Edward Snowden Discussion Thread

[Welsh Cowboy]

he has opened a window on something we need to be discussing a lot more then himself as a person nor his ware abouts.

it is not even just about "privacy". which lets get real, privacy, as long as we want to live in a communictions fish bowl is a myth anyway.

but rather shame on any nation, that would put its security as a nation, ahead of that of its citizens. whether that nation be syria, afghanistan, or the u.s. of america.

Terrorism doesn't only affect a "nation's" security, it also kills citizens.

Not necessarily defending these programs, but many of them have very reasonable aims, protecting people from those who want to slaughter them.

[Freiheit Reich]

he has opened a window on something we need to be discussing a lot more then himself as a person nor his ware abouts.

it is not even just about "privacy". which lets get real, privacy, as long as we want to live in a communictions fish bowl is a myth anyway.

but rather shame on any nation, that would put its security as a nation, ahead of that of its citizens. whether that nation be syria, afghanistan, or the u.s. of america.

Terrorism doesn't only affect a "nation's" security, it also kills citizens.

Not necessarily defending these programs, but many of them have very reasonable aims, protecting people from those who want to slaughter them.

If the USA wanted to truly prevent terrorism, they would stop allowing immigrants from terrorist friendly nations like Somalia and Iraq into the country. They would stop student visas from Arabic nations or Chechnya. They would stop getting involved in Middle East conflicts and they would stop supporting terrorist rebels in places like Egypt and Syria.

They would also improve border control. If a poor pregnant Mexican farm woman can sneak into the USA than so can well-trained Arabic terrorists that has plenty of cash (donated by hate groups).

The USA uses terrorism as an excuse to increase their power, they are not truly serious about preventing terrorism. In fact, another terrorist attack gives them another excuse to weaken civil liberties even more.

[Welsh Cowboy]

Terrorism doesn't only affect a "nation's" security, it also kills citizens.

Not necessarily defending these programs, but many of them have very reasonable aims, protecting people from those who want to slaughter them.

If the USA wanted to truly prevent terrorism, they would stop allowing immigrants from terrorist friendly nations like Somalia and Iraq into the country. They would stop student visas from Arabic nations or Chechnya. They would stop getting involved in Middle East conflicts and they would stop supporting terrorist rebels in places like Egypt and Syria.

They would also improve border control. If a poor pregnant Mexican farm woman can sneak into the USA than so can well-trained Arabic terrorists that has plenty of cash (donated by hate groups).

The USA uses terrorism as an excuse to increase their power, they are not truly serious about preventing terrorism. In fact, another terrorist attack gives them another excuse to weaken civil liberties even more.

I think all the measures you've advocated are worthy of consideration. Certainly student visas can and will be abused by potential terrorists. The same with weak border control.

And certainly, terrorism has been an excuse to expand government surveillance programs, many of which do reduce our civil liberties.

However, because all these programs are secret, I don't think we know enough quite yet to say the programs haven't, or have, helped stop terrorism.

[Imperial--japan]

I heard he's heading to Moscow now. That should be interesting. At least the petition for his pardon got enough signatures(whatever good that will do)

He's safe in HK. They already said they wouldn't, or rather they can't, extradite him. So, why...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/ ... 3-07-04-11

However, Russia's ITAR-Tass news agency cited an unidentified Aeroflot official as saying Snowden would fly from Moscow to Cuba on Monday and then on to Caracas, Venezuela.

This is too fucking suspicious.

His plane will mysteriously disappear over the Atlantic or Carribean if this is the case.

[Freiheit Reich]

If the USA wanted to truly prevent terrorism, they would stop allowing immigrants from terrorist friendly nations like Somalia and Iraq into the country. They would stop student visas from Arabic nations or Chechnya. They would stop getting involved in Middle East conflicts and they would stop supporting terrorist rebels in places like Egypt and Syria.

They would also improve border control. If a poor pregnant Mexican farm woman can sneak into the USA than so can well-trained Arabic terrorists that has plenty of cash (donated by hate groups).

The USA uses terrorism as an excuse to increase their power, they are not truly serious about preventing terrorism. In fact, another terrorist attack gives them another excuse to weaken civil liberties even more.

I think all the measures you've advocated are worthy of consideration. Certainly student visas can and will be abused by potential terrorists. The same with weak border control.

And certainly, terrorism has been an excuse to expand government surveillance programs, many of which do reduce our civil liberties.

However, because all these programs are secret, I don't think we know enough quite yet to say the programs haven't, or have, helped stop terrorism.

I admit banning all people from terrorist nations is unfair to the 10% of good people in those nations. However, they brought the actions upon themselves for supporting bad leaders and not supporting religious freedoms. It is fair in many ways though. Arab nations ban Israel citizens from traveling to their nations due to their hatred of Jews. They deserve to get a taste of their own discriminatory medicine.

The policy could be changed when these countries become civilized and show religious tolerance and low levels of violence and accept Israel citizens for travel (haha-maybe when pigs fly it will happen).

