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.

(ABC News)   Eric Holder asks Russia to return Edward Snowden, promises not to torture or execute him. Much   (abcnews.go.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Russia, U.S., torture, Espionage Act  
•       •       •

1532 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Jan 2014 at 7:08 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2014-01-23 05:41:05 PM  
just trade snowden for holder
 
2014-01-23 06:09:56 PM  

snuffy: just trade snowden for holder


I'm OK with this.
 
2014-01-23 06:19:11 PM  
Pinky swear
 
2014-01-23 06:25:53 PM  
It's f*cking disgraceful that the prospect of indefinite detainment and torture by American authorities is so plausible that the AG had to specifically promise not to.
 
2014-01-23 06:44:23 PM  
The most odious part of Bush and Obama's trouncing of the Constitution is their reliance on the "state secrets privilege," a fictitious legal privilege, borrowed from the ancient English common law but abolished hundreds of years ago, that allows the government to summarily shut down any case brought against it on amorphous national security grounds. This alone is justification for why Snowden could never receive a Constitutional, fair trial under the present regime. It's as if the government said you couldn't vote because you're black, you brought suit citing the 14th and 15th Amendments, and they demanded the case be dismissed under the Crown's right to have custody over all slaves. Complete rubbish propagated by people who want control over everything under the pretense of security.

At least Bush had the excuse of being an idiot, but Constitutional scholar Obama should be ashamed of himself. Contrary to what the media seems to be parroting-- this is not a vague issue. The Constitution is quite clear about the impropriety of general warrants and the requirement of due process.

Bring back our Constitutional protections and Snowden.
 
2014-01-23 07:14:19 PM  
Hey, at least we haven't promised to shoot him in the balls, like that one guy suggested.

Who was that again? Someone important said we should shoot people like Edward Snowden in the balls, but for the life of me I can't remember the guy's name...
 
2014-01-23 07:15:15 PM  
Remember, we should ignore the other state secrets and intelligence operations he compromised because some people didn't know the government spied on everyone it can, like it has since at least the Cold War.

Espionage is OK if it reveals something objectionable among everything else!
 
2014-01-23 07:15:59 PM  

Cagey B: It's f*cking disgraceful that the prospect of indefinite detainment and torture by American authorities is so plausible that the AG had to specifically promise not to.


AMERICA! fark YEAH!

I would be okay if everyone in America who ever supported torture or indefinite detainment suddenly died.
 
2014-01-23 07:22:08 PM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: snuffy: just trade snowden for holder

I'm OK with this.


 What you said.
 
2014-01-23 07:23:07 PM  
Funny. We didn't ask until the Olympics kicked in.

Maybe NBC will get an interview with Snowden. We'll finally learn all about Snowden's childhood dreams that were crushed by a tragedy but then fulfilled through hard work, pluck and the grace of God.

Nothing like giving an emperor a chance to impress the peons with his magnanimity. (The emperor is Putin not Kostas.)
 
2014-01-23 07:24:40 PM  
Putin is going to hold on to Snowden at the very least until after the Olympics. It's his free ticket to commit as many human rights violations as he wants, since the US isn't in a position to finger-wag at Russia as long as more of the NSA's disgusting behavior keeps being revealed.
 
2014-01-23 07:25:36 PM  

LordJiro: Remember, we should ignore the other state secrets and intelligence operations he compromised because some people didn't know the government spied on everyone it can, like it has since at least the Cold War.

Espionage is OK if it reveals something objectionable among everything else!


I keep seeing this argument, but nobody ever elaborates on what state secrets and intelligence operations he compromised regarding China and Russia. Is it the encryption backdoor, pre-installed spyware, and phone tapping operations? Or was there some massive release of the name of every spy operating around the world that I somehow missed? What specifically did he compromise, and furthermore why does it even matter if everyone already knew that the US government was spying on everyone it could?
 
2014-01-23 07:26:26 PM  

globalwarmingpraiser: ecmoRandomNumbers: snuffy: just trade snowden for holder

I'm OK with this.

 What you said.


And can we add shooting Holder in the balls post-trade?
 
2014-01-23 07:30:50 PM  
I don't want him back until he shaves that scruff off his face and they wipe all the douchiness off of him.
 
2014-01-23 07:33:21 PM  
leak all the secrets!
 
2014-01-23 07:40:42 PM  
Well I'm ok with this since they are promising a fair trial under the rule of law.

"Of course if Mr. Snowden's lawyers informed us their client was prepared to take accountability by pleading guilty to the charges filed against him, we would engage with his lawyers on that, as we would with any other defendant," a Department of Justice spokesperson echoed later.

Oh, uh, never mind.
 
2014-01-23 07:43:52 PM  

Solutare: Cagey B: It's f*cking disgraceful that the prospect of indefinite detainment and torture by American authorities is so plausible that the AG had to specifically promise not to.

AMERICA! fark YEAH!

I would be okay if everyone in America who ever supported torture or indefinite detainment suddenly died.


The Administration supports indefinite detention of "terror suspects," as do most of the Congress and Senate, so that would clear DC out pretty quick.
 
2014-01-23 07:44:11 PM  

Cagey B: It's f*cking disgraceful that the prospect of indefinite detainment and torture by American authorities is so plausible that the AG had to specifically promise not to.


I don't think he promised not to detain him indefinitely.

At the time, Holder said that should Snowden return, he would be provided all the protections the law allows.

All zero of them.  His primary defense isn't allowed by law.  How nice of Holder to offer this.
 
2014-01-23 07:50:01 PM  
NSA agents have already publicly admitted they would love to shoot Snowden in the head.  They aren't one bit ashamed that they violated the Constitution and a nation's trust.  They are just pissed that they got caught doing it.
 
2014-01-23 07:52:41 PM  
If Snowden was indeed legally forced to come back to the US, Putin should be a good Russian and just hand Snowden a pistol. Then tell him to do himself a favor rather than face that bullsh*# over there.

Sorry, but heroics and martyrdom are useless in a kangaroo court.
 
2014-01-23 08:08:28 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: Well I'm ok with this since they are promising a fair trial under the rule of law.

"Of course if Mr. Snowden's lawyers informed us their client was prepared to take accountability by pleading guilty to the charges filed against him, we would engage with his lawyers on that, as we would with any other defendant," a Department of Justice spokesperson echoed later.

Oh, uh, never mind.


Especially since some in congress are now pushing the theory that Snowden is a Russian spy.
 
2014-01-23 08:08:59 PM  

cold_weather_tex: If Snowden was indeed legally forced to come back to the US, Putin should be a good Russian and just hand Snowden a pistol. Then tell him to do himself a favor rather than face that bullsh*# over there.

Sorry, but heroics and martyrdom are useless in a kangaroo court.


Nah.  If Snowden were extradited, he'd just end up changing his name to Edna.
 
2014-01-23 08:10:55 PM  

OgreMagi: NSA agents have already publicly admitted they would love to shoot Snowden in the head.  They aren't one bit ashamed that they violated the Constitution and a nation's trust.  They are just pissed that they got caught doing it.


How they haven't been removed from duty is beyond me.
 
2014-01-23 08:11:05 PM  

Emposter: Cagey B: It's f*cking disgraceful that the prospect of indefinite detainment and torture by American authorities is so plausible that the AG had to specifically promise not to.

I don't think he promised not to detain him indefinitely.

At the time, Holder said that should Snowden return, he would be provided all the protections the law allows.

All zero of them.  His primary defense isn't allowed by law.  How nice of Holder to offer this.


And what primary defense is that?
 
2014-01-23 08:13:05 PM  

sprgrss: Emposter: Cagey B: It's f*cking disgraceful that the prospect of indefinite detainment and torture by American authorities is so plausible that the AG had to specifically promise not to.

I don't think he promised not to detain him indefinitely.

At the time, Holder said that should Snowden return, he would be provided all the protections the law allows.

All zero of them.  His primary defense isn't allowed by law.  How nice of Holder to offer this.

And what primary defense is that?


Why don't you try reading the article?
 
2014-01-23 08:18:52 PM  
Putin says "Okay, but can I finish torturing him and executing him first? I have to get my Gulags in shape for all the Chechens I'm going to put in them before the Olympics get here."
 
2014-01-23 08:20:38 PM  
Once we execute him, can I have his whorish girlfriend?
 
2014-01-23 08:28:02 PM  

Cagey B: It's f*cking disgraceful that the prospect of indefinite detainment and torture by American authorities is so plausible that the AG had to specifically promise not to.


Indefinite detainment is the punishment for the crime he committed, and nobody's promised not to inflict it on Snowden. They promised not to torture or execute him, neither of which we were ever planning to do. Say what you want about our information gathering techniques, but we have never tortured anyone punitively, just for the hell of it.
 
2014-01-23 08:28:03 PM  
Eric Holder never struck me as a comedian.

Until now.
 
2014-01-23 08:33:10 PM  
Snowden willing and knowingly broke the law, he plotted to do so well before he committed his criminal acts, he has admitted as much.

yes he revealed what the NSA was up to in regards to US Citizens, but the ends do not justify the means.

Also i would not be surprised if he is giving Russia secrets in exchange for his safe haven.

I do not want him dead, i want him to face trial and more than likely be convicted.

He is no hero he is a criminal.
 
2014-01-23 08:38:05 PM  

ignacio: Cagey B: It's f*cking disgraceful that the prospect of indefinite detainment and torture by American authorities is so plausible that the AG had to specifically promise not to.

