posted
I admit that I have not been following this case as closely as I should so I'm not as informed as some of you on the specifics but I feel I can respond to some of the more philosophical aspects.
For some of you, this seems to come down to whether or not you trust the government to use this information appropriately. I want to try to explain why that is a really bad viewpoint.
Let's say you're a conservative during the Bush Patriot Act days. Despite the fact that the Patriot Act violates many basic conservative principles, you probably supported it because you trusted Bush and his administration to apply it appropriately and not abuse the powers granted. But now Obama is in charge, do you still have the same trust for your government? What if he secretly used this information to dig up dirt on conservative organizations?
Or maybe you are a present day liberal. You trust that Obama will use the information from this NSA program appropriately and not abuse it for his own personal gain and that of his party. But what about the next election? Would you trust this same information in the hands of some "radical conservative"? What if he secretly used it to try and dig up dirt on the leading Pro-choice activists in order to blackmail them into changing their stance?
You say none of that could happen. What about the recent case of denying conservative organizations tax exempt status? I don't care what your political inclinations, you should be outraged by that. If you meet the legal definition of tax exempt status, you should get it regardless of your political views. As repulsive as they are, even hate groups are entitled to such status if they meet the requirements. Even perfectly legal activities from those with "nothing to hide" can be used against you by those with differing views.
Or perhaps you are bipartisan and have a fair amount of trust for both sides. Can you be absolutely certain that will remain the case for decades to come? What if some really radical and unscrupulous character gets elected somewhere down the line? Remember that any power you grant to a current administration will still be available to all future administrations. This is one of the basic problems with monarchies. A truly great, benevolent king with the best interests of his people at heart could be a really good and efficient system of government but what if the power corrupts him? What do you do when he dies and his son is an evil, twisted monster? As great as it would be for such a great king to have all the power to implement his ideals, do you really want all of his successors to have the same power?
Of course, covert intelligence gathering has always been an important means for governments to acquire information on criminals, hostile foreign governments, terrorists and such. To try and prevent such information from being abused, laws are in place to severely limit who can have access, what they can access and what that information can be used for. What concerns me is not that this information is being gathered but that there appears to be very little oversight in its use and access.
I have no problem with an FBI agent showing a judge sufficient evidence of probable cause against a terror suspect and being granted a warrant to access his records. That warrant would include the specifics of exactly what can and can't be searched for and used. What I can't accept is a government official being granted full access to such information with the only oversight being to tell some secret court that "I need it for national security reasons." Why? Who are you investigating? What are you looking for? What evidence do you have that these people may be engaged in illegal activities? What illegal activities are they suspected of? Why do you think the information you seek is in this database? What do you intend to do with this information? Who else will have access to this information? Only if these questions can be reasonably answered should a warrant granting use of that specific information be issued.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: For some of you, this seems to come down to whether or not you trust the government to use this information appropriately. I want to try to explain why that is a really bad viewpoint.
No, I would say that this doesn't represent the general winds of discontent in these parts. Not at all.
In fact, mostly everyone here is expressing concern at the precedent being set by allowing the government unchecked, secret and apparently nearly unlimited access to our personal information. And not because of what they might do with that information. I'm actually not very concerned about what they might do with this info, because anything they do with it will be very hard to direct at individuals.
This was always about a lot of data, and using analysis to identify patterns in the mountains of information- it's not about reading my Mom's text messages to her friends. The government doesn't care about that in any sense other than as a tiny piece of a huge puzzle. However, giving the government access to this information at all, much less in a carte-blanche, completely unrestricted and completely unaccountable way, is irresponsible. It *could* be abused, and that's the important thing: it creates an environment in which its abuse is possible, even if its not likely. And that was precisely the original intent of The Patriot Act: intimidation.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: For some of you, this seems to come down to whether or not you trust the government to use this information appropriately. I want to try to explain why that is a really bad viewpoint.
No, I would say that this doesn't represent the general winds of discontent in these parts. Not at all.
I never said it was a general consensus, I just said some. In fairness, I think it's only one that seemed to feel that way. Sorry for being too lazy to comb through every post to pic out a specific culprit.
As for the rest of your thoughts, I pretty much agree. You did read the rest of my post right?