Sadly, it is no secret that US border control is weak. Sadly it is left weak for political reasons. Advocating strict border controls is seen as racist towards Hispanics which means loss of potential votes.

[Welsh Cowboy]

I think all the measures you've advocated are worthy of consideration. Certainly student visas can and will be abused by potential terrorists. The same with weak border control.

And certainly, terrorism has been an excuse to expand government surveillance programs, many of which do reduce our civil liberties.

However, because all these programs are secret, I don't think we know enough quite yet to say the programs haven't, or have, helped stop terrorism.

I admit banning all people from terrorist nations is unfair to the 10% of good people in those nations. However, they brought the actions upon themselves for supporting bad leaders and not supporting religious freedoms. It is fair in many ways though. Arab nations ban Israel citizens from traveling to their nations due to their hatred of Jews. They deserve to get a taste of their own discriminatory medicine.

The policy could be changed when these countries become civilized and show religious tolerance and low levels of violence and accept Israel citizens for travel (haha-maybe when pigs fly it will happen).

Sadly, it is no secret that US border control is weak. Sadly it is left weak for political reasons. Advocating strict border controls is seen as racist towards Hispanics which means loss of potential votes.

I don't necessarily support banning people, but I think that people who come from Iraq, for example, should face more scrutiny than an immigrant from Brussels. Sometimes this is avoided for political correctness or fear of being seen as racist, but it is necessary; the fact is, terrorism is likely to come from certain countries and people with certain exposures.

To tie this back into the thread, though, anyone measure or set of measures can only reduce terrorism so much. I think that some surveillance programs do a lot of good.

[Freiheit Reich]

I admit banning all people from terrorist nations is unfair to the 10% of good people in those nations. However, they brought the actions upon themselves for supporting bad leaders and not supporting religious freedoms. It is fair in many ways though. Arab nations ban Israel citizens from traveling to their nations due to their hatred of Jews. They deserve to get a taste of their own discriminatory medicine.

The policy could be changed when these countries become civilized and show religious tolerance and low levels of violence and accept Israel citizens for travel (haha-maybe when pigs fly it will happen).

Sadly, it is no secret that US border control is weak. Sadly it is left weak for political reasons. Advocating strict border controls is seen as racist towards Hispanics which means loss of potential votes.

I don't necessarily support banning people, but I think that people who come from Iraq, for example, should face more scrutiny than an immigrant from Brussels. Sometimes this is avoided for political correctness or fear of being seen as racist, but it is necessary; the fact is, terrorism is likely to come from certain countries and people with certain exposures.

To tie this back into the thread, though, anyone measure or set of measures can only reduce terrorism so much. I think that some surveillance programs do a lot of good.

Many Americans are not angry about the program but more upset about the secrecy. If the program is legitimate than why was the US govt. so secretive about it? This is not 'transparent govt.' that Obama promised.

I would rather have more terrorism if it meant more freedom although we could solve both by not being so politically correct. North Korea has little terrorism but hopefully not many Americans want to live under a totalitarian system like their system even if it means more safety. Sure, this is an extreme comparison but meant to show a point.

Snowden embarrassed the USA but this could have been avoided if the US govt. just explained the program to US citizens and let them decide if it was necessary or not. That would be a more democratic approach.

[Greed and Death]

Obama says we will get him.

[Rio Cana]

The problem with Ecuador is you send in bounty hunters there to drag him out.

What if they hire Shuar natives to guard him. The bounty hunters would have there hands full. Shuar use to be headhunters. Even the Inca and Spanish learned the hard way to stay out of there jungle territories. Currently, in Ecuador there are Ecuadorian military squads called Iwias or Arutams. They are an elite military group made entirely of Shuar natives. They make good soldiers. They are generally stationed in the Ecuadorian Amazon.

[Greed and Death]

The problem with Ecuador is you send in bounty hunters there to drag him out.

What if they hire Shuar natives to guard him. The bounty hunters would have there hands full. Shuar use to be headhunters. Even the Inca and Spanish learned the hard way to stay out of there jungle territories. Currently, in Ecuador there are Ecuadorian military squads called Iwias or Arutams. They are an elite military group made entirely of Shuar natives. They make good soldiers. They are generally stationed in the Ecuadorian Amazon.

Dog the bounty hunter defeats men with sticks. He is a Dog Dogs fetch sticks therefore he wins.

[Endoria22]

He shouldn't trust Russia or China. He did the right thing though. I hope he makes it out alive in the end.

[Rio Cana]

I wonder when they make the movie.

Seriously, with all the publicity this guy is getting, the US will have a problem quietly processing him if they finally get him. This guy is big news worldwide. People are following this story like you follow a soap opera.

[Gauthier]

We need two threads for all the edgy kids to talk about America is the worst totalitarian police state ever and how no other country in the west would ever do something like this?

We do?

Ok, carry on then.

