narrative

It sure looks like that.
 
2013-06-23 11:26:07 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Interesting how some people seem to think, however that "I have no problem with X, so nobody should have a problem with X" ought to be the end of the debate.


Who, me?

No, I am deathly afraid of this debate ending prematurely.  This issue needs to be resolved.
 
2013-06-23 11:26:12 PM  

sendtodave: Can we just use standard definitions, then, please?


You'll also find standard definitions of "literally" which say that the term is also used a generic intensifier. That's how dictionaries are written - they're descriptive of how people are using (or misusing) the words of the time; they're not prescriptive.

That doesn't change the fact that a perfectly good and useful word is being watered down by people who could just as easily say something "leaker" instead.
 
2013-06-23 11:27:55 PM  

RanDomino: Biological Ali
All I'm trying to do is keep "whistleblower" from going the same way as terms like "literally" and "begging the question". If you're dead set on watering this very useful term to the point where loses all significance, I obviously can't stop you. All I can hope is that enough other people continue to use it right, because once terms like these are lost, they're very hard to replace.

And "entrapment", right?


You're really hung up on "entrapment" for some reason. Is there a story you'd like to share with us?
 
2013-06-23 11:29:15 PM  

Lackofname: Sorry guys, I didn't realize the New Yorker posted satire.

/Subby


Hey, it's the Fark Politics tab. It's not like people actually read the articles or anything.

No harm, no foul.
 
2013-06-23 11:30:25 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: Is there any meaningful debate going on?

Nope...they're all tied up with REAL scandals like Benghazi and the IRS.


Those scandals would tie up people a lot more if there were Snowden-like whistle-blowers.
 
2013-06-23 11:30:25 PM  

Biological Ali: sendtodave: Can we just use standard definitions, then, please?

You'll also find standard definitions of "literally" which say that the term is also used a generic intensifier. That's how dictionaries are written - they're descriptive of how people are using (or misusing) the words of the time; they're not prescriptive.

That doesn't change the fact that a perfectly good and useful word is being watered down by people who could just as easily say something "leaker" instead.


Or "rat fink."

"Whistle-blower" only has positive connotations because it is ratting someone out for the "greater good."  Or, at least, what you believe to be the greater good.    But it's still means "stoolie."

Again,. it's an "end justifies the means" thing, to my mind.
 
2013-06-23 11:32:08 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: Is there any meaningful debate going on?

Nope...they're all tied up with REAL scandals like Benghazi and the IRS.


Did I hear someone say Benghazi?

img.fark.net
 
2013-06-23 11:33:50 PM  

sendtodave: Again,. it's an "end justifies the means" thing, to my mind.


So, to expound on that, anyone who would prefer to call Snowden other synonyms for whistle-blower that have less positive connotations ("leaker," neural, "traitor," negative) obviously don't think the ends (informing the public about his program) justified the means (breaking the law).

Which I have a problem with.  Because I feel that this is a Big Farking Deal.
 
2013-06-23 11:33:56 PM  

sendtodave: Gyrfalcon: Interesting how some people seem to think, however that "I have no problem with X, so nobody should have a problem with X" ought to be the end of the debate.

Who, me?

No, I am deathly afraid of this debate ending prematurely.  This issue needs to be resolved.


It was resolved.  Our elected representatives are okay with it.
Just like Obamacare.
You need to get over it.
 
2013-06-23 11:34:10 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: Is there any meaningful debate going on?

Nope...they're all tied up with REAL scandals like Benghazi and the IRS.

Those scandals would tie up people a lot more if there were Snowden-like whistle-blowers.


There might be whistle-blowers if they were scandals.
 
2013-06-23 11:34:45 PM  

sendtodave: uknesvuinng: 2wolves: The charges that are still sealed and considered secret? Those charges?

If by "still sealed and considered secret" you mean "were unsealed on Friday afternoon", then yes, those charges.

Link

Huh.  So, they want to change him with espionage, but to get around Hong Kong's "We won't extradite political criminals" law, they framed it as "theft of government property."

Oh, no, we won't try him for committing a political crime!  Just theft!

They straight up farking lied to the HK government.


Umm, know.  You mischaracterize both HK law and what the U.S. communicated.

First, the U.S. doesn't classify any crimes as "political."   It's just a felony.  He violated numerous U.S. laws.  Multiple federal felonies would be about the only classification.

Second, Hong Kong has the option not to expedite if they determine it's a political crime AND it's in their interest not to extradite.  They can still extradite for crimes even if they determined they are political.  It's there option.