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate this, but I think the people can fight back by decoying the system. Someone needs to write a smartphone app that cleverly gets around this somehow, or better yet, hundreds of apps that get around it in dozens of different ways. Then we all need to run them.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote:The HKSAR Government today (June 23) issued the following statement on Mr Edward Snowden:
Mr Edward Snowden left Hong Kong today (June 23) on his own accord for a third country through a lawful and normal channel.
The US Government earlier on made a request to the HKSAR Government for the issue of a provisional warrant of arrest against Mr Snowden. Since the documents provided by the US Government did not fully comply with the legal requirements under Hong Kong law, the HKSAR Government has requested the US Government to provide additional information so that the Department of Justice could consider whether the US Government's request can meet the relevant legal conditions. As the HKSAR Government has yet to have sufficient information to process the request for provisional warrant of arrest, there is no legal basis to restrict Mr Snowden from leaving Hong Kong.
The HKSAR Government has already informed the US Government of Mr Snowden's departure.
Meanwhile, the HKSAR Government has formally written to the US Government requesting clarification on earlier reports about the hacking of computer systems in Hong Kong by US government agencies. The HKSAR Government will continue to follow up on the matter so as to protect the legal rights of the people of Hong Kong. Ends/Sunday, June 23, 2013 Issued at HKT 16:05
posted
I have zero problem with hacking China's computers. As I recall they have quite the little government sponsered hacking industry themselves.
They may not be the enemy of the United States right now, but they are our biggest competitor in just about everything. It's a huge, powerful state that is by far the most likely of all the big, powerful states to become our enemy in the future. I see zero need for kid gloves with them.
The NSA stuff is atrocious. Three thousand people die out of a population of three hundred and fifty million and everyone promptly craps themselves and hands over their civil liberties. Who knew the American population would turn out to be filled with pansies?
Good for Hong Kong, getting Snowden shipped out of there. I hope he can make it to Iceland before he trips over a cord and breaks his neck, or gets jabbed by a ricin umbrella or something.
IP: Logged |
Good for Hong Kong, getting Snowden shipped out of there. I hope he can make it to Iceland before he trips over a cord and breaks his neck, or gets jabbed by a ricin umbrella or something.
I believe he is headed to Venezuela, which is (I'm sure) going to be richly enjoyed by the anti-US contingent there. There's no WAY they'd ever hand him over to the US. They'd take special pleasure in refusing the request.
He outs the NSA, and gets to retire early to a beautiful tropical country. It's a fairly happy ending, all things considered.
I am disappointed in the Obama administration. They promised transparency.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:From steven: It's a fairly happy ending, all things considered.
Except for his girlfriend, who was on the business end of the worst breakup in history that didn't end in death.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obama promised a lot of things he didn't fulfill, and all them I kind of felt was just par for the course when it comes to running for president. The number and scope of promises you need to make to get and keep high office is much larger than the power and influence you have once you get there. But these programs that he has expanded, or at least continued, are exactly what he said he would shut-down or at the very least: open up. And now that they're outed he's basically saying "Yah, we're spying on you, I don't understand why you care. Don't you trust me? Now let's go get the guy that forced us to talk about it." Why is my government exerting so much energy trying to catch Snowden instead of talking to be about the fact that they flagrantly violated the constitution?
posted
Honestly though. Snowden just outed the US for massive amounts of what can only be described as "spying" on the entire world, and now the various officials in the US government are throwing a hissy fit that the world won't return Snowden to them? Maybe they think if they make enough noise no one will be able to hear the rest of us yelling "fire".
posted
See I felt like in the first four years, I was getting exactly what Obama said I was going to get. Federal stimulus, healthcare reform/debate, closing Guantanamo Bay.
The last one stalled, but I had a reason to believe they were encountering problems and just working through them. Then I noticed that surveilance was increasing, Guantanamo went from "working towards" to "just stop talking about it", transparency was just as bad if not worse, and whistle-blowers were being gone after with zeal.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I seriously am still just completely broadsided by the very idea that people didn't think the US government was totally doing this
it is like most everyone I know just completely forgot what the USA PATRIOT Act expressly and openly allowed our government to start doing. Well, I mean, some did, but what happened with that? Did they sort of naively expect that the government wasn't going to do it when we gave the power to do it? Did they not think Obama was going to continue it, especially when this was practically autonomous power to do so granted to a number of unelected positions in entire branches of the federal government?