Indefinite detainment is the punishment for the crime he committed, and nobody's promised not to inflict it on Snowden. They promised not to torture or execute him, neither of which we were ever planning to do. Say what you want about our information gathering techniques, but we have never tortured anyone punitively, just for the hell of it.



We may execute people extrajudicially and torture people punitively just for the hell of it and detain people indefinitely without due process, but at least we don't torture anyone punitively just for the hell of it.
 
2014-01-23 08:40:37 PM  

Emposter: sprgrss: Emposter: Cagey B: It's f*cking disgraceful that the prospect of indefinite detainment and torture by American authorities is so plausible that the AG had to specifically promise not to.

I don't think he promised not to detain him indefinitely.

At the time, Holder said that should Snowden return, he would be provided all the protections the law allows.

All zero of them.  His primary defense isn't allowed by law.  How nice of Holder to offer this.

And what primary defense is that?

Why don't you try reading the article?


His primary defense isn't disallowed by law. It's prevented by his own damn stupidity.

"As much as some may want Snowden to be applauded for his actions, as a legal matter his self-stated laudable intentions are irrelevant to his criminal liability. He can only hope that it will play a role in his sentencing," argued Mark Zaid, a Washington attorney who regularly represents national security whistleblowers.
"Having publicly self-admitted his guilt for having illegally leaked classified information, he has eliminated any likely meaningful legal defence. Snowden unfortunately went about his efforts all wrong and missed available opportunities to generate public debate of the NSA programs but still avoid criminal culpability." (emphasis added)

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/11/edward-snowden-defence

It was his own dumbassery in publicly announcing "Yeah, I leaked all this material that I stole and I did it on purpose and it was classified and I knew it but I did it anyway; was that wrong? Should I not have done that?" that's preventing his public-interest defense, which he might otherwise have had. There is no specific provision in the Espionage Act that forbids a public-interest defense (in fact, there's not much specific in the Espionage Act at all); and in fact the Whistleblower Protection Act and related laws exist to ALLOW such defenses. But whistleblowers have to go about their actions in the right way, and Snowden didn't do that. Info dumps and vomiting classified unredacted material all over the Internet is not responsible whistleblowing; and bragging about it afterward kind of sabotages your defense; in much the same way that posting your armed robbery on your Facebook page negates your defense of giving all the money away to poor orphans after the fact.
 
2014-01-23 08:41:53 PM  

grimlock1972: Snowden willing and knowingly broke the law, he plotted to do so well before he committed his criminal acts, he has admitted as much.

yes he revealed what the NSA was up to in regards to US Citizens, but the ends do not justify the means.

Also i would not be surprised if he is giving Russia secrets in exchange for his safe haven.

I do not want him dead, i want him to face trial and more than likely be convicted.

He is no hero he is a criminal.


Just because what he did was illegal doesn't mean he's not a hero. He's no less a hero than the people who film cops beating up black people for fun in places where filming the police is illegal.
 
2014-01-23 08:54:55 PM  
snowden is an american hero

nsa, congress, obama should all be tried and hung
 
2014-01-23 08:57:52 PM  

Nabb1: Solutare: Cagey B: It's f*cking disgraceful that the prospect of indefinite detainment and torture by American authorities is so plausible that the AG had to specifically promise not to.

AMERICA! fark YEAH!

I would be okay if everyone in America who ever supported torture or indefinite detainment suddenly died.

The Administration supports indefinite detention of "terror suspects," as do most of the Congress and Senate, so that would clear DC out pretty quick.


Genuinely curious--what is your view on the subject?
 
2014-01-23 09:07:46 PM  
Even if we were to accept all of the bizarre rationalizations for what the NSA did, has anyone heard anything on why random, run-of-the-mill contractors should have access to so many of our nation's most important secrets? This isn't a former President blurting out something he was told in a briefing, this is a random schmuck who was hired for a job that (presumably) did not involve every bit of information the NSA collected.

You can't tell me that people under color of authority aren't looking up the records of ex-girlfriends or just people who annoy them. There seems to be nothing in place to prevent it. Maybe if the Fed got their own house in order, the Snowdens of the world wouldn't have access to all of the embarrassing bits. "Here is all the scandalous information of the President of Mali -- and nothing else!" wouldn't grab headlines.
 
2014-01-23 09:09:17 PM  

grimlock1972: Snowden willing and knowingly broke the law, he plotted to do so well before he committed his criminal acts, he has admitted as much.

yes he revealed what the NSA was up to in regards to US Citizens, but the ends do not justify the means.

Also i would not be surprised if he is giving Russia secrets in exchange for his safe haven.

I do not want him dead, i want him to face trial and more than likely be convicted.

He is no hero he is a criminal.


That is seriously delusional. His motives are crystal clear to those of us who are not insane. The government was violating your rights, your neighbour's rights and everyone else's, Snowden recognized this and had the balls to expose it. He is absolutely, 100% a hero.
 
2014-01-23 09:09:47 PM  
I feel like I can trust Holder.
 
2014-01-23 09:11:22 PM  

doctor wu: His motives are crystal clear to those of us who are not insane living in a fantasy world where everything is starkly black and white.

 
2014-01-23 09:12:51 PM  
Were the people who are calling for Snowden's head equally as outraged about the outing of Valerie Plame?
 
2014-01-23 09:16:00 PM  

grimlock1972: Snowden willing and knowingly broke the law, he plotted to do so well before he committed his criminal acts, he has admitted as much.

yes he revealed what the NSA was up to in regards to US Citizens, but the ends do not justify the means.

Also i would not be surprised if he is giving Russia secrets in exchange for his safe haven.

I do not want him dead, i want him to face trial and more than likely be convicted.

He is no hero he is a criminal.


Your whole government is criminal Mr. White Caped Crusader of Truth and Conviction. What about Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush and the 100,000-600,000+ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War ) Iraqi civilians that were killed in an aggressive invasion of a foreign entity for a Haliburton contract and some oil? What about spraying Agent Orange on Cambodia and Laos (that you weren't even in a BS war with)(http://www.agentorangerecord.com/agent_orange_history/in_cambod ia_laos / )? What about destabilizing the whole middle east into turmoil and civil war?
Would you have been happier knowing Agent Orange is a drink mix and that you went to Iraq for "democracy" (lol)? Because someone had to expose that. Torture them too, goddamn traitors. 'Murka! Puck Yeaaarrrhhh'!

You got shiat on your face yet you're still pointing fingers.

And Snowden isn't a criminal, but a whistle blower trying to expose unconstitutional corruption and espionage under the guile of liberty and domestic security.

"America, the only right way!"
 
2014-01-23 09:16:04 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Info dumps and vomiting classified unredacted material all over the Internet is not responsible whistleblowing; and bragging about it afterward kind of sabotages your defense; in much the same way that posting your armed robbery on your Facebook page negates your defense of giving all the money away to poor orphans after the fact.


Could you point to specific instances of Snowden doing "info dumps" and "vomiting classified unredacted material" all over? Greenwald has a copy. The Guardian has a copy. Various other people or systems have copies as a dead man's switch. No names or identifying information about government agents has been released as far as I know, nor have any technical documents or blueprints been released that could allow foreign governments to recreate the US's surveillance apparatuses.

His methods are much more Woodward and Bernstein than Wikileaks.
 
2014-01-23 09:16:37 PM  

doctor wu: Were the people who are calling for Snowden's head equally as outraged about the outing of Valerie Plame?

 
2014-01-23 09:19:26 PM  

Gyrfalcon: His primary defense isn't disallowed by law. It's prevented by his own damn stupidity.


All the same, I'd like to see him try and argue it anyway, just for the lulz. It'll be fun hearing his explanation for exactly whose "public interest" is being served by revealing details of surveillance on Chinese universities and Brazilian oil companies.
 
2014-01-23 09:31:33 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: His methods are much more Woodward and Bernstein than Wikileaks.


It would be Greenwald who would be Woodward/Bernstein in this scenario (though not really). The actual leaker for the Pentagon Papers (Ellsberg) was indeed prosecuted, ant the case only fell apart due to procedural issues with how the evidence against him was collected. There's never been any legal principle or tradition protecting people who leak classified information to the press.
 
2014-01-23 09:34:40 PM  
The more this goes on, the more his media persona resembles Emmanuel Goldstein.  Soon it will be just a face.
 
2014-01-23 09:40:39 PM  

djkutch: Nabb1: Solutare: Cagey B: It's f*cking disgraceful that the prospect of indefinite detainment and torture by American authorities is so plausible that the AG had to specifically promise not to.

AMERICA! fark YEAH!

I would be okay if everyone in America who ever supported torture or indefinite detainment suddenly died.

The Administration supports indefinite detention of "terror suspects," as do most of the Congress and Senate, so that would clear DC out pretty quick.

Genuinely curious--what is your view on the subject?


I am opposed to torture and indefinite detention of suspects. I'm rather appalled we have a Congress and Senate that passed a law authorizing indefinite detention and a President who signed off on it.
 
2014-01-23 09:48:03 PM  

doctor wu: Were the people who are calling for Snowden's head equally as outraged about the outing of Valerie Plame?


I was absofarkinglutely pissed.
 
2014-01-23 09:49:06 PM  

chachi88: doctor wu: Were the people who are calling for Snowden's head equally as outraged about the outing of Valerie Plame?

I was absofarkinglutely pissed.


I was thinking that that is basically the same group of people.
 
2014-01-23 10:01:57 PM  

grimlock1972: Snowden willing and knowingly broke the law, he plotted to do so well before he committed his criminal acts, he has admitted as much.

yes he revealed what the NSA was up to in regards to US Citizens, but the ends do not justify the means.

