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

 
2013-06-24 02:52:36 AM  

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.


No, they have almost no rules or precedent regarding political dissidents and are not equipped at all to deal with dissidents.  It's the main reason why Snowden chose it.  The lack of law creates hurdles, appeals and delays.  The U.S. doesn't designate crimes as political but they certainly have rules and precedent for accepting or rejecting dissidents that enter the country.  If the tables were turned, the u.S. would have certainly held a Hong Kong national in custody until his dissident status could be reviewed and a ruling made on extradition.

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?


Did you have a reading comprehension issue? Hong Kong isn't lumped in anywhere.  They aren't even relevant. You realize that Hong Kong would not have dismissed the U.S. request without receiving approval from Beijing right?  Russia and China standing against the U.S. regarding a U.S. citizen when the U.S. has been lobbying both countries to get tough on Syria, North Korea and Iran will undoubtedly bolster the confidence of those countries.  This not a novel idea (or even controversial) and has been widely reported.  Put another way, the U.S. will be much less confident in being able to line Russia and China up against Syria, North Korea and Iran after this.  Before Snowden-gate, the administration seemed confident that talks with Beijing and Moscow would yield action regarding those countries.

After Snowden-gate (or during if you prefer), it's clear that Moscow and Beijing do not fear actions the U.S. might take and are not trying to gain goodwill from the U.S. by taking actions the U.S. wants even if those actions don't really cost them anything.  Strategically, it's a huge boost to those countries (Iran, Syria, North Korea) as they were probably worried about being sold out by their biggest supporters.  That fear is now reduced considerably.  The U.S. is certainly resetting expectations of cooperation with Beijing and Moscow regarding Syria, North Korea and Iran.  If Obama thought he had enough cards to play to get anti-Syrian measures through the Security Council and past Russia, that's now gone.

Obama's foreign policy objectives regarding Syria, North Korea and Iran require the cooperation of China and Russia.  Syria, North Korea and Iran know this is the case.  If they had any doubts about China and Russia being coerced into doing the U.S.'s bidding, that was erased this week.   The actions by Russia and China weren't a Human Rights act of mercy or protection, they were a message to the world that they will stand against the U.S. without fear or compromise. For example, if Syria thought Russia might cave to U.S. pressure and allow intervention such as 'No Fly Zones', that was erased.  Expect them to be more bold with the use of chemical agents and other acts that they might have feared Moscow would abandon them over.   Russia and China helped Snowden because it was a way to show resolve to their allies and the world.  That was Snowden's only value to them.     Actions speak louder than words and you can bet that other countries heard it.
 
2013-06-24 03:08:53 AM  

Nabb1: Darth_Lukecash: 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.

So, all those people in the government who supported the policy that led to the government spying on all of us are labeling him a "traitor" for telling all of us that the government has been spying on us, and you agree that he is a traitor for telling citizens what the government has been doing to us behind our backs? How do those boots taste?




Wait, you are telling me you're surprised that the government is spying on us? I was always against the patriot act-because of this very result.

All I'm saying is is that currently the actions were legal. Congress has not challenged . So there are only two options; the people have to elect new congress critters to change the law... Or the Supreme Court has to overrule them.

Considering the make up of the court... I'm not hopeful.
 
2013-06-24 03:23:21 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: AeAe: 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.

If the government does it, it's legal?  What about the Japanese internment during WW2?  Didn't the Army intentionally infect some people with viruses?

Government spying on its citizens is wrong.

Yes.  All that was legal.  Perfectly on the up and up.  And if anyone involved had revealed classified information in an effort to derail those programs they would have been breaking the law, breaking their pledges to keep the information secret.  They would have been traitors according to most people around here.

A lot of f*cking FARKers would call them bad guys.

What a sad, sad state of affairs.

One of the things I love(d) about FARK was that a lot of folks saw the difference between "legal" and "ethical."  I thought.


That was before it was popular and when it grew popular it attracted a fair amount of shills.

 I'd wager the biggest "treason" claimers here are either a) trolling or b) paid to espouse a certain point of view.

 It only takes a handful of people in agreement, between 3-7, to start to sway the opinions of a group of people.

 What these folks are working on here is pretty simple. They argue something that is potentially technically correct (that what Snowden did was against the law), and try to tie that to the natural assumption that what is "legal" is also "right" (ethically and morally) since that is what most people are taught to believe when they are growing up. And for a good chunk of our laws, it's true. But of course, not for all of them.

