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.

(CNN)   Who broke the law, Snowden or the NSA? Why not both?   (edition.cnn.com) divider line 68
    More: Followup, NSA, fourth amendment, Michael V. Hayden, oaths, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court  
•       •       •

941 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Dec 2013 at 6:02 PM (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-18 06:05:01 PM  
The NSA IS THE LAW!
 
2013-12-18 06:08:24 PM  
Both
 
2013-12-18 06:09:41 PM  
Hey, at least we're not planning on shooting Snowden in the balls if we catch him, like that one guy suggested.

Who was that again? There was someone that said we should shoot people like Snowden in the balls when we catch them.... Hmmm... I can't remember the guy's name....
 
2013-12-18 06:12:44 PM  
Awwwww shiat! Let me get the govt apologist boot flavored popcorn ready!

Oh, and shut up bc you use google and privacy is stupid and Snowden is a stripper dating AW who didn't conform to my standards of righteous martyrdumb so everything the NSA does is ok!
 
2013-12-18 06:13:35 PM  
"so much for the golden future, I can't even start.."
 
2013-12-18 06:13:42 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Awwwww shiat! Let me get the govt apologist boot flavored popcorn ready!

Oh, and shut up bc you use google and privacy is stupid and Snowden is a stripper dating AW who didn't conform to my standards of righteous martyrdumb so everything the NSA does is ok!


At least you got your masturbation done early.
 
2013-12-18 06:15:10 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Awwwww shiat! Let me get the govt apologist boot flavored popcorn ready!

Oh, and shut up bc you use google and privacy is stupid and Snowden is a stripper dating AW who didn't conform to my standards of righteous martyrdumb so everything the NSA does is ok!


Yeah, that's pretty much sums it up.
 
2013-12-18 06:23:06 PM  
It was shocking to see the interview on MSNBC a few years ago with the former director of NSA, Michael V. Hayden, and hear him redefine the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. When asked whether NSA had violated the Fourth Amendment, Hayden said it had not. Hayden said "probable cause" was not the Fourth Amendment's standard for violating a citizen's privacy -- it was based on "reasonable suspicion."

Of course it is. We always assume that people who are reasonably suspect are guilty. It's kinda in our nature to condemn people based on suspicion. We tend to presume guilt.

WHICH IS WHY WE MAKE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS SAYING WE CAN'T DO THAT, YOU ASSHATS.
 
2013-12-18 06:24:08 PM  
a little from column 'a,' a little from column 'b'

old.daps.tv
 
2013-12-18 06:24:50 PM  

sendtodave: It was shocking to see the interview on MSNBC a few years ago with the former director of NSA, Michael V. Hayden, and hear him redefine the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. When asked whether NSA had violated the Fourth Amendment, Hayden said it had not. Hayden said "probable cause" was not the Fourth Amendment's standard for violating a citizen's privacy -- it was based on "reasonable suspicion."

Of course it is. We always assume that people who are reasonably suspect are guilty. It's kinda in our nature to condemn people based on suspicion. We tend to presume guilt.

WHICH IS WHY WE MAKE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS SAYING WE CAN'T DO THAT, YOU ASSHATS.


In some respects he is correct, in others he is wrong.
 
2013-12-18 06:25:28 PM  
Then again, I'm going to go with sendtodave using a bit of distortion.
 
2013-12-18 06:26:59 PM  

The Bruce Dickinson: The NSA IS THE LAW!


i738.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-18 06:28:20 PM  
mathnexus.wwu.edu

Hai guyz, what's going on in this thread?
 
2013-12-18 06:31:49 PM  
¿Por que no los dos?
 
2013-12-18 06:32:44 PM  

sprgrss: Then again, I'm going to go with sendtodave using a bit of distortion.


What, on the privacy, guilt thing? Privacy rights should only be set aside for probable cause - presumed guilt. Not just for suspicion of guilt.

If it were me, I'd set the bar even higher.