Sponsored by Pabst Blue Ribbon.

[Hornesia]

I think all the measures you've advocated are worthy of consideration. Certainly student visas can and will be abused by potential terrorists. The same with weak border control.

And certainly, terrorism has been an excuse to expand government surveillance programs, many of which do reduce our civil liberties.

However, because all these programs are secret, I don't think we know enough quite yet to say the programs haven't, or have, helped stop terrorism.

I admit banning all people from terrorist nations is unfair to the 10% of good people in those nations. However, they brought the actions upon themselves for supporting bad leaders and not supporting religious freedoms. It is fair in many ways though. Arab nations ban Israel citizens from traveling to their nations due to their hatred of Jews. They deserve to get a taste of their own discriminatory medicine.

The policy could be changed when these countries become civilized and show religious tolerance and low levels of violence and accept Israel citizens for travel (haha-maybe when pigs fly it will happen).

Sadly, it is no secret that US border control is weak. Sadly it is left weak for political reasons. Advocating strict border controls is seen as racist towards Hispanics which means loss of potential votes.

And a certain party who's name begins with a D has no incentive to strengthen security as most illegals vote for them.

[Hornesia]

Obama says we will get him.
(Image)

Putin says no. Therefore, Obama won't do anything.

[Gauthier]

And in the Awkward Department...

Edward Snowden Says He Sought Booz Allen Hamilton Job To Gather NSA Surveillance Evidence

Almost feel sorry for the collection of bonobos who were supposed to vet him for the job.

[Caninope]

Though, personally I think he was in the right to do so, especially with the upcoming G8 at the time.

That's why it's wrong.

There is a serious lack of oversight within the intelligence community.

I wouldn't say that. Sometimes, there's too much oversight, as with DHS, and it hinders the ability of DHS in doing anything.

Other times (as here), it seems that oversight actively cooperates the with IC.

[Caninope]

Then why did they do this in secret courts and not inform the public? Doesn't matter if it was legal as it was unconstitutional.

It's only unconstitutional if SCOTUS says so or if it's explicitly stated in the Constitution.

Actually, something is unconstitutional if a court with jurisdiction rules it to be so. In this case, I believe the only court above FISC is indeed SCOTUS (don't quote me on that) but any federal district or appellate court can rule an action of the US federal government unconstitutional, if they have jurisdiction.

[Caninope]

And a certain party who's name begins with a D has no incentive to strengthen security as most illegals vote for them.

Illegals cannot register to vote.

[Third Mexican Empire]

I know I'm really late but............

I'm still not exactly sure what happened with Edward Snowden. The news were no help, since after the first few hours they stopped talking about the actions of the NSA and instead shifted their focus to debating privacy from government. So, if somebody would be kind enough to answer a few questions, I'd really appreciate it.

Basically, Snowden disclosed the existence of a program named PRISM, which was basically the NSA collecting records on every single phone call made in the US, and by records is meant call duration and call recipient and nothing else?

[Page]

Every time someone says "Snowden is clearly a traitor otherwise he wouldn't go to unfree countries like Russia and China" I am possessed by an irresistible urge to roll my eyes and perform a wanker hand gesture at them, accompanied by a complete "flicking" motion.

[Gauthier]

Every time someone says "Snowden is clearly a traitor otherwise he wouldn't go to unfree countries like Russia and China" I am possessed by an irresistible urge to roll my eyes and perform a wanker hand gesture at them, accompanied by a complete "flicking" motion.

Or you missed the irony of someone professing to stand up for transparency and privacy fleeing to countries with a serious deficit of both for refuge.

[Haktiva]

Every time someone says "Snowden is clearly a traitor otherwise he wouldn't go to unfree countries like Russia and China" I am possessed by an irresistible urge to roll my eyes and perform a wanker hand gesture at them, accompanied by a complete "flicking" motion.

Lest we forget our founding fathers were technically traitors as well.

[Page]

And a certain party who's name begins with a D has no incentive to strengthen security as most illegals vote for them.

Illegals cannot register to vote.

Nonsense, what would a person living in constant fear of deportation rather do than unnecessarily draw the government's attention to them in registering to vote and commit a crime by falsely affirming they're a citizen? They do it all the time, it's like tempting fate, it's a fun little game to them. Besides, they illegals are really passionate about making sure all the socialist benefits the Democratic Party gives to American citizens and not to them remain in place. All 10 of them who voted in Arizona last election cycle and thus completely changed the outcome of the election. Everyone knows that.

[Welsh Cowboy]

Every time someone says "Snowden is clearly a traitor otherwise he wouldn't go to unfree countries like Russia and China" I am possessed by an irresistible urge to roll my eyes and perform a wanker hand gesture at them, accompanied by a complete "flicking" motion.

Or you missed the irony of someone professing to stand up for transparency and privacy fleeing to countries with a serious deficit of both for refuge.

Plus, it undermines much of his legitimacy as a "pure" idealist and whistleblower.