 Now that they've got people sub-consciously assuming that what Snowden did was also "wrong", it's a much shorter jump to convince people what he did should also be considered "treason".

 You follow?

 A) What Snowden did was illegal.
 B) Therefor what he did was *wrong*.
 C) And since it was against the government (not any one person), what he really did was "wrong the United States".
 D) And wronging the United States is treason.
 E) Thus Snowden is a traitor.

 You'll notice none of the arguments they make to support this claim use any actual legal standing of the matter. It's pure emotional speculation/debate.

/which is par for the course when politicians argue something.
 
2013-06-24 04:03:00 AM  

cuzsis: Now that they've got people sub-consciously assuming that what Snowden did was also "wrong", it's a much shorter jump to convince people what he did should also be considered "treason".


It's not like there isn't a whistleblower procedure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trailblazer_Project#Whistleblowing
 
2013-06-24 04:20:44 AM  

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

So were the contents of the Pentagon Papers.

Actually, if it was unconstitutional it wasn't legal, even if it complied with statute.


So does that mean you can never know if what you are doing is legal or not, because even if you somehow knew every applicable law and got expert advice on it, you could still retroactively become a criminal because the Supreme Court later decides the law was unconstitutional?
 
2013-06-24 04:26:52 AM  

cuzsis: You follow?

 A) What Snowden did was illegal.
 B) Therefor what he did was *wrong*.
 C) And since it was against the government (not any one person), what he really did was "wrong the United States".
 D) And wronging the United States is treason.
 E) Thus Snowden is a traitor.

 You'll notice none of the arguments they make to support this claim use any actual legal standing of the matter. It's pure emotional speculation/debate.

/which is par for the course when politicians argue something.



img.fark.net
 
2013-06-24 04:37:22 AM  

xria: potterydove: El Pachuco: Darth_Lukecash: But here's the real issue: what the NSA did was legal and approved by the congress.

So were the contents of the Pentagon Papers.

Actually, if it was unconstitutional it wasn't legal, even if it complied with statute.

So does that mean you can never know if what you are doing is legal or not, because even if you somehow knew every applicable law and got expert advice on it, you could still retroactively become a criminal because the Supreme Court later decides the law was unconstitutional?


No; see "ex post facto" laws. Most of the time; see also what happened to junk-bond king Michael Miliken.

However, something can be totally unconstitutional and still be legal; it can also be totally illegal and completely constitutional. For the former, any law which is unconstitutional but hasn't yet received a final ruling by the Supreme Court and hasn't been stayed by an injunction of a lower federal court could still be applicable law (which is why the ACLU moves so fast when there's a law that seems to violate the 1st Amd.), for the latter, any action which flies in the face of an unconstitutional law so as to force a court case to obtain a ruling by a federal court would be such an act.

However, why do you think that saying "Everyone commits three felonies a day" came into being? Nobody can know all the statutes that exist, or the subsequent rulings; all anyone can do is do the best they can and hope they didn't do anything too illegal. Sometimes it's also called "involuntary noncompliance."
 
2013-06-24 05:23:34 AM  

xria: potterydove: El Pachuco: Darth_Lukecash: But here's the real issue: what the NSA did was legal and approved by the congress.

So were the contents of the Pentagon Papers.

Actually, if it was unconstitutional it wasn't legal, even if it complied with statute.

So does that mean you can never know if what you are doing is legal or not, because even if you somehow knew every applicable law and got expert advice on it, you could still retroactively become a criminal because the Supreme Court later decides the law was unconstitutional?


No.
 
2013-06-24 05:49:49 AM  
I wonder what, other than facing punishment for revealing information classified as top secret, trying him will get. Some politicians seem to think that if they get him back, that somehow they can put the genie back in the bottle. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with Snowden's actions - on the one hand, he did leak top secret information and on the other, it could have been much worse, and on the other we already kinda knew this was happening. It was a 'Shhh, don't tell anybody' kind of top secret. No one acknowledged it officially, but everyone knew it was probably happening.

But, now that the genie is out of the bottle, or in a more apt analogy - you can't uncook a goose. The goose is cooked. Deal with it.
 
2013-06-24 06:53:22 AM  

mephox: I wonder what, other than facing punishment for revealing information classified as top secret, trying him will get. Some politicians seem to think that if they get him back, that somehow they can put the genie back in the bottle. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with Snowden's actions - on the one hand, he did leak top secret information and on the other, it could have been much worse, and on the other we already kinda knew this was happening. It was a 'Shhh, don't tell anybody' kind of top secret. No one acknowledged it officially, but everyone knew it was probably happening.

