Edward Snowden Discussion Thread

[Lemanrussland]

I disagree with your opinion, it is therefore irrelevant. Nice attitude.

I'm on the side of the law. If the program is illegal he's in the right, if it's not he's a traitor and he should be killed.

Meh. There's little doubt what he did was illegal, and I could even see calling him a traitor, at least to the US Government.

But sometimes you have to be an illegal traitor to be a hero, ask the US Founding Fathers, for example.

Clearly, he broke the law by revealing classified information, and in a society of laws, he must be culpable, but any sane person (read: not a pedantic NSA apologist) will realize the NSA is breaking the law in a much more egregious fashion, and would morally be on his side, not calling him a "shrieking coward" and calling for him to be put to death.

[Naustia]

Personally, I'm rather surprised that Americans thought that their government wasn't spying on them; I was under the impression that it was common knowledge down there, all the phone-taps and hacking and such.

I'm rather ambivalent on Snowden, though. Sure, bringing attention to a government intruding into its citizen's lives without their consent is good, but the fact that he's in Hong Kong (possibly hiding out, admittedly) kind of makes him seem like he doesn't necessarily have the US' best interests at heart.

He did the right thing, but possibly not for the right reasons.

[Death Metal]

Wasn't the Galactic Empire basically Space Nazis? I mean, the Extended Universe has them as outright speciest.

Officer uniforms of the Empire looked outright SS, knee boots and chest straps, all black.

Not to mention the footsoldiers were called Stormtroopers, but that's an obvious one.

[Des-Bal]

Clearly, he broke the law by revealing classified information, and in a society of laws, he must be culpable, but any sane person (read: not an NSA apologist) will realize the NSA is breaking the law in a much more egregious fashion, and would morally be on his side, not calling him a "shrieking coward" and calling for him to be put to death.

If they broke the law ,and I've seen no evidence that they have, then I don't think he should be punished. If that's not the case treason is basically the best reason to kill someone.

[Lemanrussland]

Personally, I'm rather surprised that Americans thought that their government wasn't spying on them; I was under the impression that it was common knowledge down there, all the phone-taps and hacking and such.

I'm rather ambivalent on Snowden, though. Sure, bringing attention to a government intruding into its citizen's lives without their consent is good, but the fact that he's in Hong Kong (possibly hiding out, admittedly) kind of makes him seem like he doesn't necessarily have the US' best interests at heart.

He did the right thing, but possibly not for the right reasons.

In truth, most people who care a lot about these things already knew about the 2006 AT&T incident, and isn't surprised at this new information. This has served to bring the story to the mainstream's attention, it's a big news story now, which is an excellent development.

[Asuiop]

Clearly, he broke the law by revealing classified information, and in a society of laws, he must be culpable, but any sane person (read: not an NSA apologist) will realize the NSA is breaking the law in a much more egregious fashion, and would morally be on his side, not calling him a "shrieking coward" and calling for him to be put to death.

If they broke the law ,and I've seen no evidence that they have, then I don't think he should be punished. If that's not the case treason is basically the best reason to kill someone.

So you think that if he broke the law, they still shouldn't be punished? I'm sorry, but if we start going down the path of allowing exceptions to the law, we could end up in a very bad place.

[Death Metal]

Meh. There's little doubt what he did was illegal, and I could even see calling him a traitor, at least to the US Government.

But sometimes you have to be an illegal traitor to be a hero, ask the US Founding Fathers, for example.

Clearly, he broke the law by revealing classified information, and in a society of laws, he must be culpable, but any sane person (read: not a pedantic NSA apologist) will realize the NSA is breaking the law in a much more egregious fashion, and would morally be on his side, not calling him a "shrieking coward" and calling for him to be put to death.

Even in a society of laws, extenuating circumstances should be acknowledged. That's why we have pardons. And if anyone deserves a presidential pardon, it's Snowden.

[Malvoro]

Officer uniforms of the Empire looked outright SS, knee boots and chest straps, all black.

Not to mention the footsoldiers were called Stormtroopers, but that's an obvious one.