"In the context of warrants, the Oxford Companion to American Law defines probable cause as "information sufficient to warrant a prudent person's belief that the wanted individual had committed a crime (for an arrest warrant) or that evidence of a crime or contraband would be found in a search (for a search warrant)". "Probable cause" is a stronger standard of evidence than a reasonable suspicion, but weaker than what is required to secure a criminal conviction. Even hearsay can supply probable cause if it is from a reliable source or supported by other evidence, according to the Aguilar-Spinelli test." -- Wiki
 
2013-12-18 06:35:08 PM  
Both, but I give Snowden a pass because he was trying to bring the illegal activity of the NSA to light.  He is a classic whistleblower.
 
2013-12-18 06:35:50 PM  
images.sodahead.com
 
2013-12-18 06:37:14 PM  
NSA missed the one crowd pleaser -- get those telemarketers.
 
2013-12-18 06:41:20 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: Both, but I give Snowden a pass because he was trying to bring the illegal activity of the NSA to light.  He is a classic whistleblower.


All, see,to ants why these threads all devolve into "Snowden is just an attention whore!"

Because it goes to motive. If he broke the law for altruistic reasons, for the good of everyone, well, it's harder to convict him.

But if he broke the law for selfish reasons, well, he's obviously a traitor.
 
2013-12-18 06:43:59 PM  
Dammitsosomuch.

I don't even know what "all see to ants" was supposed to mean. Just pretend that says "which is."
 
2013-12-18 07:04:51 PM  
The law is pretty morally neutral, if something says it is illegal, assuming things happened that way and a judge or jury say so, it is illegal.  However a jury could take a hard look and say nothing wrong was done.

However I want to ask who has the upper hand morally?
 
2013-12-18 07:11:38 PM  

sendtodave: It was shocking to see the interview on MSNBC a few years ago with the former director of NSA, Michael V. Hayden, and hear him redefine the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. When asked whether NSA had violated the Fourth Amendment, Hayden said it had not. Hayden said "probable cause" was not the Fourth Amendment's standard for violating a citizen's privacy -- it was based on "reasonable suspicion."

Of course it is. We always assume that people who are reasonably suspect are guilty. It's kinda in our nature to condemn people based on suspicion. We tend to presume guilt.

WHICH IS WHY WE MAKE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS SAYING WE CAN'T DO THAT, YOU ASSHATS.


I saw Hayden a couple years ago brag about CIA policies of targeted assassinations. This was in Canada, so the room was a bit shocked, to say the least.
 
2013-12-18 07:20:44 PM  
Both, by definition. However, in case of NSA it was a gross disregard toward the constitution, for Snowden it was morality trumping legality.

So thumbs down to NSA, thumbs up to Snowde ...

/Wait guys, someone's at the door, I'll ba
 
2013-12-18 07:21:59 PM  

sendtodave: Mr. Eugenides: Both, but I give Snowden a pass because he was trying to bring the illegal activity of the NSA to light.  He is a classic whistleblower.

All, see,to ants why these threads all devolve into "Snowden is just an attention whore!"

Because it goes to motive. If he broke the law for altruistic reasons, for the good of everyone, well, it's harder to convict him.

But if he broke the law for selfish reasons, well, he's obviously a traitor.


The biggest problem I have with Snowden is he's unwilling to suffer the consequences of his actions, regardless of whether they're benevolent or not.
 
2013-12-18 07:23:08 PM  

T-Servo: I saw Hayden a couple years ago brag about CIA policies of targeted assassinations. This was in Canada, so the room was a bit shocked, to say the least.


Does anyone have that image where one Nazi is talking to another and says "hey, we have skulls all over our uniforms. Do you think maybe we're the bad guys?"

Cause it sort of puts this in context.

static3.businessinsider.com
 
2013-12-18 07:27:08 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: Both, but I give Snowden a pass because he was trying to bring the illegal activity of the NSA to light.  He is a classic whistleblower.


This. He should be pardoned and repatriated to assist in the prosecution of the relevant officials.

/and why not, give him a unicorn while we're at it
 
2013-12-18 07:27:09 PM  

Bith Set Me Up: The biggest problem I have with Snowden is he's unwilling to suffer the consequences of his actions, regardless of whether they're benevolent or not.