But, now that the genie is out of the bottle, or in a more apt analogy - you can't uncook a goose. The goose is cooked. Deal with it.


Closing the barn door after the horse has bolted
 
2013-06-24 07:12:06 AM  

cuzsis: A) What Snowden did was illegal.
B) Therefor what he did was *wrong*.
C) And since it was against the government (not any one person), what he really did was "wrong the United States".
D) And wronging the United States is treason.
E) Thus Snowden is a traitor.


Congratulations, you've just redefined speeding as treason.
 
2013-06-24 07:15:34 AM  
2 questions for the "Snowden is a traitor" crowd that I would very much like answers to:

#1 How could any of the info he has revealed possibly have aided or abetted our enemies? Does anybody seriously think that AQ assumed their communications weren't being monitored?
#2 If he worked for the government and went to the press intending to expose abuse and fraud, how could he not be a "whistleblower"?

/please and thank you
 
2013-06-24 07:16:29 AM  

mephox: I wonder what, other than facing punishment for revealing information classified as top secret, trying him will get. Some politicians seem to think that if they get him back, that somehow they can put the genie back in the bottle. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with Snowden's actions - on the one hand, he did leak top secret information and on the other, it could have been much worse, and on the other we already kinda knew this was happening. It was a 'Shhh, don't tell anybody' kind of top secret. No one acknowledged it officially, but everyone knew it was probably happening.

But, now that the genie is out of the bottle, or in a more apt analogy - you can't uncook a goose. The goose is cooked. Deal with it.


If I heard it correctly, it's been reported that he still has several laptops full of unreleased US secrets. If that's true, it's in America's best interests to get Snowden back.
 
2013-06-24 07:20:46 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.


So I can kill anyone if I think they're Hitler?
 
2013-06-24 07:27:58 AM  

sendtodave: We're the adults here, whether you like it or not.


And we are going to voice our disapproval, anonymously, on a website (named for the F-word) on the internet (created by the government) without any fear of reprisal.

So there!

You doody heads!
 
2013-06-24 07:31:46 AM  

GoSlash27: 2 questions for the "Snowden is a traitor" crowd that I would very much like answers to:

#1 How could any of the info he has revealed possibly have aided or abetted our enemies? Does anybody seriously think that AQ assumed their communications weren't being monitored?
#2 If he worked for the government and went to the press intending to expose abuse and fraud, how could he not be a "whistleblower"?

/please and thank you


He has already given interviews exposing our intelligence gathering against other countries.
Abuse and fraud? The NSA has broken no laws and has not violated the constitution.
 
2013-06-24 07:34:02 AM  

GoSlash27: 2 questions for the "Snowden is a traitor" crowd that I would very much like answers to:

#1 How could any of the info he has revealed possibly have aided or abetted our enemies? Does anybody seriously think that AQ assumed their communications weren't being monitored?
#2 If he worked for the government and went to the press intending to expose abuse and fraud, how could he not be a "whistleblower"?

/please and thank you


His claims/releases that the US are spying on China and other governments aren't really helping his cause, though.
 
2013-06-24 07:34:25 AM  

MooseUpNorth: Congratulations, you've just redefined speeding as treason.


Obviously a student of  Aristotelian logic.

*rolls eyes*
 
2013-06-24 07:39:07 AM  

GoSlash27: #2 If he worked for the government and went to the press intending to expose abuse and fraud, how could he not be a "whistleblower"?


What he exposed was neither abuse nor fraud, but rather the NSA operating in an now-perfectly legal space created for them by the Patriot Act and other laws.  Whether those laws themselves are unconstitutional some thing which has yet to be challenged legally.

/don't think he's a traitor
//or a whilstleblower
///glad he did what he did
 
2013-06-24 07:40:39 AM  

Sgygus: What is the big secret that Snowden shockingly revealed?  That the NSA has been electronically eavesdropping on all of us?  That has not been a secret for many years now.


Then why are so many whiny and outraged about it? And why did Snowden reveal it, if we all knew it was happening anyway? Is he just an attention whore?
 
2013-06-24 07:45:15 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Is he just an attention whore?


Well, not JUST an attention whore.

He's also a thief.
 
2013-06-24 07:45:19 AM  

MooseUpNorth: cuzsis: A) What Snowden did was illegal.
B) Therefor what he did was *wrong*.
C) And since it was against the government (not any one person), what he really did was "wrong the United States".
D) And wronging the United States is treason.
E) Thus Snowden is a traitor.