Also i would not be surprised if he is giving Russia secrets in exchange for his safe haven.

I do not want him dead, i want him to face trial and more than likely be convicted.

He is no hero he is a criminal.


Sounds a lot like the guy we just had a holiday for this week.

I look forward to celebrating Snowden Day in the future after the Constitution has been restored and our government is no longer being run by AIPAC and the military-industrial complex.
 
2014-01-23 10:03:53 PM  

King Something: grimlock1972: Snowden willing and knowingly broke the law, he plotted to do so well before he committed his criminal acts, he has admitted as much.

yes he revealed what the NSA was up to in regards to US Citizens, but the ends do not justify the means.

Also i would not be surprised if he is giving Russia secrets in exchange for his safe haven.

I do not want him dead, i want him to face trial and more than likely be convicted.

He is no hero he is a criminal.

Just because what he did was illegal doesn't mean he's not a hero. He's no less a hero than the people who film cops beating up black people for fun in places where filming the police is illegal.


If he had stopped with exposing what the NSA was doing to US citizens , and had the courage to face prosecution then i could see him as a hero.

He is a coward, he purposely took material unrelated to exposing what the NSA was doing to US citizens, then ran away and hide behind what he took as a shield.

Also he is no whistle blower IMO, a whistle blower finds info in the course of their job, they do not set out to steal that information and take a job with that purpose in mind.
 
2014-01-23 10:07:23 PM  

Biological Ali: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: His methods are much more Woodward and Bernstein than Wikileaks.

It would be Greenwald who would be Woodward/Bernstein in this scenario (though not really). The actual leaker for the Pentagon Papers (Ellsberg) was indeed prosecuted, ant the case only fell apart due to procedural issues with how the evidence against him was collected. There's never been any legal principle or tradition protecting people who leak classified information to the press.


That's a really polite (and not very accurate) way to put that.

In this case I think Snowden did what he believed was the right thing to do.  I'd be OK with Snowden facing the same level of repercussions as the administration officials responsible for the crap he exposed.

Cheers.
 
2014-01-23 10:11:42 PM  

doctor wu: Were the people who are calling for Snowden's head equally as outraged about the outing of Valerie Plame?


Yes.

Why do you imagine that this is some kind of partisan thing? Or are you one of the ones who feels that anyone who thinks Snowden was wrong must therefore support the NSA? There are two wrong sides in this one, and some of us are capable of seeing that. Just because Snowden was an idiot does not therefore mean that the NSA doesn't need to be scrutinized in this.

Here's a good analogy: Suppose a burglar broke into a house, and while burglarizing it, came across evidence that the owner of the house was engaged in securities fraud and money laundering on a massive scale. So the burglar steals all that evidence and drops it off at the Wall Street Journal office. Now, does the fact that the burglar caught a terrible crook mean that he was not ALSO a criminal? Does prosecuting the fraudster mean we have to laud the burglar as a hero and a saint? (or conversely, does going after the burglar mean letting the fraudster off the hook?) Isn't it possible they are both criminal in different ways?
 
2014-01-23 10:15:46 PM  

nickdaisy: The most odious part of Bush and Obama's trouncing of the Constitution is their reliance on the "state secrets privilege," a fictitious legal privilege, borrowed from the ancient English common law but abolished hundreds of years ago, that allows the government to summarily shut down any case brought against it on amorphous national security grounds. This alone is justification for why Snowden could never receive a Constitutional, fair trial under the present regime. It's as if the government said you couldn't vote because you're black, you brought suit citing the 14th and 15th Amendments, and they demanded the case be dismissed under the Crown's right to have custody over all slaves. Complete rubbish propagated by people who want control over everything under the pretense of security.

At least Bush had the excuse of being an idiot, but Constitutional scholar Obama should be ashamed of himself. Contrary to what the media seems to be parroting-- this is not a vague issue. The Constitution is quite clear about the impropriety of general warrants and the requirement of due process.

Bring back our Constitutional protections and Snowden.


Every time I read some post like this I can't help buy wonder how many jars of urine the poster has in their bedroom.
 
2014-01-23 10:22:09 PM  
"Snowden should have gone through the proper channels ..."

Are you f'ing kidding me?  The story of his life would have been "... and he was never seen nor heard of again".
 
2014-01-23 10:24:34 PM  

Brian_of_Nazareth: That's a really polite (and not very accurate) way to put that.


If you're going to raise some vague objection against something I've said, why bother linking to something that shows I was right? Did you not read it yourself? Or perhaps you trusted that others in this thread would just take your word for it without reading it first?
 
2014-01-23 10:24:35 PM  

grimlock1972: He is a coward, he purposely took material unrelated to exposing what the NSA was doing to US citizens, then ran away and hide behind what he took as a shield.



But the question you should be asking yourself is, how on earth was a contractor given access to so much information? Are there any safeguards in place? If I accidentally cut off an NSA agent in traffic, is he going to be able to track down my licence plate to find my phone records, tax bills, and whatever else, just because he is pissed off?

Even if Snowden is the most traitorousy traitor that ever traited, he should have had a hard time filling a floppy with data unrelated to his job. The fact that the NSA apparently allows anyone to look at whatever they want without adequate safeguard should be just as shocking as the fact that they are spying on everyone without a clear constitutional mandate. Everyone with the authority to secure such information and didn't should be fired as an example.
 
2014-01-23 10:32:52 PM  

Sgygus: "Snowden should have gone through the proper channels ..."

Are you f'ing kidding me?  The story of his life would have been "... and he was never seen nor heard of again".


It's not like there even are proper channels. Whistleblower protections don't exist for security contractors, and the people you take your grievances to are the very same people who think the system is working as intended. You'd first take it up the chain within your own company - who is getting paid to do the surveillance - and in the extremely unlikely situation it went even higher, the decision would be with the people who thought it was fine to pay for in the first place. Even if you went to a sympathetic party within Congress, it would still be a felony to disclose the information.

There is literally no way to go through proper channels to affect change. The system ensures it.
 
2014-01-23 10:34:47 PM  

Sgygus: "Snowden should have gone through the proper channels ..."

Are you f'ing kidding me?  The story of his life would have been "... and he was never seen nor heard of again".  never have been written since not only would he would have been disappeared or suicided, but so would anyone who cared enough about him to have bothered filing a missing persons report, much less write the story of his life.


FTFY.

/like I said in another thread, he probably ran to Hong Kong and then Russia because everyone in his life except his stripper girlfriend has already been gulag'd
 
2014-01-23 10:40:22 PM  
He can get a fair trial, he's just not sure it will end up with him getting off free.
 
2014-01-23 10:42:06 PM  

Gyrfalcon: doctor wu: Were the people who are calling for Snowden's head equally as outraged about the outing of Valerie Plame?

Yes.

Why do you imagine that this is some kind of partisan thing? Or are you one of the ones who feels that anyone who thinks Snowden was wrong must therefore support the NSA? There are two wrong sides in this one, and some of us are capable of seeing that. Just because Snowden was an idiot does not therefore mean that the NSA doesn't need to be scrutinized in this.

Here's a good analogy: Suppose a burglar broke into a house, and while burglarizing it, came across evidence that the owner of the house was engaged in securities fraud and money laundering on a massive scale. So the burglar steals all that evidence and drops it off at the Wall Street Journal office. Now, does the fact that the burglar caught a terrible crook mean that he was not ALSO a criminal? Does prosecuting the fraudster mean we have to laud the burglar as a hero and a saint? (or conversely, does going after the burglar mean letting the fraudster off the hook?) Isn't it possible they are both criminal in different ways?


I'm not sure why you call Snowden an idiot but that's your prerogative, I see him as a whistleblower.  And your analogy is apt, both Snowden and the NSA engaged in criminal activity.  But in your scenario both criminals were prosecuted where in real life Snowden would be jailed indefinitely while the NSA will get off scot free.  Not fair and why Snowden left, the precedent had already been set with Bradley Manning.  Snowden was only an idiot for not finding safe haven before he released his information.

How about another analogy, would you throw the book at someone who jaywalked while chasing a mugger that just robbed a little old lady?
 
2014-01-23 10:42:28 PM  

Snarfangel: grimlock1972: He is a coward, he purposely took material unrelated to exposing what the NSA was doing to US citizens, then ran away and hide behind what he took as a shield.


But the question you should be asking yourself is, how on earth was a contractor given access to so much information? Are there any safeguards in place? If I accidentally cut off an NSA agent in traffic, is he going to be able to track down my licence plate to find my phone records, tax bills, and whatever else, just because he is pissed off?

Even if Snowden is the most traitorousy traitor that ever traited, he should have had a hard time filling a floppy with data unrelated to his job. The fact that the NSA apparently allows anyone to look at whatever they want without adequate safeguard should be just as shocking as the fact that they are spying on everyone without a clear constitutional mandate. Everyone with the authority to secure such information and didn't should be fired as an example.


Because contractors are just workers in the DoD - there are some minor authoritative and of course contractual duties they can't perform, but all in all when I was active duty, I worked alongside contractors just as i would a civilian employee or a military member, and now that I'm a contractor, I'm treated as a team member just as if my paycheck as came from the Treasury. Not to say they didn't screw up in separation of duties, but that's more about roles than who signs their paycheck.
 
2014-01-23 10:42:49 PM  
if only snowden was a money laundering banker they'd have no interest in him.
 
2014-01-23 10:43:19 PM  

Nabb1: Solutare: Cagey B: It's f*cking disgraceful that the prospect of indefinite detainment and torture by American authorities is so plausible that the AG had to specifically promise not to.

AMERICA! fark YEAH!