The U.S. expected Hong Kong to comply with a request for the return of a U.S. citizen indicted in a U.S. federal court.  It's a major embarrassment that U.S. was unable to accomplish this and seriously degrades the U.S. image in the world.   Syria, Iran,and North Korea just had a "we got your back:" moment over this one person.
 
2013-06-23 11:35:18 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: sendtodave: Gyrfalcon: Interesting how some people seem to think, however that "I have no problem with X, so nobody should have a problem with X" ought to be the end of the debate.

Who, me?

No, I am deathly afraid of this debate ending prematurely.  This issue needs to be resolved.

It was resolved.  Our elected representatives are okay with it.
Just like Obamacare.
You need to get over it.


Seems more like rule of man than rule of law.

Because they are perfectly fine with whatever law they pass.
 
2013-06-23 11:39:07 PM  

tbeatty: First, the U.S. doesn't classify any crimes as "political." It's just a felony. He violated numerous U.S. laws. Multiple federal felonies would be about the only classification.


Good point.  It's almost if HK law is better equipped to deal with political dissidents.

The U.S. expected Hong Kong to comply with a request for the return of a U.S. citizen indicted in a U.S. federal court.  It's a major embarrassment that U.S. was unable to accomplish this and seriously degrades the U.S. image in the world.   Syria, Iran,and North Korea just had a "we got your back:" moment over this one person

You're lumping Hong Kong in with friggen Syria, Iran, and North Korea because it didn't do what the US wanted it to do?
 
2013-06-23 11:41:43 PM  

sendtodave: tbeatty: First, the U.S. doesn't classify any crimes as "political." It's just a felony. He violated numerous U.S. laws. Multiple federal felonies would be about the only classification.

Good point.  It's almost if HK law is better equipped to deal with political dissidents.

The U.S. expected Hong Kong to comply with a request for the return of a U.S. citizen indicted in a U.S. federal court.  It's a major embarrassment that U.S. was unable to accomplish this and seriously degrades the U.S. image in the world.   Syria, Iran,and North Korea just had a "we got your back:" moment over this one person

You're lumping Hong Kong in with friggen Syria, Iran, and North Korea because it didn't do what the US wanted it to do?


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-06-23 11:43:34 PM  

sendtodave: tenpoundsofcheese: sendtodave: Gyrfalcon: Interesting how some people seem to think, however that "I have no problem with X, so nobody should have a problem with X" ought to be the end of the debate.

Who, me?

No, I am deathly afraid of this debate ending prematurely.  This issue needs to be resolved.

It was resolved.  Our elected representatives are okay with it.
Just like Obamacare.
You need to get over it.

Seems more like rule of man than rule of law.

Because they are perfectly fine with whatever law they pass.


Yeah, that is always how it is.
That is why we have so many ridiculous laws, regulations and a gazzillion page tax code.
 
2013-06-23 11:44:28 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: Is there any meaningful debate going on?

Nope...they're all tied up with REAL scandals like Benghazi and the IRS.

Those scandals would tie up people a lot more if there were Snowden-like whistle-blowers.

There might be whistle-blowers if they were scandals.


You see how they treat whistleblowers?  This is first administration to go after the press since the Pentagon Papers and the Nixon administration.  Heck, even David Gregory was asking about going after the journalists.  See Thomas Allen Drake for whistleblowers.  Bush left the journalists alone.  Not Obama.
 
2013-06-23 11:50:20 PM  

sendtodave: sendtodave: Again,. it's an "end justifies the means" thing, to my mind.

So, to expound on that, anyone who would prefer to call Snowden other synonyms for whistle-blower that have less positive connotations ("leaker," neural, "traitor," negative) obviously don't think the ends (informing the public about his program) justified the means (breaking the law).

Which I have a problem with.  Because I feel that this is a Big Farking Deal.


Well, Snowden isn't a "traitor" either, except under some heavy watering-down, as with "whistleblower".

And re: whistleblower being a synonym for rat fink etc., I wouldn't have a problem if people used it consistently that way (well, I would still have a problem to be honest, just not as big a problem). My main issue is with people who accept that there is a moral component to "whistleblower" and that there are some standards inherent in the term (as evidenced by the people who say they don't consider Manning a whistleblower), but who insist on calling Snowden one anyway in spite of the tenuousness of the claim.
 
2013-06-23 11:51:30 PM  

tbeatty: Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: Is there any meaningful debate going on?

Nope...they're all tied up with REAL scandals like Benghazi and the IRS.