Unlike all the NSA officials that were found by the FISA court to be in willful defiance of court orders who bravely stood up to go to jail because they broke the law to protect innocent American lives, knowing it was illegal but insisting it was the right thing to do, and now sit in a cage because of their convictions.
 
2013-12-18 07:27:14 PM  

sendtodave: sprgrss: Then again, I'm going to go with sendtodave using a bit of distortion.

What, on the privacy, guilt thing? Privacy rights should only be set aside for probable cause - presumed guilt. Not just for suspicion of guilt.

If it were me, I'd set the bar even higher.

"In the context of warrants, the Oxford Companion to American Law defines probable cause as "information sufficient to warrant a prudent person's belief that the wanted individual had committed a crime (for an arrest warrant) or that evidence of a crime or contraband would be found in a search (for a search warrant)". "Probable cause" is a stronger standard of evidence than a reasonable suspicion, but weaker than what is required to secure a criminal conviction. Even hearsay can supply probable cause if it is from a reliable source or supported by other evidence, according to the Aguilar-Spinelli test." -- Wiki


Not all searches require warrants and not all searches are searches as defined by the fourth amendment.

The fourth amendment only prohibits unreasonable searches and also only requires PC for a warrant.
 
2013-12-18 07:29:09 PM  

Bith Set Me Up: sendtodave: Mr. Eugenides: Both, but I give Snowden a pass because he was trying to bring the illegal activity of the NSA to light.  He is a classic whistleblower.

All, see,to ants why these threads all devolve into "Snowden is just an attention whore!"

Because it goes to motive. If he broke the law for altruistic reasons, for the good of everyone, well, it's harder to convict him.

But if he broke the law for selfish reasons, well, he's obviously a traitor.

The biggest problem I have with Snowden is he's unwilling to suffer the consequences of his actions, regardless of whether they're benevolent or not.


For a guy that values privacy, I would think having to hide out in Russia, cut off totally from his former life, and likely being monitored 24/7, is suffering some consequences.

It says something that he's afraid of worse treatment here, and that he was able to get asylum for fear of persecution.

Thanks, all you guys that made an example out of Manning! Message received!
 
2013-12-18 07:29:13 PM  

Bith Set Me Up: sendtodave: Mr. Eugenides: Both, but I give Snowden a pass because he was trying to bring the illegal activity of the NSA to light.  He is a classic whistleblower.

All, see,to ants why these threads all devolve into "Snowden is just an attention whore!"

Because it goes to motive. If he broke the law for altruistic reasons, for the good of everyone, well, it's harder to convict him.

But if he broke the law for selfish reasons, well, he's obviously a traitor.

The biggest problem I have with Snowden is he's unwilling to suffer the consequences of his actions, regardless of whether they're benevolent or not.


He IS suffering the consequences of his actions. I don't see how volunteering to be tortured would be purifying.
 
2013-12-18 07:36:48 PM  

Bith Set Me Up: sendtodave: Mr. Eugenides: Both, but I give Snowden a pass because he was trying to bring the illegal activity of the NSA to light.  He is a classic whistleblower.

All, see,to ants why these threads all devolve into "Snowden is just an attention whore!"

Because it goes to motive. If he broke the law for altruistic reasons, for the good of everyone, well, it's harder to convict him.

But if he broke the law for selfish reasons, well, he's obviously a traitor.

The biggest problem I have with Snowden is he's unwilling to suffer the consequences of his actions, regardless of whether they're benevolent or not.


This is moronic.

When Daniel Ellsburg leaked the Pentagon Papers, he was free to go around and speak at rallies and whatnot while under indictment. Now, compare that to Bradley/Chelsea Manning, who was stripped naked and put in solitary for months, in conditions US and International Law defines as torture. Do you really think the reaction to Edward Snowden would be any different?

The US has changed quite a lot. I do not blame anyone who is trying to escape an Orwellian hell of torture and intimidation, and it really worries me that you're unable to look at the very serious evidence of wrongdoing contained in these documents because the guy who released them didn't play along with your particular revenge fantasy.