Green uniforms on the general Army looked Wehrmacht, too. Basically, the Nazis set the 'standard' for our ideas about how a militaristic empire should dress. Thanks, Hugo Boss.

[Asuiop]

Personally, I'm rather surprised that Americans thought that their government wasn't spying on them; I was under the impression that it was common knowledge down there, all the phone-taps and hacking and such.

I'm rather ambivalent on Snowden, though. Sure, bringing attention to a government intruding into its citizen's lives without their consent is good, but the fact that he's in Hong Kong (possibly hiding out, admittedly) kind of makes him seem like he doesn't necessarily have the US' best interests at heart.

He did the right thing, but possibly not for the right reasons.

In truth, most people who care a lot about these things already knew about the 2006 AT&T incident, and isn't surprised at this new information. This has served to bring the story to the mainstream's attention, it's a big news story now, which is an excellent development.

Its really quite sad that most Americans are don't watch the news.. If they had they wouldn't have been so outraged now but rather would have stopped the spying earlier on.

[Des-Bal]

So you think that if he broke the law, they still shouldn't be punished? I'm sorry, but if we start going down the path of allowing exceptions to the law, we could end up in a very bad place.

No. I'm saying that if the NSA's program was illegal he shouldn't be punished. It should not be a crime to expose illegal activity.

[Death Metal]

Not to mention the footsoldiers were called Stormtroopers, but that's an obvious one.

Green uniforms on the general Army looked Wehrmacht, too. Basically, the Nazis set the 'standard' for our ideas about how a militaristic empire should dress. Thanks, Hugo Boss.

Things To Do If I'm An Evil Overlord #21: "I will hire a talented fashion designer to create original uniforms for my Legions of Terror, as opposed to some cheap knock-offs that make them look like Nazi stormtroopers, Roman footsoldiers, or savage Mongol hordes. All were eventually defeated and I want my troops to have a more positive mind-set."

http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html

[Asuiop]

So you think that if he broke the law, they still shouldn't be punished? I'm sorry, but if we start going down the path of allowing exceptions to the law, we could end up in a very bad place.

No. I'm saying that if the NSA's program was illegal he shouldn't be punished. It should not be a crime to expose illegal activity.

Fair enough, this debate is pretty pointless however as the man will probably never be found, no matter how big of a search the FBI have. He's a sneaky one, and he has many options in terms of keeping hidden...

[Naustia]

Personally, I'm rather surprised that Americans thought that their government wasn't spying on them; I was under the impression that it was common knowledge down there, all the phone-taps and hacking and such.

I'm rather ambivalent on Snowden, though. Sure, bringing attention to a government intruding into its citizen's lives without their consent is good, but the fact that he's in Hong Kong (possibly hiding out, admittedly) kind of makes him seem like he doesn't necessarily have the US' best interests at heart.

He did the right thing, but possibly not for the right reasons.

In truth, most people who care a lot about these things already knew about the 2006 AT&T incident, and isn't surprised at this new information. This has served to bring the story to the mainstream's attention, it's a big news story now, which is an excellent development.

Well that's a good thing, then. Personally I'd rather it have blown up in Bush's face than Obama's, but I'm happy anytime that people become more aware of their government's faults (or politics in general, really.)

[Luxew]

"...the World is nothing but glass walls."

And he's trying to speak that, and embrace security and privacy. Unlike SOME people.

[The Godly Nations]

It is relevant and does apply, because it addresses those very questions.

No it really doesn't.

Yes it actually does- the whole distinction between what is good and loved by the Gods because of its inherent property, or because God loves it is particularly relevant.

[The Godly Nations]

There is a difference between illegal and immoral, I am saying that we can criticise what is legal on moral grounds.

I'm arguing that we cannot treat "unethical" behavior the same way we treat "illegal" behavior. You're arguing against claims I never made.

In this case, you can threat the law as unethical, in which case, the moral thing to do would be to break the law, and thus call into question that very law.

[The Godly Nations]

In what ways?

Paul Revere warned us that the British were coming. Snowden warned us that tyrannical espionage is coming.