We had so many open warnings that this was totally happening all the time everywhere, we didn't even need the warnings. The bargain was made, we were all here when it happened, and it was announced to us.. Christ, what is so special about Snowden that it opened everyone's eyes to it and even got Obama to start sputtering out Cheneyesque lies and waffling contortion that insisted that the process was "transparent"
as a side note, it turns out the UK's surveillance program is so intense that it puts our own to shame. And in that case I honestly don't know how much of a warning or a pretense was involved with that one. At least with ours there was a single event where an act totally allowed it to happen and I don't know if a similarly obvious passage of power expansion happened in the UK which allowed their massive digital surveillance thing to happen.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:From steven: It's a fairly happy ending, all things considered.
Except for his girlfriend, who was on the business end of the worst breakup in history that didn't end in death.
Strangely, I know her IRL. Like, my girlfriend and I have gone swing dancing with her almost every Thursday for the past 6 months.
I haven't talked to her since all this happened. I can't imagine her taking it very well. They interviewed another friend of mine about her for a dailymail article, which is really weird to see.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:From steven: It's a fairly happy ending, all things considered.
Except for his girlfriend, who was on the business end of the worst breakup in history that didn't end in death.
"Girlfriend", not "fiancee", and not certainly not "wife".
I wonder if he told her what he was planning. If not, then yes, I'd be pretty hurt (and feel misused) if I were in her situation.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:From steven: It's a fairly happy ending, all things considered.
Except for his girlfriend, who was on the business end of the worst breakup in history that didn't end in death.
Strangely, I know her IRL. Like, my girlfriend and I have gone swing dancing with her almost every Thursday for the past 6 months.
I haven't talked to her since all this happened. I can't imagine her taking it very well. They interviewed another friend of mine about her for a dailymail article, which is really weird to see.
Did you ever meet her boyfriend in all that time?
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. I'd say hi to him whenever I saw him and we once talked for a few minutes at a Halloween party. He never went dancing with her, though, so we never hung out. I didn't even remember his last name until I saw a picture of him and realized who he was.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:From steven: It's a fairly happy ending, all things considered.
Except for his girlfriend, who was on the business end of the worst breakup in history that didn't end in death.
"Girlfriend", not "fiancee", and not certainly not "wife".
I wonder if he told her what he was planning. If not, then yes, I'd be pretty hurt (and feel misused) if I were in her situation.
I'm not sure why you felt the need to define something we already agreed on. If she's his girlfriend it's no big deal?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:From steven: It's a fairly happy ending, all things considered.
Except for his girlfriend, who was on the business end of the worst breakup in history that didn't end in death.
Strangely, I know her IRL. Like, my girlfriend and I have gone swing dancing with her almost every Thursday for the past 6 months.
I haven't talked to her since all this happened. I can't imagine her taking it very well. They interviewed another friend of mine about her for a dailymail article, which is really weird to see.
That's a fairly significant amount of time spent with her.
posted
Uh, nice? She's a great dancer and never made me feel uncomfortable for being only moderately good. What are you going after exactly?
As far as time spent - she was one girl in a group of 20-40ish people (depending on the night), I've danced with her fairly often and seen her in a few other places, but we don't exactly know her very well. I was just surprised to see her name all over the internet.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
Former NSA agent Edward Snowden has been accused of treason and is currently the target of an international manhunt. With the U.S. demanding his return to America, The Onion looks at what Snowden’s current options are:
1. Set everything right by returning leaked NSA secrets to their original owners 2. Flee to a nation with widespread public hostility to the U.S., such as the U.S.
Man I love number 2. Crazy thing is that might actually be his best option.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Uh, nice? She's a great dancer and never made me feel uncomfortable for being only moderately good. What are you going after exactly?
As far as time spent - she was one girl in a group of 20-40ish people (depending on the night), I've danced with her fairly often and seen her in a few other places, but we don't exactly know her very well. I was just surprised to see her name all over the internet.
What am I going after? Nothing?
I was just curious.
I thought from what you said that you were friends with her, rather than being tangentially familiar with her.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Return to the US? In what way might that possibly be his best option?
Well, it probably isn't but:
1. He is catching a lot of flack for running to "unfriendly" countries with even worse records regarding free speech, human rights, etc. Of course these people either fail to realize or just choose to ignore the fact that the only better countries would just ship him back to the states. Never the less, hiding out in China and Russia makes him look less like a whistle blower and more like a spy to some people which dilutes his message.