Those scandals would tie up people a lot more if there were Snowden-like whistle-blowers.

There might be whistle-blowers if they were scandals.

You see how they treat whistleblowers?  This is first administration to go after the press since the Pentagon Papers and the Nixon administration.  Heck, even David Gregory was asking about going after the journalists.  See Thomas Allen Drake for whistleblowers.  Bush left the journalists alone.  Not Obama.


Not sure if serious...
 
2013-06-23 11:51:57 PM  

Biological Ali: My main issue is with people who accept that there is a moral component to "whistleblower" and that there are some standards inherent in the term (as evidenced by the people who say they don't consider Manning a whistleblower), but who insist on calling Snowden one anyway in spite of the tenuousness of the claim.


Seems the same to me, they don't feel Manning did what he did for the greater good, but out of spite.
 
2013-06-24 12:00:43 AM  

sendtodave: Biological Ali: My main issue is with people who accept that there is a moral component to "whistleblower" and that there are some standards inherent in the term (as evidenced by the people who say they don't consider Manning a whistleblower), but who insist on calling Snowden one anyway in spite of the tenuousness of the claim.

Seems the same to me, they don't feel Manning did what he did for the greater good, but out of spite.


This goes back to my earlier post about the definition of the term. Which is to say, the thing that the person "blows the whistle" on should be a clear-cut act of wrongdoing; it shouldn't be something that just boils down to a difference in opinion.

Like Abu Ghraib, for instance - whoever brought that to light exposed a genuine wrongdoing and there's really no argument to be made. Contrast this with, say... if someone from the White House were to leak to the press that Obama secretly thinks Breaking Bad is a terrible show. Plenty of people are going to think that's wrong obviously, but there's never going to be a universal consensus on it.
 
2013-06-24 12:03:01 AM  

Darth_Lukecash: Lionel Mandrake: DamnYankees: Aside from the horrible satire here, the charges are farking comical. It's only a hop skip and jump from totalitarian 'law' where the very idea of doing something illegal (i.e. against the government) is treason.

Mr. A:  "I think the government is violating the Constitution with increasing regularity and to a frightening extent"

Mr B:  "Well...that pisses me off...fk the government"

Mr. A:  "Hey, look, this guy released information proving my claim!"

Mr. B:  "F*CK THAT GUY!  HANG HIM!!  F*CKING TRAITOR!!1!"

But here's the real issue: what the NSA did was legal and approved by the congress.

Snowden is a traitor by revealing this information

Note:no one in congress is surprised by the NSA actions or calling this a scandal. Everyone is saying Snowden being a traitor.


I wouldn't say it was legal... I mean, until now, the courts never ruled on it's legality, they only ruled that Americans couldn't sue because they couldn't prove they were affected by the program. Now that they have substantial evidence that their records were swept up by the program's indiscriminate "search"... they have the standing to sue about the fourth amendment violations. Frankly, I don't know whether or not the courts will find the program, as implemented was legal... I don't know how the courts will rule in terms of whether or not the FISA court actually had the right (under the law) to authorize intelligence gathering/surveillance on non-foreign entities. I understand congress wrote some parts of the PATRIOT Act with... considerable discretion placed on the courts, but it wouldn't be the first time that congress would be slapped on the wrist by the court for authorizing something that is not constitutional.
 
2013-06-24 12:09:29 AM  

Biological Ali: Like Abu Ghraib, for instance - whoever brought that to light exposed a genuine wrongdoing and there's really no argument to be made. Contrast this with, say... if someone from the White House were to leak to the press that Obama secretly thinks Breaking Bad is a terrible show. Plenty of people are going to think that's wrong obviously, but there's never going to be a universal consensus on it.


I would say that the people participating in Abu Ghraib, and racists, would argue that it wasn't an act of wrong doing.  And we'd say that they are wrong.  Morally wrong.

But we can't say the same for those who think that a first world, democratic government should have the power to spy on it's own people?  Not just the ability, but the lack of restraint in using it?

Those people are morally wrong, too.
 
2013-06-24 12:11:36 AM  

Magruda: Congress cannot make it legal to violate the constitution.


Congress cannot make it legal to violate the constitution.
 
2013-06-24 12:18:23 AM  

sendtodave: I would say that the people participating in Abu Ghraib, and racists, would argue that it wasn't an act of wrong doing. And we'd say that they are wrong. Morally wrong.