The Government exists to serve the people, not the other way around. Would you hold the guys resisting the Nazis to the same standard? "Well, Mr. Schindler, I want to help, but you broke German law, I think you really should have the courage to turn yourself in and face the consequences of that." Do you realize just how incredibly absurd that sounds? The US Government is looking to punish Edward Snowden for revealing its illegal activities. Why on earth should he play along and get himself a life sentence for revealing the illegal behavior of other people?

\Yeah, Godwined the thread.
\\Don't care.
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2013-12-18 07:44:42 PM  
A spy criminally outing spies for criminally violating the constitution.


catmacros.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-12-18 07:46:30 PM  

cptjeff: Bith Set Me Up: sendtodave: Mr. Eugenides: Both, but I give Snowden a pass because he was trying to bring the illegal activity of the NSA to light.  He is a classic whistleblower.

All, see,to ants why these threads all devolve into "Snowden is just an attention whore!"

Because it goes to motive. If he broke the law for altruistic reasons, for the good of everyone, well, it's harder to convict him.

But if he broke the law for selfish reasons, well, he's obviously a traitor.

The biggest problem I have with Snowden is he's unwilling to suffer the consequences of his actions, regardless of whether they're benevolent or not.

This is moronic.

When Daniel Ellsburg leaked the Pentagon Papers, he was free to go around and speak at rallies and whatnot while under indictment. Now, compare that to Bradley/Chelsea Manning, who was stripped naked and put in solitary for months, in conditions US and International Law defines as torture. Do you really think the reaction to Edward Snowden would be any different?

The US has changed quite a lot. I do not blame anyone who is trying to escape an Orwellian hell of torture and intimidation, and it really worries me that you're unable to look at the very serious evidence of wrongdoing contained in these documents because the guy who released them didn't play along with your particular revenge fantasy.

The Government exists to serve the people, not the other way around. Would you hold the guys resisting the Nazis to the same standard? "Well, Mr. Schindler, I want to help, but you broke German law, I think you really should have the courage to turn yourself in and face the consequences of that." Do you realize just how incredibly absurd that sounds? The US Government is looking to punish Edward Snowden for revealing its illegal activities. Why on earth should he play along and get himself a life sentence for revealing the illegal behavior of other people?

\Yeah, Godwined the thread.
\\Don't care.


Why? I think I know why.

We've been taught for over thirty years that the law is the law, and anyone who goes against the law deserves punishment.
 
2013-12-18 07:54:29 PM  

cptjeff: Bith Set Me Up: sendtodave: Mr. Eugenides: Both, but I give Snowden a pass because he was trying to bring the illegal activity of the NSA to light.  He is a classic whistleblower.

All, see,to ants why these threads all devolve into "Snowden is just an attention whore!"

Because it goes to motive. If he broke the law for altruistic reasons, for the good of everyone, well, it's harder to convict him.

But if he broke the law for selfish reasons, well, he's obviously a traitor.

The biggest problem I have with Snowden is he's unwilling to suffer the consequences of his actions, regardless of whether they're benevolent or not.

This is moronic.

When Daniel Ellsburg leaked the Pentagon Papers, he was free to go around and speak at rallies and whatnot while under indictment. Now, compare that to Bradley/Chelsea Manning, who was stripped naked and put in solitary for months, in conditions US and International Law defines as torture. Do you really think the reaction to Edward Snowden would be any different?

The US has changed quite a lot. I do not blame anyone who is trying to escape an Orwellian hell of torture and intimidation, and it really worries me that you're unable to look at the very serious evidence of wrongdoing contained in these documents because the guy who released them didn't play along with your particular revenge fantasy.

The Government exists to serve the people, not the other way around. Would you hold the guys resisting the Nazis to the same standard? "Well, Mr. Schindler, I want to help, but you broke German law, I think you really should have the courage to turn yourself in and face the consequences of that." Do you realize just how incredibly absurd that sounds? The US Government is looking to punish Edward Snowden for revealing its illegal activities. Why on earth should he play along and get himself a life sentence for revealing the illegal behavior of other people?

\Yeah, Godwined the thread.
\\Don't care.


Why does everyone ignore the fact the manning was under suicide watch and kept in solitary for his own protection. Imagine your biatching had the military not taken the signs of suicide seriously and allowed himself to hang himself with his clothes instead of being stripped naked and provided with a suicide blanket. Not to mention, manning was held by the military because he was active duty military.