2. While it is true that he would be arrested as soon as he showed up on US soil, that might be a good thing for his message. He already has significant support here to make sure his case stays in the public eye and he has probably become too famous to simply be eliminated.
3. Coming back and having his day in court could make him an even bigger hero to many.
4. What kind of life can he have as a fugitive in Ecuador? How long before some other country trumps up some damning charges against him to discredit him? Come back and win, he's free and a hero. Lose and he's in jail but how long before protesters and what not convince someone to pardon him?
Still it's a tough call. If I were in his shoes, I might keep running too. But I would definitely seriously consider coming back.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: In other words, if he wants to stay a hero, he needs to risk becoming a martyr.
I'm on the fence on that one.
So am I but it's not just about being a hero, it's about maximizing the impact of the message which should be important to anyone that takes these extraordinary risks to get that message out. Hiding out in Russia or China makes it easier to paint him as a spy and a traitor, making his message look more like a case of international espionage rather than domestic criminal actions by our own federal government.
But then again, can he trust that he would get a fair trial and receive his basic human rights here in America? Maybe not. While his fame might make it difficult to do, he has to be worried about just getting dumped on gitmo for all eternity.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact is, by hiding, he's made himself the most high profile whistleblower since the Pentagon Papers. If he came home now, he'd have the best chance for maximum exposure for his trial, which would put this issue under the best microscope is has been under in modern times.
But to do so, he has to take the risk that at the end of the day, he'll be convicted of something and go to jail. Otherwise his sacrifice looks kind of lame next to what some recent men and women have done to get major information out there. He wants to be a hero to Americans for shining a spotlight on questionable programs but he's also grooming himself to be a hero to people who don't like America.
Frankly I think he's a little full of himself.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting. I'm not familiar with where he considers himself, or thinks others should, deem him a hero. I'm a bit surprised to hear that take on his behavior-particularly since it lines up so neatly with the traditional stance on whistleblowers.
It's not enough, it would seem, to shine a light, so to speak-they must also be willing to jump into the fire as well else they be deemed arrogant somehow. As for me, I'm simply grateful he forced the issue however briefly into public debate, however fleeting that debate will be in the face of what appears to be the new standard, American fear and subservience in the face of terrorism.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not so much the fact that he's hiding, or where he's hiding, for me. I think the act of whistleblowing itself is worthy, as is giving up an upper middle class lifestyle in Hawaii to do it.
It's his attitude in interviews. He comes off as self-righteous and smug. And he's creating a victim complex for himself. Admittedly, some of that is valid since he's actually persecuted, but when he talks about how he could be killed by CIA-funded Triad hit squads, my BS alarm starts to sound.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If he returned to America he would certainly be tortured ala Manning, he should never return without very solid securities to his safety and well being.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, I guess I'm just a bit closer to conspiracy theorist than you are, Lyrhawn. My initial response to that was to roll my eyes as well...but frankly I can't completely, 'it's utterly laughable' dismiss the possibility that questions of dealing with finality with Snowden were never on the table anywhere-if not in the short term, then eventually. Various intelligence officials, up to and including the head of the NSA and the Director of National Intelligence have flat-out lied not just to direct questions in the media, but under oath in Congress. They're willing to risk, in their own persons, some pretty sharp penalties. Exactly how outrageous should one think they would be willing to take other risks with many layers of secret separation?
I can't speak to Snowden's attitude-that's a subjective interpretation that we will all evaluate differently. I can say, however, that he's actually explicitly rejected the label of hero-and traitor.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can say, however, that he's actually explicitly rejected the label of hero-and traitor.
The "Aw-shucks folks, I'm no hero" thing doesn't usually play well with me. Unless the person saying it comes off sincere as hell, it usually plays to me like someone using false modesty to in fact increase their status as hero, because Americans love a hero who shuns his own hero status.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The guy's pretty socially awkward and has spent his career working a job that requires a lot of precision in language and yet very little in the way of people skills beyond basic human interaction. Socially awkward people are very frequently accused of arrogance, especially when they're highly intelligent. I think it's far more likely that he simply lacks the ability to effectively portray the false modesty expected by our society than he's trying to play a martyr. I'm curious as to why you're so critical of his motivations and behavior. He's given up a great life on a beautiful island to do this - it's not like he was in any way suffering or lonely or desperate for money or attention or fame. He already had it made.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I confess I'm surprised too at your reaction, Lyrhawn. Not that I think it's the 'wrong' reaction for you or something, just that it's not what I would've predicted had I been asked.