I may be wrong, but I do believe the Abu Ghraib guys themselves either denied they did it or showed remorse when they were being court-martialed. As for the other people who might think they did nothing wrong, they're so few as to be negligible.

But we can't say the same for those who think that a first world, democratic government should have the power to spy on it's own people?  Not just the ability, but the lack of restraint in using it?
Those people are morally wrong, too.


This is where it crosses into "difference of opinion" territory. The people who carried out the surveillance don't think they did anything wrong. Most of Congress doesn't think there was anything wrong done. It's the people who have a problem that look to be the odd ones out here; this thing is at best a "controversy", and even that's stretching it a little.
 
2013-06-24 12:20:20 AM  

Biological Ali: sendtodave: Biological Ali: My main issue is with people who accept that there is a moral component to "whistleblower" and that there are some standards inherent in the term (as evidenced by the people who say they don't consider Manning a whistleblower), but who insist on calling Snowden one anyway in spite of the tenuousness of the claim.

Seems the same to me, they don't feel Manning did what he did for the greater good, but out of spite.

This goes back to my earlier post about the definition of the term. Which is to say, the thing that the person "blows the whistle" on should be a clear-cut act of wrongdoing; it shouldn't be something that just boils down to a difference in opinion.

Like Abu Ghraib, for instance - whoever brought that to light exposed a genuine wrongdoing and there's really no argument to be made. Contrast this with, say... if someone from the White House were to leak to the press that Obama secretly thinks Breaking Bad is a terrible show. Plenty of people are going to think that's wrong obviously, but there's never going to be a universal consensus on it.


I think I changed my mind on this.
A blowing the whistle is technically morally neutral.  It just says that someone said revealed something e.g. she blew the whistle on the surprise party.  Any one who blew the whistle was a whistle blower.

People started using the phrase more when people were disclosing government or corporate malfeasance  and there were laws and such about protecting the whistle blower.  So the connotation was the noble cause.

But that doesn't change the original meaning.
 
2013-06-24 12:23:27 AM  

foo monkey: Magruda: Congress cannot make it legal to violate the constitution.

Congress cannot make it legal to violate the constitution.


Okay.  But first you have to establish that something actually DID violate the constitution.
 
2013-06-24 12:27:45 AM  
I hate to it but I am wishing for a Republican presidency again so this nation can rediscover its moral compass.
 
2013-06-24 12:31:01 AM  

Biological Ali: It's the people who have a problem that look to be the odd ones out here; this thing is at best a "controversy", and even that's stretching it a little.


@algore
Al Gore
In digital era, privacy must be a priority. Is it just me, or is secret blanket surveillance obscenely outrageous?

This oddball has it right.  Because:
  The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Courts have already ruled that email privacy falls under the fourth.  Electronic transmissions are "papers and effects."

Sucking up everything is the government TRYING to end round the law and fourth amendment (because they're not targeting anyone specifically!  Hur der!).   And trying to get around our basic law to violate it's spirit is morally objectionable.  It always has been.  I don't see how that can be argued.

"It's called protecting America" definitely does not cut it.
 
2013-06-24 12:32:46 AM  

Vectron: I hate to it but I am wishing for a Republican presidency again so this nation can rediscover its moral compass.


Democrats would rally to fight GOP overreach.

Democratic overreach?  It seems not so much.

So, yeah, it's almost better to have the "bad guys" in charge, because we trust the "good guys" way too much.
 
2013-06-24 12:33:37 AM  

Vectron: I hate to it but I am wishing for a Republican presidency again so this nation can rediscover its moral compass.


[ohwaityoureserious]
 
2013-06-24 12:35:34 AM  

quatchi: Vectron: I hate to it but I am wishing for a Republican presidency again so this nation can rediscover its moral compass.

[ohwaityoureserious]


Both sides are bad so vote Republican.  Because at least you can admit that they are bad.
 
2013-06-24 12:36:49 AM  

sendtodave: it's


its

/dammitsomuch
 
2013-06-24 12:48:31 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: foo monkey: Magruda: Congress cannot make it legal to violate the constitution.

Congress cannot make it legal to violate the constitution.

Okay.  But first you have to establish that something actually DID violate the constitution.


I don't. The Supreme Court does. Or better yet, Congress needs to know better than to violate the Constitution.
 
2013-06-24 12:50:34 AM  

sendtodave: Biological Ali: RanDomino: Yes

What exactly would you say Snowden "blew the whistle" on? And as a followup, do you consider Manning to be a "whistleblower" as well?