Snowmen meets none of those requirements.
 
2013-12-18 07:57:30 PM  
It's taken me some time to come to the conclusion that Snowden did the right thing.  At first I was of the belief that he did the right thing the wrong way.  After some thought, there really wasn't any way for him to do it without getting his ass thrown in jail or killed.

The bottom line is that he didn't out spies, he didn't get anyone killed by the "secrets" he disclosed (despite whatever the government says), he outed the NSA for violating the Constitution.
 
2013-12-18 08:00:43 PM  
So you farking people are learning that your Country is morphing into something else right? That's why people like Snowden need to exist, or you'll all end up in a machine.
 
2013-12-18 08:01:53 PM  

slayer199: It's taken me some time to come to the conclusion that Snowden did the right thing.  At first I was of the belief that he did the right thing the wrong way.  After some thought, there really wasn't any way for him to do it without getting his ass thrown in jail or killed.

The bottom line is that he didn't out spies, he didn't get anyone killed by the "secrets" he disclosed (despite whatever the government says), he outed the NSA for violating the Constitution.


Part of civil disobedience is taking the punishment. Snowden is not a hero. He is a coward who thinks the constitution espouses his own crypto libertarian beliefs. It doesn't.
 
2013-12-18 08:02:05 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Unlike all the NSA officials that were found by the FISA court to be in willful defiance of court orders who bravely stood up to go to jail because they broke the law to protect innocent American lives, knowing it was illegal but insisting it was the right thing to do, and now sit in a cage because of their convictions.


Wut?
 
2013-12-18 08:07:01 PM  

sprgrss: Why does everyone ignore the fact the manning was under suicide watch


People ignore that because it was utter bullshiat used to justify torture? C'mon, you're a lawyer, I would hope that you know better than to accept claims at face value. He was illegally held without charge in insanely degrading conditions. "Suicide watch" does not mean you're allowed to do whatever the hell you want, Law and Constitution be damned.
 
2013-12-18 08:10:46 PM  

sprgrss: Part of civil disobedience is taking the punishment. Snowden is not a hero. He is a coward who thinks the constitution espouses his own crypto libertarian beliefs. It doesn't.


Not civil disobedience.  Civil disobedience is like a sit-in.  Snowden is a whistleblower.  Given how the government has gone after whistleblowers, I highly doubt it would have been safe or prudent for him to show any documents or gone to the press with the info had he not left the country.  And how do you get it as crypto-libertarian beliefs?  That the 4th Amendment matters?

Can you imagine the disinformation that would have occurred if he was captured after the first document release?  The U.S Government would have said he's a loon, that he made the stuff up, etc.   Considering how much they denied things and then we'd get another document dump to prove that the NSA and government were lying.  You have way too much faith in the government.
 
2013-12-18 08:12:34 PM  

sprgrss: slayer199: It's taken me some time to come to the conclusion that Snowden did the right thing.  At first I was of the belief that he did the right thing the wrong way.  After some thought, there really wasn't any way for him to do it without getting his ass thrown in jail or killed.

The bottom line is that he didn't out spies, he didn't get anyone killed by the "secrets" he disclosed (despite whatever the government says), he outed the NSA for violating the Constitution.

Part of civil disobedience is taking the punishment. Snowden is not a hero. He is a coward who thinks the constitution espouses his own crypto libertarian beliefs. It doesn't.


You should probably read this. In case you missed it, for the first time, a Federal Judge got to actually rule on this stuff. You might be surprised as to how that turned out.
 
2013-12-18 08:16:16 PM  
I've read that judges opinion and I disagree with it. It will be overturned. You can bank on that. The judge even acknowledged that by staying his order
 
2013-12-18 08:17:32 PM  

cptjeff: sprgrss: Why does everyone ignore the fact the manning was under suicide watch

People ignore that because it was utter bullshiat used to justify torture? C'mon, you're a lawyer, I would hope that you know better than to accept claims at face value. He was illegally held without charge in insanely degrading conditions. "Suicide watch" does not mean you're allowed to do whatever the hell you want, Law and Constitution be damned.