It really does-and this is about the broader American stance towards whistleblowers, not you personally, Lyrhawn-seem to feed into the attitude we take towards those who can be called 'traitor'. That's always been the stance of government-under any administration or Congress, the initial response must always be hostile unless it wants more whistleblowers-but I'm not so sure it was always the stance of the media which has allowed itself to be neutered.
This is the only way the broader American public was ever going to be informed of these sorts of programs-to say nothing of the rest of the world that, you know, we routinely and massively spy on thanks to our major tie-ins to the Internet and mass media. This is in fact just about the only way we ever find out about these sorts of stories-if someone is a 'traitor' and reveals them. I'm baffled as to why it's not enough for them to do that not just not for money but actually losing a pretty rad life, but they must also deny considering themselves a hero and in the correct tone of voice and body language, else they get labeled smug (and again, this is about the broader outlook on Snowden). I think much of it is connected to how much we've really digested the whole 'government does stuff for your protection, not just that you don't need to know about, but shouldn't ask about'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
He has no way of using the evidence he's compiled to prove he was right to leak it in the first place. It would be seized and deemed inadmissible in the interest of national security.
He has indicated he has more information to release, and will send it to journalists when he is done vetting it so that we can all make our own decisions.
It would be like the guy the Pentagon Papers merely stating he had such papers and will release them when has had a chance to review them, rather than just leaking them wholesale and letting the media disseminate it and sway public opinion.
Were I Snowden, there's no way I'd "honorably" come back to the US and try to get a fair trial.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think he's a traitor, though I'm a little iffy on revealing the US hacking stuff. Maybe that can be parlayed into an international conversation on hacking the way we talk about arms control though, which would be a welcome outcome.
I also don't really get the surprise from people. Snowden released details on a program we ALL should have known existed, and certainly everyone in government should have known.
But I don't think he's a villain, and I'm half amused and half outraged at Obama's reaction. If a Chinese whistleblower did the same thing and ran to the United States, we'd shelter him in the lap of luxury and never give him back, but we're trying to play morally superior when the shoe is on the other foot? Please.
I think there's a sliding scale of heroism. Would it be more heroic to come home and risk his freedom to make this a major issue in a court? Yes it would. Do I think he is morally obligated to do so? No, not any more than any of us are morally obligated every day to "do the right thing," which many of us frequently ignore.
Is it still heroic to totally give up his life in the US to do what he did? Yes, as I've said further up in this thread, it is. I don't know him personally, so I can only base my opinions on his interviews and what not, but there's just something about his attitude that rubs me the wrong way. Maybe it's just that he's super awkward and not used to all this, I don't know. I don't think it makes him a traitor, and I don't think he was wrong to leak what he did, but I'm not breaking out the plaster for his statue yet.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think if he was smooth and confident and relaxed and totally used to it, it would rub me the wrong way. His behavior is pretty much exactly what I would expect.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Only a fool in his position would came back to the US. I'm deeply surprised anyone would suggest it. There aren't enough people on his side to force a pardon...or to put it another way, there are enough people who hate him (and hate anyone like him) to ensure a lack of pardon. Force a pardon? Please.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: Only a fool in his position would came back to the US. I'm deeply surprised anyone would suggest it. There aren't enough people on his side to force a pardon...or to put it another way, there are enough people who hate him (and hate anyone like him) to ensure a lack of pardon. Force a pardon? Please.
Maybe but I don't know, I have seen a couple of polls that show somewhere around 45% consider him a hero and around 42% traitor. Not great but not terrible either.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
Salazar
Is it your belief that the United States now tortures people for revenge?
If you believe that, do you think the US could get away with disappearing him? Because once they've done that to him, they couldn't allow him to talk. I think he's a little too famous, and has far too many transparency groups looking out for him, for that to work.
IP: Logged |
posted
I agree but then there is the case of Gary Webb. Yes it probably was suicide in his case but two gunshot wounds to the head is very suspicious, though possible with suicide.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