He wasn't even the mastermind behind it, nor was he the most significant. He only gets remembered because Longfellow liked his rhyme-prone name.

[Des-Bal]

Yes it actually does- the whole distinction between what is good and loved by the Gods because of its inherent property, or because God loves it is particularly relevant.

No it really doesn't. None of that matters when someone's only justification for something being good is that god says it is. That is literally gospel. It is an unshaking, unmoving point and it's really beyond further discussion.

[Lemanrussland]

Clearly, he broke the law by revealing classified information, and in a society of laws, he must be culpable, but any sane person (read: not an NSA apologist) will realize the NSA is breaking the law in a much more egregious fashion, and would morally be on his side, not calling him a "shrieking coward" and calling for him to be put to death.

If they broke the law ,and I've seen no evidence that they have, then I don't think he should be punished. If that's not the case treason is basically the best reason to kill someone.

No evidence? Really. Despite all of the evidence presented in Jewel v. NSA, ACLU v. NSA , Hepting v. AT&T, and so on? You obviously haven't studied these cases, there is substantial evidence that the NSA is engaged in illegal activity. The courts have simply not ruled favorably, for a variety of reasons, though in ACLU v. NSA, Federal Judge Anna Diggs Taylor did rule that the NSA was engaged in illegal activity, this was later overturned.

To say there is "no evidence" is ridiculous. You could say "given the evidence we have, we cannot make a definite claim, and should leave it up to the courts for further deliberation", but of course, you are obviously extremely biased in favor of the NSA for whatever reason, and are simply being priggish.

[The Godly Nations]

I don't think he's a coward for running to HK. Most of these leakers attempt to conceal their identity. He was brave enough to reveal it up front and make an appeal to American citizens to not waste his sacrifice. We need to put pressure on Congress to straighten this out, just like we did with the Church Committee.

"Hey guys, I have released sensitive information. Use it to your advantage and have Congress straighten this out...while you guys do that I will be hiding in my hotel room in Hong Kong."

Doesn't sound so much cowardly as prudent.

[Des-Bal]

No evidence? Really. Despite all of the evidence presented in Jewel v. NSA, ACLU v. NSA , Hepting v. AT&T, and so on? You obviously haven't studied these cases, there is substantial evidence that the NSA is engaged in illegal activity. The courts have simply not ruled favorably, for a variety of reasons, though in ACLU v. NSA, Federal Judge Anna Diggs Taylor did rule that the NSA was engaged in illegal activity, this was later overturned.

To say there is "no evidence" is ridiculous. You could say "given the evidence we have, we cannot make a definite claim", but of course, you are obviously extremely biased in favor of the NSA for whatever reason, and are simply being priggish.

I don't care about the NSA, not even a little. No. Evidence.

[Lemanrussland]

No evidence? Really. Despite all of the evidence presented in Jewel v. NSA, ACLU v. NSA , Hepting v. AT&T, and so on? You obviously haven't studied these cases, there is substantial evidence that the NSA is engaged in illegal activity. The courts have simply not ruled favorably, for a variety of reasons, though in ACLU v. NSA, Federal Judge Anna Diggs Taylor did rule that the NSA was engaged in illegal activity, this was later overturned.

To say there is "no evidence" is ridiculous. You could say "given the evidence we have, we cannot make a definite claim", but of course, you are obviously extremely biased in favor of the NSA for whatever reason, and are simply being priggish.

I don't care about the NSA, not even a little. No. Evidence.

Again, I encourage you to actually study these cases, but as the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

[Gauthier]

So you rooted against Harrison Ford in The Fugitive?

And in Indiana Jones and Star Wars. I wish that Darth Vader could have teamed up with the Nazis and the Aztecs to kick his ass.

The Toothpick will manage to kill him where otheres failed.

[The Godly Nations]

Again, I encourage you to actually study these cases, but as the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

To you, anyone who doesn't agree with your position is a misinformed fascist statists NSA toady.

[Des-Bal]

Again, I encourage you to actually study these cases, but as the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

I thought the saying was you lack the authority to write or interpret the law and your opinions hold water no better than anyone elses? May have been a different saying.