Congratulations, you've just redefined speeding as treason.


Yeah that really was idiotic
 
2013-06-24 07:47:45 AM  

Without Fail: Debeo Summa Credo: Is he just an attention whore?

Well, not JUST an attention whore.

He's also a thief.


Is the government going to establish that copying Files is theft?

That will make the music industry happy.
 
2013-06-24 07:49:57 AM  

GoSlash27: 2 questions for the "Snowden is a traitor" crowd that I would very much like answers to:

#1 How could any of the info he has revealed possibly have aided or abetted our enemies? Does anybody seriously think that AQ assumed their communications weren't being monitored?
#2 If he worked for the government and went to the press intending to expose abuse and fraud, how could he not be a "whistleblower"?

/please and thank you


In regards to 1), he revealed our eavesdropping on electronic communications of the chinese. Although they spy on us and we spy on them and both know it, he handed the Chinese a propaganda victory. Secondly, although sophisticated al qaeda members would know that they were under surveillance, run of the mill dopes like the Boston bombers likely wouldn't know. Now such people are more aware do and may change their tactics.

I don't know whether that rises to the level of "treason" but he clearly aided and abetted. The guy's a farking criminal. I hope he ends up in some federal prison for the rest of his life.
 
2013-06-24 07:51:34 AM  

quatchi: "These charges send a clear message," the spokesman said. "In the United States, you can't spy on people."

And somewhere off in the hinterlands of Canada Alanis Morrissette's head is heard exploding scanners style.


It's like the Rains of Castamere on your wedding day.
 
2013-06-24 08:08:50 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Secondly, although sophisticated al qaeda members would know that they were under surveillance, run of the mill dopes like the Boston bombers likely wouldn't know. Now such people are more aware do and may change their tactics.


Thank God we had this domestic spying program in place which was able to stop the Boston marathon bombings.
 
2013-06-24 08:13:39 AM  

Vectron: Snowden is a traitor because the government, through the media, controls the narrative

It sure looks like that.


Pretty much this; the government and the Washington Press Corps are calling him a "traitor" because he told the American people the truth.  That's something Washington can't have because it destroys the narrative they want to spin.
 
2013-06-24 08:15:03 AM  

Blathering Idjut: Thank God we had this domestic spying program in place which was able to stop the Boston marathon bombings.


They had other targets. Lots of them.
They were caught before they could kill more.

NSA data was probably used to do this.
 
2013-06-24 08:17:58 AM  
"In the United States, you can't spy on people."

img.fark.net
 
2013-06-24 08:26:36 AM  

Without Fail: Blathering Idjut: Thank God we had this domestic spying program in place which was able to stop the Boston marathon bombings.

They had other targets. Lots of them.
They were caught before they could kill more.

NSA data was probably used to do this.


At some point, someone is gonna have to spit out actual facts about intercepts, instead of ^ this.
"X program has prevented X terror plots in the last X years" has become the new Refuge of a Scoundrel.

\it is utter and complete bullshiat that you can't pick one of those "plots" and show, step by step, how X surveillance program saved the day
\\but it's much more efficient and cost effective to just lie about it
 
2013-06-24 08:28:29 AM  

Without Fail: Blathering Idjut: Thank God we had this domestic spying program in place which was able to stop the Boston marathon bombings.

They had other targets. Lots of them.
They were caught before they could kill more.

NSA data was probably used to do this.


Are you seriously arguing that the NSA program prevented Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev from enacting more terrorist plots?

They were caught after they killed a poor cop on the MIT campus and a huge manhunt ensued.  Not because the government was listening to grandma's phone calls with her knitting club.

The Boston Marathon bombing is not by any stretch of the imagination a "win" for domestic spying.
 
2013-06-24 08:32:25 AM  

Without Fail: He's also a thief.


So he's a banker?
 
2013-06-24 08:40:52 AM  

Biological Ali: 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.


The government spying on all of it's citizens is not a simple difference of opinion.  It is wrongdoing.  Fark them.
 
2013-06-24 08:45:21 AM  
I'm surprised at the number of people lining up to suck this guy's dick. The only thing of any consequence that he leaked was the degree of collusion between big internet companies and the government's metadata program. His argument seems to go 'here are some things you didn't know that I dug up using my security clearance, now you should believe me when I say that the government is listening to your phone calls', and everyone is buying it. Nobody seems to notice that there is a huge gap between a metadata program and someone listening on your phone calls, or that his claim is 'not even wrong', or that he has a history of being less than truthful.
 