He blew the whistle on the HUGE TOPIC THAT EVERYONE IS DEBATING RIGHT NOW.

You might have read about it.  I can fill you in:  Get this, the NSA is spying on, well, everybody.


Heh heh Americans finding it shocking the NSA wasn't baking cookies but actually coducting national and international surveillance.

/ Cue the But but but I'm an important person in my own head and I don't want the government knowing I sext with my fat girlfriend!
 
2013-06-24 01:00:52 AM  
No one informed me jesus was going to walk a wire over the grand canyon. Thank you jesus.
 
2013-06-24 01:09:23 AM  

Biological Ali: sendtodave: I would say that the people participating in Abu Ghraib, and racists, would argue that it wasn't an act of wrong doing. And we'd say that they are wrong. Morally wrong.

I may be wrong, but I do believe the Abu Ghraib guys themselves either denied they did it or showed remorse when they were being court-martialed. As for the other people who might think they did nothing wrong, they're so few as to be negligible.

But we can't say the same for those who think that a first world, democratic government should have the power to spy on it's own people?  Not just the ability, but the lack of restraint in using it?
Those people are morally wrong, too.

This is where it crosses into "difference of opinion" territory. The people who carried out the surveillance don't think they did anything wrong. Most of Congress doesn't think there was anything wrong done. It's the people who have a problem that look to be the odd ones out here; this thing is at best a "controversy", and even that's stretching it a little.



So what you're saying is that it's impossible to be doing the wrong thing if you don't believe what you were doing was wrong?
 
2013-06-24 01:11:51 AM  

CourtroomWolf: So what you're saying is that it's impossible to be doing the wrong thing if you don't believe what you were doing was wrong?


Of course not. What I'm saying is that that fact, along with the other things I mentioned, cause the issue to go from "unequivocally wrong" to "controversial, at best".
 
2013-06-24 01:24:28 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: sendtodave: Biological Ali: RanDomino: Yes

What exactly would you say Snowden "blew the whistle" on? And as a followup, do you consider Manning to be a "whistleblower" as well?

He blew the whistle on the HUGE TOPIC THAT EVERYONE IS DEBATING RIGHT NOW.

You might have read about it.  I can fill you in:  Get this, the NSA is spying on, well, everybody.

Is there any meaningful debate going on?
Seems from the comments posted earlier by Feinstein, Reid and others, Congress is fine with all of this.
So is Obama.

Who is engaging them in debate?


Publicly, the Dems are lining up like they did on 9/11.

But what isn't widely reported is that Sen Feinstein was boo'ed at a speech in front of a Democrat crowd when she said Snowden was a criminal.

Toeing the Government line and pleasing donors might be difficult.

Like all the other stuff that seems to come out weekly to derail the agenda, there just might not be a lot of excitement for the base to be motivated in 2014.
 
2013-06-24 01:28:47 AM  

SeismicJizzer: Heh heh Americans finding it shocking the NSA wasn't baking cookies but actually coducting national and international surveillance.


The NSA was never supposed to be conducting national surveillance. Their mission has always been exclusively foreign intelligence.  Now we know they are collecting domestic communications indiscriminately and putting a fig leaf over them, with no meaningful independent oversight over whether they decide in any given instance that they have any of many pre-approved justifications to remove that fig leaf.

Yeah, everybody wondered if NSA was doing this, so we should definitely punish the guy who thought we'd like to know for sure. Oh no, the government's ability to lie to its own people and friend and foe alike is weakened. That's a shame.
 
2013-06-24 01:34:53 AM  

Biological Ali: CourtroomWolf: So what you're saying is that it's impossible to be doing the wrong thing if you don't believe what you were doing was wrong?

Of course not. What I'm saying is that that fact, along with the other things I mentioned, cause the issue to go from "unequivocally wrong" to "controversial, at best".


Mala in se vs. malum prohibitum?
 
2013-06-24 01:40:39 AM  

tbeatty: But what isn't widely reported is that Sen Feinstein was boo'ed at a speech in front of a Democrat crowd when she said Snowden was a criminal.


Good.jpg

Too bad it isn't widely reported.  I doubt that will be in "liberal" media any time soon.  Even the right wing has more to lose than to gain by letting it's media go with it.

They could lose power.

We've lost our fourth estate.
 
2013-06-24 01:47:27 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: Nabb1: "Common criminals" generally commit crimes of opportunity for their own benefit, usually monetary. What did Snowden possibly have to gain for himself knowing full well that his actions would result I either lengthy incarceration or fleeing for his home county leaving behind his friends and family perhaps forever? Yes, I get that you think the rest of us have no right to know what our government is doing to us because our government is infallible, and knows what is best for us and we have no right to criticize, for we are it humbleservants of the almighty state, but what did behave to gain by this?