I would be okay if everyone in America who ever supported torture or indefinite detainment suddenly died.

The Administration supports indefinite detention of "terror suspects," as do most of the Congress and Senate, so that would clear DC out pretty quick.


So what's the down side?
 
2014-01-23 10:43:43 PM  

King Something: Sgygus: "Snowden should have gone through the proper channels ..."

Are you f'ing kidding me?  The story of his life would have been "... and he was never seen nor heard of again".  never have been written since not only would he would have been disappeared or suicided, but so would anyone who cared enough about him to have bothered filing a missing persons report, much less write the story of his life.

FTFY.

/like I said in another thread, he probably ran to Hong Kong and then Russia because everyone in his life except his stripper girlfriend has already been gulag'd


You watch way too many bad spy movies. Is there any evidence at all, outside your fevered imagination, that people get "disappeared" for this? And don't go telling me how Chelsea Manning was "disappeared," since we knew where she was the entire time. The treatment she got was beyond abhorrent...but we did know about it.

And who else in Snowden's life has gone missing? You're actually saying his family and friends are all mysteriously vanished and he fled for his life to a nation that is ACTUALLY known for political kidnappings because it's so much safer there? You need to calm down.
 
2014-01-23 10:45:35 PM  

NBAH: grimlock1972: Snowden willing and knowingly broke the law, he plotted to do so well before he committed his criminal acts, he has admitted as much.

yes he revealed what the NSA was up to in regards to US Citizens, but the ends do not justify the means.

Also i would not be surprised if he is giving Russia secrets in exchange for his safe haven.

I do not want him dead, i want him to face trial and more than likely be convicted.

He is no hero he is a criminal.

Your whole government is criminal Mr. White Caped Crusader of Truth and Conviction. What about Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush and the 100,000-600,000+ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War ) Iraqi civilians that were killed in an aggressive invasion of a foreign entity for a Haliburton contract and some oil? What about spraying Agent Orange on Cambodia and Laos (that you weren't even in a BS war with)(http://www.agentorangerecord.com/agent_orange_history/in_cambod ia_laos / )? What about destabilizing the whole middle east into turmoil and civil war?
Would you have been happier knowing Agent Orange is a drink mix and that you went to Iraq for "democracy" (lol)? Because someone had to expose that. Torture them too, goddamn traitors. 'Murka! Puck Yeaaarrrhhh'!

You got shiat on your face yet you're still pointing fingers.

And Snowden isn't a criminal, but a whistle blower trying to expose unconstitutional corruption and espionage under the guile of liberty and domestic security.

"America, the only right way!"


He's both.  He's a hero, but technically he's a criminal.  He has already admitted he broke the law.  Sometimes the right thing is to break the law and there are numerous instances of this occurring in this country that brought about much needed change.
 
2014-01-23 10:48:18 PM  
Some day maybe we'll have a POTUS with the balls to issue Snowden a pardon for his actions. Snowden is a hero, no question whatsoever.
 
2014-01-23 10:55:01 PM  
OgreMagi:  He's both.  He's a hero, but technically he's a criminal.  He has already admitted he broke the law.  Sometimes the right thing is to break the law and there are numerous instances of this occurring in this country that brought about much needed change.

Well put, Snowden broke the law but for the greater good.  His reason for running is because he knew the punishment wouldn't fit the crime.  The NSA will never face repercussions and will only get better at hiding their illegal activities.
 
2014-01-23 11:19:17 PM  
If Obama wasn't such a damned pussy, he'd pardon Snowden, let him come back, and just let it go... he lost a farking round by violating everything the fourth amendment stands for, and he's just being a f'n baby about it now. Admit defeat, move on.
 
2014-01-23 11:25:47 PM  

mongbiohazard: Snowden is a hero, no question whatsoever.


There are plenty of questions.. pretty valid ones too, else there wouldn't be threads like this.
 
2014-01-23 11:32:26 PM  

Biological Ali: Brian_of_Nazareth: That's a really polite (and not very accurate) way to put that.

If you're going to raise some vague objection against something I've said, why bother linking to something that shows I was right? Did you not read it yourself? Or perhaps you trusted that others in this thread would just take your word for it without reading it first?


Procedural issues as a group would not generally be considered to include "gross governmental misconduct and illegal evidence gathering ".   I actually did read the article.

Cheers.
 
2014-01-23 11:36:55 PM  

The Bestest: There are plenty of questions.. pretty valid ones too, else there wouldn't be threads like this.


The thing is that nobody seems willing to back up their questions with evidence. In this thread alone I've asked two different people to provide specific evidence for why they believe as they do, and been met with silence on both fronts. I agree that "Snowden broke the law but for the greater good," as stated above, and did so because no mechanisms existed for him to not break the law in addressing an illegal spying operation.

If you want to ask questions, you have to answer them. And answer those questions asked of you.
 
2014-01-23 11:40:20 PM  

Brian_of_Nazareth: Procedural issues as a group would not generally be considered to include "gross governmental misconduct and illegal evidence gathering ". I actually did read the article.

Cheers.


Illegal wiretaps and destruction of evidence of illegal wiretaps is a sort of "procedural issue."
 
2014-01-23 11:46:33 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: The Bestest: There are plenty of questions.. pretty valid ones too, else there wouldn't be threads like this.

The thing is that nobody seems willing to back up their questions with evidence. In this thread alone I've asked two different people to provide specific evidence for why they believe as they do, and been met with silence on both fronts. I agree that "Snowden broke the law but for the greater good," as stated above, and did so because no mechanisms existed for him to not break the law in addressing an illegal spying operation.

If you want to ask questions, you have to answer them. And answer those questions asked of you.


The main thing I personally have a problem with is the disclosure of various methods of collecting foreign intelligence. That was a needless disclosure in my eyes and the most harmful thing he's done. Now, I don't necessarily think Snowden did that maliciously (though I also don't put it past him to have done it for some high-minded 'World Citizen' reason either, in which case I say "fark him"), but it was at the very least careless.
 
2014-01-23 11:54:43 PM  

OgreMagi: NBAH: grimlock1972: Snowden willing and knowingly broke the law, he plotted to do so well before he committed his criminal acts, he has admitted as much.

yes he revealed what the NSA was up to in regards to US Citizens, but the ends do not justify the means.

Also i would not be surprised if he is giving Russia secrets in exchange for his safe haven.

I do not want him dead, i want him to face trial and more than likely be convicted.

He is no hero he is a criminal.

Your whole government is criminal Mr. White Caped Crusader of Truth and Conviction. What about Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush and the 100,000-600,000+ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War ) Iraqi civilians that were killed in an aggressive invasion of a foreign entity for a Haliburton contract and some oil? What about spraying Agent Orange on Cambodia and Laos (that you weren't even in a BS war with)(http://www.agentorangerecord.com/agent_orange_history/in_cambod ia_laos / )? What about destabilizing the whole middle east into turmoil and civil war?
Would you have been happier knowing Agent Orange is a drink mix and that you went to Iraq for "democracy" (lol)? Because someone had to expose that. Torture them too, goddamn traitors. 'Murka! Puck Yeaaarrrhhh'!

You got shiat on your face yet you're still pointing fingers.

And Snowden isn't a criminal, but a whistle blower trying to expose unconstitutional corruption and espionage under the guile of liberty and domestic security.

"America, the only right way!"

He's both.  He's a hero, but technically he's a criminal.  He has already admitted he broke the law.  Sometimes the right thing is to break the law and there are numerous instances of this occurring in this country that brought about much needed change.


I'll have to pull a double technicality (best kind etc.) on this retort. I'll reiterate myself:
"Edward Snowden is NOT a criminal."

1. He has no prior convictions or charges.
2. He was summoned to court for his charges in America and as of yet "Innocent until proven guilty in the court of law" stands.
3. Fifth amendment protects against self-incriminating confessions i.e. ones attained during torture.
       3a.Therefore I would even say that the fifth makes compliance of the court summoning entirely to Snowden               and moot since appearing under tribunal would lead to torture, withdrawal of human rights and possible death.
       3b.The use of torture is prohibited under the Geneva and is classed as a "War Crime":
           "willful killing, torture or inhumane treatment, including biological experiments+willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health"

 Which is followed by:
"Nations are also obligated to search for persons alleged to commit these crimes, or ordered them to be committed, and to bring them to trial regardless of their nationality and regardless of the place where the crimes took place."

So, who's the criminal here?
 
2014-01-23 11:54:47 PM  

Brian_of_Nazareth: Biological Ali: Brian_of_Nazareth: That's a really polite (and not very accurate) way to put that.

If you're going to raise some vague objection against something I've said, why bother linking to something that shows I was right? Did you not read it yourself? Or perhaps you trusted that others in this thread would just take your word for it without reading it first?

Procedural issues as a group would  not generally be considered to include "gross governmental misconduct and illegal evidence gathering ".   I actually did read the article.

Cheers.


Not generally considered by who? Issues that affect the outcome of a trial but which, rather than relating to the defendant's culpability are concerned with the conduct of the investigation (or of the trial itself) are pretty much exactly what is meant by "procedural issues". Would you have preferred I called them "technicalities" instead?
 
2014-01-24 12:01:17 AM  

The Bestest: The main thing I personally have a problem with is the disclosure of various methods of collecting foreign intelligence. That was a needless disclosure in my eyes and the most harmful thing he's done. Now, I don't necessarily think Snowden did that maliciously (though I also don't put it past him to have done it for some high-minded 'World Citizen' reason either, in which case I say "fark him"), but it was at the very least careless.