I have no evidence to the contrary and given manning's strange behavior it is believable.
 
2013-12-18 08:19:06 PM  

sendtodave: Bith Set Me Up: sendtodave: Mr. Eugenides: Both, but I give Snowden a pass because he was trying to bring the illegal activity of the NSA to light.  He is a classic whistleblower.

All, see,to ants why these threads all devolve into "Snowden is just an attention whore!"

Because it goes to motive. If he broke the law for altruistic reasons, for the good of everyone, well, it's harder to convict him.

But if he broke the law for selfish reasons, well, he's obviously a traitor.

The biggest problem I have with Snowden is he's unwilling to suffer the consequences of his actions, regardless of whether they're benevolent or not.

For a guy that values privacy, I would think having to hide out in Russia, cut off totally from his former life, and likely being monitored 24/7, is suffering some consequences.

It says something that he's afraid of worse treatment here, and that he was able to get asylum for fear of persecution.

Thanks, all you guys that made an example out of Manning! Message received!


Those are the consequences of avoiding the consequences of his actions. Not the same thing.
 
2013-12-18 08:19:51 PM  

slayer199: sprgrss: Part of civil disobedience is taking the punishment. Snowden is not a hero. He is a coward who thinks the constitution espouses his own crypto libertarian beliefs. It doesn't.

Not civil disobedience.  Civil disobedience is like a sit-in.  Snowden is a whistleblower.  Given how the government has gone after whistleblowers, I highly doubt it would have been safe or prudent for him to show any documents or gone to the press with the info had he not left the country.  And how do you get it as crypto-libertarian beliefs?  That the 4th Amendment matters?

Can you imagine the disinformation that would have occurred if he was captured after the first document release?  The U.S Government would have said he's a loon, that he made the stuff up, etc.   Considering how much they denied things and then we'd get another document dump to prove that the NSA and government were lying.  You have way too much faith in the government.


I fully acknowledge the 4th amendment. It is not what snowden and greenwald would have you to believe what it is. I've yet to see anything to suggest that what snowden has disclose is even a search according to the fourth amendment.
 
2013-12-18 09:04:50 PM  

sprgrss: slayer199: It's taken me some time to come to the conclusion that Snowden did the right thing.  At first I was of the belief that he did the right thing the wrong way.  After some thought, there really wasn't any way for him to do it without getting his ass thrown in jail or killed.

The bottom line is that he didn't out spies, he didn't get anyone killed by the "secrets" he disclosed (despite whatever the government says), he outed the NSA for violating the Constitution.

Part of civil disobedience is taking the punishment. Snowden is not a hero. He is a coward who thinks the constitution espouses his own crypto libertarian beliefs. It doesn't.


img.fark.net ?

/whistleblowing isn't civil disobedience anyway
//but now I understand where you are coming from, at least
 
2013-12-18 09:25:52 PM  

sendtodave: It was shocking to see the interview on MSNBC a few years ago with the former director of NSA, Michael V. Hayden, and hear him redefine the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. When asked whether NSA had violated the Fourth Amendment, Hayden said it had not. Hayden said "probable cause" was not the Fourth Amendment's standard for violating a citizen's privacy -- it was based on "reasonable suspicion."

Of course it is. We always assume that people who are reasonably suspect are guilty. It's kinda in our nature to condemn people based on suspicion. We tend to presume guilt.

WHICH IS WHY WE MAKE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS SAYING WE CAN'T DO THAT, YOU ASSHATS.


"Director of NSA passionate defender of what he imagines the Constitution to be."
 
2013-12-18 10:13:47 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Bith Set Me Up: The biggest problem I have with Snowden is he's unwilling to suffer the consequences of his actions, regardless of whether they're benevolent or not.

Unlike all the NSA officials that were found by the FISA court to be in willful defiance of court orders who bravely stood up to go to jail because they broke the law to protect innocent American lives, knowing it was illegal but insisting it was the right thing to do, and now sit in a cage because of their convictions.


cptjeff: Bith Set Me Up: sendtodave: Mr. Eugenides: Both, but I give Snowden a pass because he was trying to bring the illegal activity of the NSA to light.  He is a classic whistleblower.