2013-06-24 08:54:16 AM  
Right now, the only thing I'm surprised about is that tenpoundsofderp is sounding somewhat rational.
 
2013-06-24 09:42:37 AM  

quatchi: And somewhere off in the hinterlands of Canada Alanis Morrissette's head is heard exploding scanners style.


Alanis Morrissette lives in Los Angeles.
 
2013-06-24 09:50:20 AM  
Typical 1984 double-speak:
img.fark.net
 
2013-06-24 09:55:07 AM  

CheapEngineer: it is utter and complete bullshiat that you can't pick one of those "plots" and show, step by step, how X surveillance program saved the day


(1) Give them time; fabricating evidence is hard

(2) They'd also need to show that the plot couldn't have been foiled by other, less intrusive means
 
2013-06-24 10:32:22 AM  

NostroZ: Typical 1984 double-speak:
[img.fark.net image 260x346]


Pretty much; I wish Jon Stewart would come do a special Daily Show just to call those idiots out for that.
 
2013-06-24 10:41:48 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: AeAe: 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.

If the government does it, it's legal?  What about the Japanese internment during WW2?  Didn't the Army intentionally infect some people with viruses?

Government spying on its citizens is wrong.

Yes.  All that was legal.  Perfectly on the up and up.  And if anyone involved had revealed classified information in an effort to derail those programs they would have been breaking the law, breaking their pledges to keep the information secret.  They would have been traitors according to most people around here.

A lot of f*cking FARKers would call them bad guys.

What a sad, sad state of affairs.

One of the things I love(d) about FARK was that a lot of folks saw the difference between "legal" and "ethical."  I thought.


We need to get rid of half of our government. It's just not worth the risks they pose to the average american to keep these farks around.
 
2013-06-24 11:02:02 AM  

FuryOfFirestorm: mephox: I wonder what, other than facing punishment for revealing information classified as top secret, trying him will get. Some politicians seem to think that if they get him back, that somehow they can put the genie back in the bottle. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with Snowden's actions - on the one hand, he did leak top secret information and on the other, it could have been much worse, and on the other we already kinda knew this was happening. It was a 'Shhh, don't tell anybody' kind of top secret. No one acknowledged it officially, but everyone knew it was probably happening.

But, now that the genie is out of the bottle, or in a more apt analogy - you can't uncook a goose. The goose is cooked. Deal with it.

If I heard it correctly, it's been reported that he still has several laptops full of unreleased US secrets. If that's true, it's in America's best interests to get Snowden back.


So you think there aren't 15 copies of those laptops in China and Russia?
 
2013-06-24 11:13:01 AM  

tbeatty: FuryOfFirestorm: mephox: I wonder what, other than facing punishment for revealing information classified as top secret, trying him will get. Some politicians seem to think that if they get him back, that somehow they can put the genie back in the bottle. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with Snowden's actions - on the one hand, he did leak top secret information and on the other, it could have been much worse, and on the other we already kinda knew this was happening. It was a 'Shhh, don't tell anybody' kind of top secret. No one acknowledged it officially, but everyone knew it was probably happening.

But, now that the genie is out of the bottle, or in a more apt analogy - you can't uncook a goose. The goose is cooked. Deal with it.

If I heard it correctly, it's been reported that he still has several laptops full of unreleased US secrets. If that's true, it's in America's best interests to get Snowden back.

So you think there aren't 15 copies of those laptops in China and Russia?


Probably. Who knows? If that's the case, grabbing him and shipping him off to Gitmo will bring that information to light real quick.
 
2013-06-24 11:19:45 AM  

Blathering Idjut: Debeo Summa Credo: Secondly, although sophisticated al qaeda members would know that they were under surveillance, run of the mill dopes like the Boston bombers likely wouldn't know. Now such people are more aware do and may change their tactics.

Thank God we had this domestic spying program in place which was able to stop the Boston marathon bombings.


Thank god we have an inclusive society and sp many arguing that we should not assume all Muslims are terrorists. Clearly, treating them with respect prevented them from killing innocent people.

See how that works?
 
2013-06-24 11:21:23 AM  

Blathering Idjut: Debeo Summa Credo: Secondly, although sophisticated al qaeda members would know that they were under surveillance, run of the mill dopes like the Boston bombers likely wouldn't know. Now such people are more aware do and may change their tactics.

Thank God we had this domestic spying program in place which was able to stop the Boston marathon bombings.


Thank god we have an inclusive society and sp many arguing that we should not assume all Muslims are terrorists. Clearly, treating them with respect prevented them from killing innocent people.