So if you commit a crime that's not to your benefit, it's not a crime?


Some crimes are justifiable. As an extreme example, if someone had managed to murder Adolf Hitler during the height of his murderous reign would you be calling that someone a criminal?

This case is nowhere near as extreme as that of course but the US government willfully ignoring the constitution to spy on it's citizens is something that should have been exposed. Finally and justifiably it was exposed.

When they finally get their hands on Snowden they'll make an example of him. I think they will kill him - all nice and legal of course. Well kinda, sorta anyway.

It looks like Obama isn't so different after all. Just another politician ready willing and able to break the rules as a means to an end.
 
2013-06-24 01:47:46 AM  

tbeatty: But what isn't widely reported is that Sen Feinstein was boo'ed at a speech in front of a Democrat crowd when she said Snowden was a criminal.


Ah, here.

It was Pelosi

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/22/pelosi-booed-at-netroots-while -d efending-espionage-charges-against-snowden/

"I know that some of you attribute heroic status to that action," she said of Snowden's leaks to the Guardian and the Washington Post. "But, again, you don't have the responsibility for the security of the United States. Those of us who do have to strike a different balance."

Wow, that makes me angry.  "You may agree with him, but we know better than you."

Madam Speaker, WE GAVE YOU THAT POWER AND THAT RESPONSIBILITY.

We are not children to be managed, we are the People of the United States, and YOU get YOUR power from US.  We're the adults here, whether you like it or not.
 
2013-06-24 01:58:44 AM  

Biological Ali: "unequivocally wrong" to "controversial, at best"


This is wrong on so many levels, not the least of which is the spending. How much is all this surveillance costing the taxpayer? I'm being serious, I do not want to pay for what amounts to a carrier group sitting around sucking down electricity and bandwidth. But since it's secret, we'll never know what the price tag is. My grandchildren are going to be paying $1000/yr each for the privilege of being constantly spied on. That's bullshiat.
 
2013-06-24 02:08:17 AM  
The major media sources are having fits of apoplexy trying to paint this guy as history's worst monster, claiming this, claiming that, changing the story 5 times in a day, associating him with this BAD guy and the BAD guy, running in a giant circle jerk accusing him of everything from rape to orchestrating the holocaust. It's obvious who the real BAD guys are.
 
2013-06-24 02:15:17 AM  

kg2095: Satanic_Hamster: Nabb1: "Common criminals" generally commit crimes of opportunity for their own benefit, usually monetary. What did Snowden possibly have to gain for himself knowing full well that his actions would result I either lengthy incarceration or fleeing for his home county leaving behind his friends and family perhaps forever? Yes, I get that you think the rest of us have no right to know what our government is doing to us because our government is infallible, and knows what is best for us and we have no right to criticize, for we are it humbleservants of the almighty state, but what did behave to gain by this?

So if you commit a crime that's not to your benefit, it's not a crime?

Some crimes are justifiable. As an extreme example, if someone had managed to murder Adolf Hitler during the height of his murderous reign would you be calling that someone a criminal?

This case is nowhere near as extreme as that of course but the US government willfully ignoring the constitution to spy on it's citizens is something that should have been exposed. Finally and justifiably it was exposed.

When they finally get their hands on Snowden they'll make an example of him. I think they will kill him - all nice and legal of course. Well kinda, sorta anyway.

It looks like Obama isn't so different after all. Just another politician ready willing and able to break the rules as a means to an end.


OMIGOD....another person who believed in McDonald's cheeseburgers. I should start a list.
 
2013-06-24 02:28:49 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: sendtodave:
Because they are perfectly fine with whatever law they pass.

Yeah, that is always how it is.
That is why we have so many ridiculous laws, regulations and a gazzillion page tax code.


Actually, this is why we do;

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-06-24 02:42:19 AM  

Biological Ali: CourtroomWolf: So what you're saying is that it's impossible to be doing the wrong thing if you don't believe what you were doing was wrong?

Of course not. What I'm saying is that that fact, along with the other things I mentioned, cause the issue to go from "unequivocally wrong" to "controversial, at best".


What other things?  That it requires a 100% consensus on an issue to qualify as "whistleblowing"?  You've just defined "whistleblowing" out of existence.
 
Displayed 50 of 210 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report