The methods of our surveillance are one of the key components of how insidious our spying has become. Hijacking shipments of USB cables to implant radio transmitters? Rewriting private firmware to transmit data back to the NSA? Influencing encryption standards to ensure we always have a backdoor? These methods aren't used only for foreign targets. They exist simultaneously as a means to spy domestically.

To release the methods for foreign operations is to release the methods for domestic operations, since they are being used with impunity in both spheres. The nature and severity is different (metadata vs. relevant data vs. data by warrant) but the methods are the same.
 
2014-01-24 12:11:41 AM  
Yet still, nobody talks about the constitutionality of the NSA activities. We are seeing an incredible paradigm shift from data collection of suspects to data collection of everiyone, stored for eternity, to be revealed whenever the govt and its affiliates decide they either consider you suspicious or just want to know what you've been up to. Is an omniscient government constitutional? Oh wait, nevermind, we should speculate about torture or argue about whether it was bush or Obama that's brought us here...
 
2014-01-24 12:17:05 AM  

Biological Ali: Brian_of_Nazareth: Biological Ali: Brian_of_Nazareth: That's a really polite (and not very accurate) way to put that.

If you're going to raise some vague objection against something I've said, why bother linking to something that shows I was right? Did you not read it yourself? Or perhaps you trusted that others in this thread would just take your word for it without reading it first?

Procedural issues as a group would  not generally be considered to include "gross governmental misconduct and illegal evidence gathering ".   I actually did read the article.

Cheers.

Not generally considered by who? Issues that affect the outcome of a trial but which, rather than relating to the defendant's culpability are concerned with the conduct of the investigation (or of the trial itself) are pretty much exactly what is meant by "procedural issues". Would you have preferred I called them "technicalities" instead?


I'm not sure that things like break and enter and illegal wire-tapping by the prosecution really fit what most people think of as a technicality.  Your definitions might vary.

Cheers.
 
2014-01-24 12:18:25 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Emposter: sprgrss: Emposter: Cagey B: It's f*cking disgraceful that the prospect of indefinite detainment and torture by American authorities is so plausible that the AG had to specifically promise not to.

I don't think he promised not to detain him indefinitely.

At the time, Holder said that should Snowden return, he would be provided all the protections the law allows.

All zero of them.  His primary defense isn't allowed by law.  How nice of Holder to offer this.

And what primary defense is that?

Why don't you try reading the article?

His primary defense isn't disallowed by law. It's prevented by his own damn stupidity.

"As much as some may want Snowden to be applauded for his actions, as a legal matter his self-stated laudable intentions are irrelevant to his criminal liability. He can only hope that it will play a role in his sentencing," argued Mark Zaid, a Washington attorney who regularly represents national security whistleblowers.
"Having publicly self-admitted his guilt for having illegally leaked classified information, he has eliminated any likely meaningful legal defence. Snowden unfortunately went about his efforts all wrong and missed available opportunities to generate public debate of the NSA programs but still avoid criminal culpability." (emphasis added)
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/11/edward-snowden-defence

It was his own dumbassery in publicly announcing "Yeah, I leaked all this material that I stole and I did it on purpose and it was classified and I knew it but I did it anyway; was that wrong? Should I not have done that?" that's preventing his public-interest defense, which he might otherwise have had. There is no specific provision in the Espionage Act that forbids a public-interest defense (in fact, there's not much specific in the Espionage Act at all); and in fact the Whistleblower Protection Act and related laws exist to ALLOW such defenses. But whistleblowers have to go about their actions in the right way, and Snow ...


Loopholes Exclude Intelligence Contractors Like Snowden From Whistleblower Protections
 
2014-01-24 12:20:21 AM  

Solutare: Cagey B: It's f*cking disgraceful that the prospect of indefinite detainment and torture by American authorities is so plausible that the AG had to specifically promise not to.

AMERICA! fark YEAH!

I would be okay if everyone in America who ever supported torture or indefinite detainment suddenly died.


A lot of those people are here on Fark. They didn't care before.
 
2014-01-24 12:20:33 AM  

powtard: Yet still, nobody talks about the constitutionality of the NSA activities. We are seeing an incredible paradigm shift from data collection of suspects to data collection of everiyone, stored for eternity, to be revealed whenever the govt and its affiliates decide they either consider you suspicious or just want to know what you've been up to. Is an omniscient government constitutional? Oh wait, nevermind, we should speculate about torture or argue about whether it was bush or Obama that's brought us here...


There's no question about NSA's wanton unconstitutionality. That's why no one talks about it.
 
2014-01-24 12:23:18 AM  

Biological Ali: Brian_of_Nazareth: Biological Ali: Brian_of_Nazareth: That's a really polite (and not very accurate) way to put that.

If you're going to raise some vague objection against something I've said, why bother linking to something that shows I was right? Did you not read it yourself? Or perhaps you trusted that others in this thread would just take your word for it without reading it first?

Procedural issues as a group would  not generally be considered to include "gross governmental misconduct and illegal evidence gathering ".   I actually did read the article.

Cheers.

Not generally considered by who? Issues that affect the outcome of a trial but which, rather than relating to the defendant's culpability are concerned with the conduct of the investigation (or of the trial itself) are pretty much exactly what is meant by "procedural issues". Would you have preferred I called them "technicalities" instead?


Just re-read your comment and you are technically correct ( which as we all know is the best kind of correct).  My concern was that reading your comment gave the impression it was a cheap win by the defence, when the reality is much more interesting.

Cheers.
 
2014-01-24 12:24:15 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Here's a good analogy: Suppose a burglar broke into a house, and while burglarizing it, came across evidence that the owner of the house was engaged in securities fraud and money laundering on a massive scale. So the burglar steals all that evidence and drops it off at the Wall Street Journal office. Now, does the fact that the burglar caught a terrible crook mean that he was not ALSO a criminal? Does prosecuting the fraudster mean we have to laud the burglar as a hero and a saint? (or conversely, does going after the burglar mean letting the fraudster off the hook?) Isn't it possible they are both criminal in different ways?


Actually that's a bad analogy. It begs the question and essentially says, "if someone did something criminal wouldn't they be a criminal?"  Seriously, that's a horrible analogy.

What Snowden did was more like: Woman gets a job in a big bank.  While she does bank stuff, she notices a locked room, and eventually asks a coworker, "what's in that room?" Coworker says, "that's where the Foreclosure Dept. creates documents we need to file foreclosures on properties that we don't have enough proof to foreclose."  She says, "hmmm" and works her way into a position in the Foreclosure Dept.  Once in that position, she goes to the locked room and photocopies enough files to show that the bank is forging documents to do foreclosures.  She takes the docs to the press, and the bank screams about her stealing proprietary files. Now that's a good analogy.
 
2014-01-24 12:30:57 AM  

El Pachuco: Gyrfalcon: Here's a good analogy: Suppose a burglar broke into a house, and while burglarizing it, came across evidence that the owner of the house was engaged in securities fraud and money laundering on a massive scale. So the burglar steals all that evidence and drops it off at the Wall Street Journal office. Now, does the fact that the burglar caught a terrible crook mean that he was not ALSO a criminal? Does prosecuting the fraudster mean we have to laud the burglar as a hero and a saint? (or conversely, does going after the burglar mean letting the fraudster off the hook?) Isn't it possible they are both criminal in different ways?

Actually that's a bad analogy.  It begs the question and essentially says, "if someone did something criminal wouldn't they be a criminal?"  Seriously, that's a horrible analogy.

What Snowden did was more like: Woman gets a job in a big bank.  While she does bank stuff, she notices a locked room, and eventually asks a coworker, "what's in that room?" Coworker says, "that's where the Foreclosure Dept. creates documents we need to file foreclosures on properties that we don't have enough proof to foreclose."  She says, "hmmm" and works her way into a position in the Foreclosure Dept.  Once in that position, she goes to the locked room and photocopies enough files to show that the bank is forging documents to do foreclosures.  She takes the docs to the press, and the bank screams about her stealing proprietary files. Now that's a good analogy.


Damn straight. Gyrfalcon brush up on your definition of "analogy". It's like looking at the sun.
 
2014-01-24 12:40:07 AM  

Brian_of_Nazareth: Just re-read your comment and you are technically correct ( which as we all know is the best kind of correct). My concern was that reading your comment gave the impression it was a cheap win by the defence, when the reality is much more interesting.

Cheers.


Don't get me wrong - the prosecutors and the investigators very much deserved to lose that case because of how badly they messed it up. What Ellsberg was accused of though (leaking intelligence secrets to the press) was nonetheless a serious crime back then, and it remains a serious crime now. Ellsberg probably deserves respect on that count, because he stayed in the country to fight the charges even though he would presumably have known that there's no get-out-of-jail-free card for leakers if they happen to expose some some embarrassing secrets along the way.
 
2014-01-24 12:42:00 AM  

The Bestest: mongbiohazard: Snowden is a hero, no question whatsoever.

There are plenty of questions.. pretty valid ones too, else there wouldn't be threads like this.


Yeah, teach the controversy, guy.

He's a hero. Simple as that. He took on huge risks, and paid a price most of us would not be willing to pay, to expose government malpractice. Period.
 
2014-01-24 12:44:54 AM  

powtard: Yet still, nobody talks about the constitutionality of the NSA activities. We are seeing an incredible paradigm shift from data collection of suspects to data collection of everiyone, stored for eternity, to be revealed whenever the govt and its affiliates decide they either consider you suspicious or just want to know what you've been up to. Is an omniscient government constitutional? Oh wait, nevermind, we should speculate about torture or argue about whether it was bush or Obama that's brought us here...