/not arguing that we should assume all Muslims are terrorists, just pointing out how illogical it is to assume that any current policy is failing universally because it failed on one or a few occasions.
 
m00
2013-06-24 12:38:54 PM  
This is... literally... the sort of thing that happens in 1984.
 
2013-06-24 12:48:39 PM  

CourtroomWolf: 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.


Other things being judicial approval, approval from the vast majority of Congress etc.

And I already gave an example of something that would constitute "whistleblowing" under my standards: Abu Ghraib (there are other examples from history, but that's the best recent one). The idea is that it should be something that is unambiguously wrong, because if you allow something to be termed whistleblowing based on mere differences of opinion, then that will cause the term to lose all meaning. Because then, Manning becomes a "whistleblower", and those clowns the GOP called to testify during the Benghazi hearings become "whistleblowers" etc. etc. You may as well just do away with the term altogether then, because it's obviously just become pointless filler at that stage.
 
2013-06-24 12:59:55 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Blathering Idjut: Debeo Summa Credo: Secondly, although sophisticated al qaeda members would know that they were under surveillance, run of the mill dopes like the Boston bombers likely wouldn't know. Now such people are more aware do and may change their tactics.

Thank God we had this domestic spying program in place which was able to stop the Boston marathon bombings.

Thank god we have an inclusive society and sp many arguing that we should not assume all Muslims are terrorists. Clearly, treating them with respect prevented them from killing innocent people.

/not arguing that we should assume all Muslims are terrorists, just pointing out how illogical it is to assume that any current policy is failing universally because it failed on one or a few occasions.


Except you're the one up-thread using the Boston marathon bombing as justification for the spying program.  You specifically argued that it won't catch organized terrorist organizations but would catch lone knuckleheads like the Tsarnaevs.

It didn't.  Know why?

Because putting aside the dubious constitutionality of the program the program itself is built on a ridiculous assumption- that people that want to do the U.S. harm are really, really stupid.
 
2013-06-24 02:57:36 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: mrlewish: At the end of this do we become a country worth bombing?

Ask Bill Ayers.  He's set of plenty of bombs here.  He also says Fartbongo should face war crimes charges.  When a terrorist says you're a scumbag, you have problems.


Good God. This thread went from "mildly entertaining" to "alcohol poisoning" in 4 sentences...
 
2013-06-24 03:05:53 PM  
sendtodave: Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) also claimed that reports of the NSA collecting phone records was "nothing particularly new."
"Every member of the United States Senate has been advised of this," Chambliss said. "And to my knowledge we have not had any citizen who has registered a complaint relative to the gathering of this information."


fark me, really? The ol' "Nobody seemed to mind!" argument? Because from where I'm standing LOTS of citizens are complaining. I wonder how Chambliss could sound more out of touch?
 
2013-06-24 05:14:45 PM  

FuryOfFirestorm: mephox: I wonder what, other than facing punishment for revealing information classified as top secret, trying him will get. Some politicians seem to think that if they get him back, that somehow they can put the genie back in the bottle. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with Snowden's actions - on the one hand, he did leak top secret information and on the other, it could have been much worse, and on the other we already kinda knew this was happening. It was a 'Shhh, don't tell anybody' kind of top secret. No one acknowledged it officially, but everyone knew it was probably happening.

But, now that the genie is out of the bottle, or in a more apt analogy - you can't uncook a goose. The goose is cooked. Deal with it.

If I heard it correctly, it's been reported that he still has several laptops full of unreleased US secrets. If that's true, it's in America's best interests to get Snowden back.


Several laptops? lulz... if that's how the US thinks data portability works, good god, we farking deserve to fail (on many other levels too). The thing is, until Snowden, there was no solid evidence of US citizens being spied on or having their data collected... the ACLU and other people (despite Chambliss' claims) sued, but lost, because the court said they didn't have standing to sue, as they could not show that any American's data had been collected, er go they were not affected, and subsequently lacked standing to argue that such collection was unconstitutional. This is a really serious issue, and definitely should make its way thorugh the court... congress effectively gave a secret court the right to provide warrants without due process, against US citizens... the supreme court needs to rule on whether or not congress can simply circumnavigate the fourth and fifth amendments in such a manner (as the taking of private property for public use is prohibited)... the courts have ruled time and time again that piracy or copying of private data constitutes taking private property when ordinary citizens do it... so it would be interesting to see how they view the issue when the government is the one surreptitiously copying private intellectual property without consent or process.
 
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