All, see,to ants why these threads all devolve into "Snowden is just an attention whore!"

Because it goes to motive. If he broke the law for altruistic reasons, for the good of everyone, well, it's harder to convict him.

But if he broke the law for selfish reasons, well, he's obviously a traitor.

The biggest problem I have with Snowden is he's unwilling to suffer the consequences of his actions, regardless of whether they're benevolent or not.

This is moronic.

When Daniel Ellsburg leaked the Pentagon Papers, he was free to go around and speak at rallies and whatnot while under indictment. Now, compare that to Bradley/Chelsea Manning, who was stripped naked and put in solitary for months, in conditions US and International Law defines as torture. Do you really think the reaction to Edward Snowden would be any different?

The US has changed quite a lot. I do not blame anyone who is trying to escape an Orwellian hell of torture and intimidation, and it really worries me that you're unable to look at the very serious evidence of wrongdoing contained in these documents because the guy who released them didn't play along with your particular revenge fantasy.

The Government exists to serve the people, not the other way around. Would you hold the guys resisting the Nazis to the same standard? "Well, Mr. Schindler, I want to help, but you broke German law, I think you really should have the courage to turn yourself in and face the consequences of that." Do you realize just how incredibly absurd that sounds? The US Government is looking to punish Edward Snowden for revealing its illegal activities. Why on earth should he play along and get himself a life sentence for revealing the illegal behavior of other people?

\Yeah, Godwined the thread.
\\Don't care.


All I said was that Snowden is guilty, not that the NSA is innocent.
 
2013-12-18 10:16:53 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: T-Servo: I saw Hayden a couple years ago brag about CIA policies of targeted assassinations. This was in Canada, so the room was a bit shocked, to say the least.

Does anyone have that image where one Nazi is talking to another and says "hey, we have skulls all over our uniforms. Do you think maybe we're the bad guys?"

Cause it sort of puts this in context.

[static3.businessinsider.com image 576x432]


New Rule. When you compare someone to the Nazi Regime in a hyperbolic fashion, everyone else in the thread gets to kick you square in the balls. Not at once, but we all line up and get a turn.

I think that would solve our problem.

Bith Set Me Up: All I said was that Snowden is guilty, not that the NSA is innocent.


2.bp.blogspot.com

Mongo posting in thread have difficulty with concept of grey and grey morality. Mongo must have clear enemy and clear, flawless hero. Mongo need pedestal.
 
2013-12-18 10:31:25 PM  

sprgrss: I have no evidence to the contrary and given manning's strange behavior it is believable.


Okay, let's start with normal "suicide watch" practice:

Link

Prisoners placed on suicide watch typically are stripped of their clothes only temporarily, until they can be provided with a suicide smock that prevents them from harming themselves while still giving them some sort of privacy. And even then, suicide watch usually lasts for just a few days before the prisoner is sent back to his or her regular cell or some sort of rehabilitation facility. "It is unheard of for someone to be on suicide watch for nine months,"

Separate from the issue of whether this treatment was irregular or even inhumane, the question remains, should he have even been on any kind of "suicide watch" to begin with? Instead of making our own uneducated judgement calls, having no training in psychological diagnosis or firsthand knowledge of the conditions faced by Manning, perhaps we should ask people who have both:

Link

Oltman and others have testified that psychiatrists who examined Manning at the Marine brig repeatedly recommended that his conditions be eased.

[Officer in charge of the brig Colonel] Oltman acknowledged he told [Psychiatrist Captain] Hochter: "'Nothing's going to change. He won't be able to hurt himself. He's not going to be able to get away, and our way of ensuring this is that he will remain on this status indefinitely."


Link

Testifying Wednesday afternoon, Navy Captain William Hocter, the behavioral health specialist who treated Manning at the Quantico brig, said it seemed the base's command made up its mind to keep Manning under strict observation and that clinical recommendations to take the detainee off of restrictive watch were ignored.

Okay, now you have seen evidence to the contrary.
 
Displayed 50 of 68 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report