I'm honestly surprised that the US gov't is pursuing Snowden.  Russia will never hand him over and it just puts the NSA scandal that they successfully brushed under the rug back on the front page.  But much of what the US gov't is up to nowadays is unconstitutional and its citizens don't seem to care.

The exabytes of data that the NSA is collecting are not very useful now, but Moore's Law will soon grant the computing power to easily decrypt and analyze.  US citizens could wind up living their own "Minority Report" in the very near future.
 
m00
2014-01-24 12:47:46 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Here's a good analogy: Suppose a burglar broke into a house, and while burglarizing it, came across evidence that the owner of the house was engaged in securities fraud and money laundering on a massive scale. So the burglar steals all that evidence and drops it off at the Wall Street Journal office. Now, does the fact that the burglar caught a terrible crook mean that he was not ALSO a criminal? Does prosecuting the fraudster mean we have to laud the burglar as a hero and a saint? (or conversely, does going after the burglar mean letting the fraudster off the hook?) Isn't it possible they are both criminal in different ways?


This is a bad analogy.

It's more like a cleaning lady who cleans the governor's mansion comes across a secret room just filled with cocaine, and detailed documents and ledgers detailing how the governor has his entire staff selling cocaine on the streets, and the cops are getting paid to look the other way.

So the cleaning lady takes it to the local newspaper and says "I found this cocaine at the governor's mansion plus all these documents filled with criminal activity, just thought the community should know." Then the state attorney general wants to lock her up for cocaine possession, and theft of cocaine and illegal documents.
 
m00
2014-01-24 12:55:57 AM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: The thing is that nobody seems willing to back up their questions with evidence. In this thread alone I've asked two different people to provide specific evidence for why they believe as they do, and been met with silence on both fronts. I agree that "Snowden broke the law but for the greater good," as stated above, and did so because no mechanisms existed for him to not break the law in addressing an illegal spying operation.


I guess he could have found a sympathetic congressman with a security clearance. Apparently, Congressmen sitting on the House Intel committee had no idea this was going on. So he could have just called a congressman anonymously and be like "okay, here's the deal... I have these documents and I want to whistleblow on the NSA because SOMEONE needs to know about this... but I don't want to hurt national security... pls advise."

At least his ass would be a bit better covered.

In general, he was morally and ethically right to leak the documents to the US public. Problem is that our laws don't always match up with morals and ethics, and in these cases it's very hard to do the right thing because you know there will be repercussions. I think doing the right thing when it's the harder thing makes someone a hero.
 
2014-01-24 01:06:30 AM  
You know the kinds of people that get mocked on Fark for being "Area Men Passionately Defending What They Imagine Constitution To Be"? The kinds of people who, say, still insist that Obamacare is unconstitutional even after it's been upheld by the courts?

Those people get ridiculed for good reason. Don't fall into the same traps they do - learn to draw a sharp mental distinction between what you personally approve or disapprove of, and what is legal or illegal/constitutional or unconstitutional.
 
2014-01-24 01:21:35 AM  
So what earth-shaking changes in the American government have occured since Fast Eddie Snowden exposed the government's wrongdoing?

How many people in America cared enough to do something about the NSA's actions that were exposed?

What signifigant alterations were made to the NSA to introduce transparency and accountability?

How many politicians lost their jobs and were not re-elected based on their permission to allow the NSA to continue doing what they're doing?
 
2014-01-24 01:28:07 AM  
What's wrong with wanting a minor thief extradited?
 
2014-01-24 01:53:47 AM  

NBAH: El Pachuco: Gyrfalcon: Here's a good analogy: Suppose a burglar broke into a house, and while burglarizing it, came across evidence that the owner of the house was engaged in securities fraud and money laundering on a massive scale. So the burglar steals all that evidence and drops it off at the Wall Street Journal office. Now, does the fact that the burglar caught a terrible crook mean that he was not ALSO a criminal? Does prosecuting the fraudster mean we have to laud the burglar as a hero and a saint? (or conversely, does going after the burglar mean letting the fraudster off the hook?) Isn't it possible they are both criminal in different ways?

Actually that's a bad analogy.  It begs the question and essentially says, "if someone did something criminal wouldn't they be a criminal?"  Seriously, that's a horrible analogy.

What Snowden did was more like: Woman gets a job in a big bank.  While she does bank stuff, she notices a locked room, and eventually asks a coworker, "what's in that room?" Coworker says, "that's where the Foreclosure Dept. creates documents we need to file foreclosures on properties that we don't have enough proof to foreclose."  She says, "hmmm" and works her way into a position in the Foreclosure Dept.  Once in that position, she goes to the locked room and photocopies enough files to show that the bank is forging documents to do foreclosures.  She takes the docs to the press, and the bank screams about her stealing proprietary files. Now that's a good analogy.

Damn straight. Gyrfalcon brush up on your definition of "analogy". It's like looking at the sun.


Not really, because in your analogy, the woman "worked her way" into getting into that room with the intent of essentially stealing the files. Burglary is the breaking and entering into a building with the intent to commit a felony therein, and since she formulated the plan to enter the locked room BEFORE she had legal access, she's committed a burglary.

The point is, whistleblowers DO, in fact, take proprietary or classified information. Because the information they're making public has been concealed from general knowledge and so no matter how important it is for the public to know about it, it is still legally theft and/or a violation of their employment contract. The fact that you want the law to magically go away because the crime was done for the greater good does not mean that it was less of a crime.

I find the weird moral relativism displayed in this case slightly unnerving, the mindset that allows people to say "X is not a crime because it was committed for a perceived greater good," especially when coupled with the complete inability to see that EVERY crime that is committed (except strictly personal ones) are justified in the name of the greater good--which is why they have to be treated as such. Yes, absolutely, the excesses of the NSA needed to be brought to light (again, because people have such freakishly short memories)--but that does NOT mean Snowden gets a free pass and shouldn't be brought to trial because you see, Scooter Libby made the exact same justifications for his outing of Valerie Plame--it was in the best interests of the American public at the time. Now I know you don't like Libby and think he didn't even get what he deserved--which is exactly why you can't go making these kinds of moral justifications.

If we're to be a nation of laws, then what's good for the goose has to be good for the gander, or at least try to be; OR we can expect that next time some asshole we don't like (like Libby) will spill a bunch of secrets we don't want spilled and we'll have to like it because some likeable whistleblower was allowed to slide. If you want to be a nation of "good intentions for the greater good," be aware there's no real endpoint to that slope. After all, Darryl Issa's Benghazigate is being pursued for the benefit of the public's right to know--I assume you're okay with that? And if not, why not?
 
2014-01-24 02:02:46 AM  
The only real problem with Gyrfalcon's original analogy is that, to be properly analogous, the activity that the burglar illegally publicized would itself have to be legal (though, of course, it may be something the burglar personally disapproved of, and something that would cause embarrassment if it became public knowledge).
 
2014-01-24 02:02:55 AM  

Gyrfalcon: If we're to be a nation of laws, then what's good for the goose has to be good for the gander, or at least try to be; OR we can expect that next time some asshole we don't like (like Libby) will spill a bunch of secrets we don't want spilled and we'll have to like it because some likeable whistleblower was allowed to slide. If you want to be a nation of "good intentions for the greater good," be aware there's no real endpoint to that slope.


Welcome to Fark, where the real world is just like the movies where vigilantism and revenge is equal to or better than justice.
 
2014-01-24 02:08:26 AM  

nickdaisy: The most odious part of Bush and Obama's trouncing of the Constitution is their reliance on the "state secrets privilege," a fictitious legal privilege, borrowed from the ancient English common law but abolished hundreds of years ago, that allows the government to summarily shut down any case brought against it on amorphous national security grounds. This alone is justification for why Snowden could never receive a Constitutional, fair trial under the present regime. It's as if the government said you couldn't vote because you're black, you brought suit citing the 14th and 15th Amendments, and they demanded the case be dismissed under the Crown's right to have custody over all slaves. Complete rubbish propagated by people who want control over everything under the pretense of security.

At least Bush had the excuse of being an idiot, but Constitutional scholar Obama should be ashamed of himself. Contrary to what the media seems to be parroting-- this is not a vague issue. The Constitution is quite clear about the impropriety of general warrants and the requirement of due process.

Bring back our Constitutional protections and Snowden.


USC A1-S8/S9 gives congress the right to set up military courts and to determine who those courts have jurisdiction over. Also, as A1S8/S9 courts are separate from A3S1 courts, the rules can be different.

So basically, all congress has to do is convene a military tribunal system (like they did with Gitmo) and state that people like Snowden are subject to it, and he is farked. He would have no right of appeal.

You say the constitution is "quite clear", but it is not. Habeus Corpus and all that jazz is a fine legal theory, but the framers of our constitution did give congress a "get out of due process" card.
 
2014-01-24 03:21:21 AM  
I know it's just a movie, and it's such a minor part of it, but damned if  Swordfish din't amlost get the government's spying right on:


"GABRIEL I heard this story about this young hacker who made a virus that broke the F.B.I.'s Carnivore program that was actively reading every subscriber's E-mail and scrambled the systems. He did what the federal judges wouldn't do and kept the government out of our Privacy.

  STANLEY I think I heard that. Story is he went to jail and the federal Carnivore program is back in full swing. It was a real tragedy. What can I do for you?"
 
2014-01-24 03:37:05 AM  

Solutare: Cagey B: It's f*cking disgraceful that the prospect of indefinite detainment and torture by American authorities is so plausible that the AG had to specifically promise not to.

AMERICA! fark YEAH!

I would be okay if everyone in America who ever supported torture or indefinite detainment suddenly died.


hey im usally against it but their is a occasional person who does deserve it.

hitler, and child rapists.
 
m00
2014-01-24 03:40:07 AM  

Gyrfalcon: The fact that you want the law to magically go away because the crime was done for the greater good does not mean that it was less of a crime.


That's circular logic.

Bear with me for a moment here...

Imagine a hypothetical where a government agency steals babies from hospitals, tells the mother the baby died in childbirth, and turns the alive baby over to a private corporation who does live autopsies for genetic testing. Basically, something that is morally outrageous. But it's legal by a secret law. And then the government made it illegal for anyone to talk, discuss, reveal, or even know about "secret laws" punishable by death.

Somebody whistleblows babygate.

OMG THE GOVERNMENT IS DOING SOMETHING LEGAL, AND THE WHISTLEBLOWER DID SOMETHING ILLEGAL HANG HIM FOR TREASON

But I hope in the above case, nobody would seriously defend the government. Why? Because it's so outrageous.

The whole point of whistle-blowing is that you reveal secret information to the public, and it's probably illegal to reveal that information. By definition this is an extrajudicial action. And then the court of public opinion decides basically "is the action being whistleblown so outrageous that extrajudicial action was justified." It's a direct appeal to the citizens of a Republic.

So the question isn't whether Snowden did something illegal. Obviously he did. The question is should he be punished... and the answer depends on how outrageous the public thinks the NSA wiretrapping is. Mark Felt (Deep Throat) went to the press about Watergate, and he wasn't thrown in jail for that... because there wasn't a public outcry for Woodward to reveal his source who leaked national secrets (and from Nixon's point of view, those were national secrets).

If you don't think the NSA wiretapping was particularly outrageous, that's fine. But it's circular reasoning to think Snowden should be punished for no other reason than ge leaked info to the public that the government didn't want leaked.
 
m00
2014-01-24 03:41:07 AM  

mr smart the great: hey im usally against it but their is a occasional person who does deserve it.

hitler, and child rapists.


Not to threadjack, but that's pretty sick of you.
 
2014-01-24 03:46:00 AM  

NBAH: Fifth amendment protects against self-incriminating confessions i.e. ones attained during torture.


He already publicly confessed to committing a crime.

I'm mostly on his side.  I have a serious problem with where he chose to run to, though.
 
2014-01-24 03:50:56 AM  

Gyrfalcon: The point is, whistleblowers DO, in fact, take proprietary or classified information. Because the information they're making public has been concealed from general knowledge and so no matter how important it is for the public to know about it, it is still legally theft and/or a violation of their employment contract. The fact that you want the law to magically go away because the crime was done for the greater good does not mean that it was less of a crime.


THIS.  No amount of idolatry for him will cleanse him of that deed.  That is why Snowden must face justice without any hope of amnesty.


cirrhosis_and_halitosis: I'm honestly surprised that the US gov't is pursuing Snowden. Russia will never hand him over and it just puts the NSA scandal that they successfully brushed under the rug back on the front page. But much of what the US gov't is up to nowadays is unconstitutional and its citizens don't seem to care.


Are you completely sure that they aren't pursuing alternative avenues or that someone just doesn't give a fark for him being above room temperature?  It's not as if the US doesn't have the ability to turn up the heat on Russian interests as well as Snowden's accomplices.

It's not a matter of if, but when he returns for his inevitable and evidence-based conviction.


NBAH: There's no question about NSA's wanton unconstitutionality. That's why no one talks about it.


Only if you blindly believe whatever Snowden throws at the media.  Bring him to the US, pump him full of who knows what, do who knows what, and he'll tell stuff just to make it stop.  Then repeat for as many accomplices as can be done.  One does not fark with your own country's intelligence agencies, aid and abet hostile countries, and not face justice in the only court that counts - the court of law as practiced in the United States of America.

The evidence against him is staggering enough that he is afraid of having to face the courts in a legally(as opposed to PR) indefensible position.  Unfortunately, it only gets worse for him the longer it takes.
 
2014-01-24 03:53:33 AM  

Gyrfalcon: The point is, whistleblowers DO, in fact, take proprietary or classified information. Because the information they're making public has been concealed from general knowledge and so no matter how important it is for the public to know about it, it is still legally theft and/or a violation of their employment contract. The fact that you want the law to magically go away because the crime was done for the greater good does not mean that it was less of a crime.

I find the weird moral relativism displayed in this case slightly unnerving, the mindset that allows people to say "X is not a crime because it was committed for a perceived greater good," especially when coupled with the complete inability to see that EVERY crime that is committed (except strictly personal ones) are justified in the name of the greater good--which is why they have to be treated as such. Yes, absolutely, the excesses of the NSA needed to be brought to light (again, because people have such freakishly short memories)--but that does NOT mean Snowden gets a free pass and shouldn't be brought to trial because you see, Scooter Libby made the exact same justifications for his outing of Valerie Plame--it was in the best interests of the American public at the time. Now I know you don't like Libby and think he didn't even get what he deserved--which is exactly why you can't go making these kinds of moral justifications.

If we're to be a nation of laws, then what's good for the goose has to be good for the gander, or at least try to be; OR we can expect that next time some asshole we don't like (like Libby) will spill a bunch of secrets we don't want spilled and we'll have to like it because some likeable whistleblower was allowed to slide. If you want to be a nation of "good intentions for the greater good," be aware there's no real endpoint to that slope. After all, Darryl Issa's Benghazigate is being pursued for the benefit of the public's right to know--I assume you're okay with that? And if not, wh ...


It isn't about endorsing some nebulous Hot Fuzz greater good concept. It is a particular excuse, that the crime was undertaken for the purpose of exposing, and did expose, massive illicit government activity which could not have otherwise come to light.

That doesn't mean his behavior wasn't technically criminal, but it does provide plenty of reason for the government to decline to prosecute him, or offer him immunity so he can aid them in prosecution of illicit activity at the NSA (...hang on, I'm stopping for a laugh at the idea that could ever happen...wait...ok...), or to pardon him.

Police and prosecutors exercise their discretion every day to forgo prosecution of people with far less excuse for their illegal actions than what exists in Snowden's case. It is a looooong farking way down that slippery slope of yours before you even get to stuff that is already accepted as perfectly legitimate.

And the sudden concern with letting anyone get away with any technically illegal activity in service of a greater good" is bizarrely ironic in light of that being essentially what the NSA and other such agencies DO.
 
2014-01-24 03:57:37 AM  

firefly212: If Obama wasn't such a damned pussy, he'd pardon Snowden, let him come back, and just let it go... he lost a farking round by violating everything the fourth amendment stands for, and he's just being a f'n baby about it now. Admit defeat, move on.


Obama would never pardon someone who made him look bad.  That's hubris, not pussiness - but I agree, Obama is a spineless pussy as well as an arrogant bastard.
 
2014-01-24 04:03:36 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Not really, because in your analogy, the woman "worked her way" into getting into that room with the intent of essentially stealing the files. Burglary is the breaking and entering into a building with the intent to commit a felony therein, and since she formulated the plan to enter the locked room BEFORE she had legal access, she's committed a burglary.


You seem kinda stupid for a JD, so here it is again:

She got a job (assuming nothing).

During the job she suspected wrongdoing.

She made efforts to investigate her suspicions.

Her suspicions were correct.

She collected proof, and revealed the proof.


But keep going - there's a reason why decent society despises lawyers.
 
2014-01-24 04:13:32 AM  
Decent was supposed to be bold, obviously.
 
2014-01-24 04:45:28 AM  

ignacio: Cagey B: It's f*cking disgraceful that the prospect of indefinite detainment and torture by American authorities is so plausible that the AG had to specifically promise not to.

Indefinite detainment is the punishment for the crime he committed, and nobody's promised not to inflict it on Snowden. They promised not to torture or execute him, neither of which we were ever planning to do. Say what you want about our information gathering techniques, but we have never tortured anyone punitively, just for the hell of it.


You have, you know. The very best interpretation of US torture is that a blind eye was turned to punitive torture. After all, it was a potent pysch weapon against other internees.
 
2014-01-24 05:55:11 AM  

The Bestest: mongbiohazard: Snowden is a hero, no question whatsoever.

There are plenty of questions.. pretty valid ones too, else there wouldn't be threads like this.



How about we address the valid questions about the legality of the practices Snowden exposed before determining the legality of exposing them?
 
2014-01-24 06:23:17 AM  

Gyrfalcon: The point is, whistleblowers DO, in fact, take proprietary or classified information. Because the information they're making public has been concealed from general knowledge and so no matter how important it is for the public to know about it, it is still legally theft and/or a violation of their employment contract. The fact that you want the law to magically go away because the crime was done for the greater good does not mean that it was less of a crime.


Laws are an artificial construct. Look at the act, not the law, and then try to determine if it was the right thing to do. If it was the right thing to do and the law is in conflict, than the law is wrong and needs to be changed. Outing Valerie Plame was the wrong thing to do. Releasing this stuff about the NSA was the right thing to do. No, it wasn't legal, it was just done secretly enough that it was beyond challenge by the courts or Congress- both of which freaked once they saw the details.

When I see anybody pushing heavily on the "they're a criminal and must be punished no matter what the extenuating circumstances" bit, I get very uncomfortable. That's what authoritarian regimes do. When you speak of the law as some immutable and unchangeable thing that's beyond reproach, you're echoing the proud tradition of the Jim Crow south and just about every other losing movement in history defending indefensible laws. Hope you're happy.
 
2014-01-24 06:47:42 AM  

grimlock1972: Snowden willing and knowingly broke the law, he plotted to do so well before he committed his criminal acts, he has admitted as much.

yes he revealed what the NSA was up to in regards to US Citizens, but the ends do not justify the means.

Also i would not be surprised if he is giving Russia secrets in exchange for his safe haven.

I do not want him dead, i want him to face trial and more than likely be convicted.

He is no hero he is a criminal.


It is true he's a criminal, but then when the laws are unjust it's difficult to see why someone would be in favor of considering the crime legitimate.
 
2014-01-24 08:05:15 AM  
So we'll only give him a little peril?


First the Spankings, then the oral sex!

Did he set alight the grail shaped beacon?
 
2014-01-24 08:09:54 AM  

Dr Jack Badofsky: globalwarmingpraiser: ecmoRandomNumbers: snuffy: just trade snowden for holder

I'm OK with this.

 What you said.

And can we add shooting Holder in the balls post-trade?


He'd have to grow 'em first.
 
2014-01-24 08:10:26 AM  

Snarfangel: Even if we were to accept all of the bizarre rationalizations for what the NSA did, has anyone heard anything on why random, run-of-the-mill contractors should have access to so many of our nation's most important secrets? This isn't a former President blurting out something he was told in a briefing, this is a random schmuck who was hired for a job that (presumably) did not involve every bit of information the NSA collected.

You can't tell me that people under color of authority aren't looking up the records of ex-girlfriends or just people who annoy them. There seems to be nothing in place to prevent it. Maybe if the Fed got their own house in order, the Snowdens of the world wouldn't have access to all of the embarrassing bits. "Here is all the scandalous information of the President of Mali -- and nothing else!" wouldn't grab headlines.



Supposedly Snowden used his position as a systems administrator to acquire other peoples' log-ins and passwords which he then used to access the data he stole. Data to which he would not normally have had access to.

That's according to an article I read on Ars or the Reg a while back, which claimed to be from unnamed sources in the NSA. I don't think I've heard any kind of official account of what happened.

However Greenwald did wind back that initial claim that Snowden had authority to access everything (up to the President's email), so the idea he didn't have clearance to access the data may have some truth to it.
 
2014-01-24 08:18:52 AM  

TheShavingofOccam123: Funny. We didn't ask until the Olympics kicked in.

Maybe NBC will get an interview with Snowden. We'll finally learn all about Snowden's childhood dreams that were crushed by a tragedy but then fulfilled through hard work, pluck and the grace of God.

Nothing like giving an emperor a chance to impress the peons with his magnanimity. (The emperor is Putin not Kostas.)


Yeah, my first reaction was 'We haven't even asked for them to send him back yet?' That seems like a fairly major first step. How long did it take?
 
2014-01-24 08:36:03 AM  

Sgygus: "Snowden should have gone through the proper channels ..."
Are you f'ing kidding me?  The story of his life would have been "... and he was never seen nor heard of again".



Yeah, I am pretty sure Snowden was aware what happened to Thomas Drake, and knew that working through "proper channels" was pointless and only gets you threats of prosecution for violating the espionage act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_Drake
 
2014-01-24 09:10:43 AM  

doctor wu: That is seriously delusional. His motives are crystal clear to those of us who are not insane. The government was violating your rights, your neighbour's rights and everyone else's, Snowden recognized this and had the balls to expose it. He is absolutely, 100% a hero.


Except that most of the information that has been released has NOTHING to do with NSA activities in the U.S.
 
2014-01-24 09:51:39 AM  
Just change the name from torture to enhanced interrogation. Problem solved.
 
2014-01-24 09:53:30 AM  

You'd turn it off when I was halfway across: Supposedly Snowden used his position as a systems administrator to acquire other peoples' log-ins and passwords which he then used to access the data he stole. Data to which he would not normally have had access to.


Snowden didn't have legal access to any data. He was the network guy.
He told users he needed their passwords to do his job.

He then took everything he could get. Indiscriminately.
The vast majority of this data has nothing to do with U.S. citizens.

If Edward Snowden had just released the information about domestic surveillance,
then I would agree that he was a hero.

Instead he fled to a foreign country and has released information about non-domestic programs.
He is also holding back information as 'protection' against criminal penalties.

Snowden is trying to blackmail the U.S. by threatening release of national security information.
This makes him a criminal and (possibly) a traitor.
 
2014-01-24 09:53:45 AM  
 

m00: But I hope in the above case, nobody would seriously defend the government. Why? Because it's so outrageous.


Gyrfalcon would.  I have him tagged as "Lawful Stupid".

The most important thing, from his perspective, is that laws must never be violated.
 
2014-01-24 10:06:55 AM  

m00: If you don't think the NSA wiretapping was particularly outrageous, that's fine. But it's circular reasoning to think Snowden should be punished for no other reason than ge leaked info to the public that the government didn't want leaked.


Can we prosecute him for everything he leaked not related to domestic surveillance?
 
2014-01-24 10:08:06 AM  

snuffy: just trade snowden for holder


Why trade?
Let them keep both.

/Consider it a gift.
 
2014-01-24 10:24:57 AM  

Cagey B: It's f*cking disgraceful that the prospect of indefinite detainment and torture by American authorities is so plausible that the AG had to specifically promise not to.


What's worse is that he is lying.
 
2014-01-24 11:27:23 AM  

snuffy: just trade snowden for holder


Make Russia take Bieber in the trade as well.
 
2014-01-24 01:51:52 PM  
If they don't, are US back terrorists going to attack the Olympics?
 
2014-01-24 02:42:10 PM  

sethstorm: cirrhosis_and_halitosis: I'm honestly surprised that the US gov't is pursuing Snowden. Russia will never hand him over and it just puts the NSA scandal that they successfully brushed under the rug back on the front page. But much of what the US gov't is up to nowadays is unconstitutional and its citizens don't seem to care.

Are you completely sure that they aren't pursuing alternative avenues or that someone just doesn't give a fark for him being above room temperature?  It's not as if the US doesn't have the ability to turn up the heat on Russian interests as well as Snowden's accomplices.

It's not a matter of if, but when he returns for his inevitable and evidence-based conviction.


The US has absolutely zero leverage to make Russia hand over Snowden.  Putin just made the US blink in the standoff for WWIII, do you think he gives a fark about any empty threats from the US?

Russia really didn't want him, but Snowden was a gift that fell in their laps. They would probablyallow him to leave of his own accord if he was granted political asylum in another country.Holding on to him is a permanent middle finger against US criticism of Russian human rights policies.
 
2014-01-24 03:20:49 PM  

powtard: Yet still, nobody talks about the constitutionality of the NSA activities. We are seeing an incredible paradigm shift from data collection of suspects to data collection of everiyone, stored for eternity, to be revealed whenever the govt and its affiliates decide they either consider you suspicious or just want to know what you've been up to. Is an omniscient government constitutional? Oh wait, nevermind, we should speculate about torture or argue about whether it was bush or Obama that's brought us here...


In fairness, most of the concerns about the constitutionality of the NSA activities revealed in the leaks are about as well-founded as the speculation that Snowden would be tortured if he was extradited.
 
2014-01-24 03:42:55 PM  

LordJiro: Remember, we should ignore the other state secrets and intelligence operations he compromised because some people didn't know the government spied on everyone it can, like it has since at least the Cold War.

Espionage is OK if it reveals something objectionable among everything else!


Unconstitutional violations of the 4th Amendment by the gov't are OK if they reveal something illegal amongst everything else!

/what a fun game. Your turn!
 
2014-01-24 03:51:52 PM  

Biological Ali: In fairness, most of the concerns about the constitutionality of the NSA activities revealed in the leaks are about as well-founded as the speculation that Snowden would be tortured if he was extradited.


You probably didn't intend that the answer to both is, "legitimate."
 
2014-01-24 03:55:21 PM  

El Pachuco: Biological Ali: In fairness, most of the concerns about the constitutionality of the NSA activities revealed in the leaks are about as well-founded as the speculation that Snowden would be tortured if he was extradited.

You probably didn't intend that the answer to both is, "legitimate."


Well, obviously. I wouldn't give that answer because it's patently false.
 
2014-01-24 08:14:02 PM  

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: Putin just made the US blink in the standoff for WWIII


*eyeroll*
 
m00
2014-01-25 12:42:03 AM  

Without Fail: Can we prosecute him for everything he leaked not related to domestic surveillance?


The government can prosecute anyone for anything. We have juries, in theory, to limit the worst abuses of this principle. Problem we're getting into now is secret courts, tribunals, indefinite detention, rendition, etc. This is exactly the reason Snowden blew the whistle, and no he's not going to get a jury trial. Or a fair one.

Ultimately, it's up to the American people to exert pressure on the legislature via the election process if they feel strongly about this issue. Unfortunately, Congress (and apparently the President) weren't aware what the NSA was doing. I'm sure they were happy to get the intel and not ask too many questions where it came from.
 
2014-01-25 02:17:20 AM  

Without Fail: Instead he fled to a foreign country and has released information about non-domestic programs.
He is also holding back information as 'protection' against criminal penalties.

Snowden is trying to blackmail the U.S. by threatening release of national security information.
This makes him a criminal and (possibly) a traitor.


THIS.

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: The US has absolutely zero leverage to make Russia hand over Snowden.


All it takes is a US President that doesnt give a fark that it's Russia.  That, and the US can always lean on "journalists" and organized crime.  Either way, the key is to not care that it's Russia and to consider Snowden supporters as open season.
 
Displayed 133 of 133 comments

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