Most seem to think it's a Hail Mary, I personally think it's just groundwork for an appeal based on the assumption that the NSA isn't going to really comply.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Printable View
Most seem to think it's a Hail Mary, I personally think it's just groundwork for an appeal based on the assumption that the NSA isn't going to really comply.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
How does that usually work in cases where evidence is classified, or how it was gathered?
Also, is anyone really surprised he isn't extradited? He's charged with espionage, when have spies ever been extradited from a country that is also a target of the requesting country? How big do you think the chances are the US would extradite a Chinese guy who spills the beans on Chinese spying on their own citizens, and on Chinese cyber attacks on the US? All news reports about the extradition specifically mentioned that espionage traditionally is excluded from the extradition treaty, too.
Wait, this is only about not wanting to be seen helping the USA.. :rolleyes:
There is no "usual" for this. The material was in no shape part of the case the local prosecutor is making against the guy and there shouldn't be a federal repository of general data like this on citizens and certainly none of us are supposed to know about it so we can make these sorts of requests/demands. Outside of the FISA court and some specialized espionage trials there shouldn't BE any classified evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Of course private entities have waste. So what? As I have argued many times, government agencies aren't (and often can't) be properly incented to curb waste relative to private entities.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
But we're not talking about waste, I'm talking about size and scope of government.
Hah, nice move. Not often you see defense attorneys do something possibly-clever like this that will also ensure he gets billable hours for maybe years.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
And now we get word that Snowden joined the NSA specifically to find data about electronic surveillance and leak it? FFS, what a fuckwad.
You mean the fact that he gave information to China that had no purpose other than to reveal American secrets to one of the most repressive governments in the world wasn't enough to make you think the guy is an asshole and a traitor?
And (allegedly) his contact with The Guardian/Greenwald began before he was hired by Booz Allen. :hmm:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Yes, I think it's very dishonorable when people go 'undercover' to expose to the press what they are doing wrong - Julius Chambers was obviously a fuckwad, as was Stetson Kennedy. How do they dare getting involved to get the solid information they need to expose organisations in the public interest! Horrible, that's what it is. I mean, if they had been actually insane and racists, who later saw the light, that would have been much, much better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Look, that doesn't make it any better or worse. Either he joined, then found out, and thought it was in the public's interest to know what kind of shit the NSA is up to, or he knew before and joined to get solid information to let the public know, it's not that different. So he's a fuckwad and traitor because he leaks information that's embarrassing to the government? The government deceived your own people on what they were doing, I think there's a decent case to be made that the public had a right to know. That applies both to the NSA's arguably unconstitutional monitoring of US citizens, the related revelation that FISA courts are not much better than a rubber stamp, as well as cyber attacks on China. Hell, your own government considers cyber attacks a 'use of force' and a valid casus belli. You don't think the public has a right to know that your government is, in their own words, basically attacking the Chinese with their military? I would say that's something the people should know? China probably knew, or at least suspected, that you were doing it anyway, just as it's a public secret that the Chinese are attacking you, so it's mainly about informing the public. And considering the US outrage over Chinese attacks on the US, I think it's not unreasonable to expose that hypocrisy.
And if releasing classified information that hurts your foreign interests automatically makes you a fuckwad traitor, I suppose you are outraged that Iran-Contra was ever revealed, or that the 'torture memos' were leaked - no way there was a public interest to reveal how your government was behaving. :rolleyes: I think we should just agree that everything the government does but classifies should never be revealed to the press, because what harm could they possibly do? :rolleyes: Out of curiosity, what are your opinions on the pentagon papers? It was classified, embarrassing for the government, but arguably also in the public's interest how they were lied to and kept in the dark about how the government behaved. And prosecuted under the same laws, too - though the outcome only involved prior restraint and the other case was a mistrial.
Look, this is a major part of of security and foreign policy that will likely only become more important in the near future, and it's basically being conducted without public knowledge. Whether you support it, or not, it should have a public debate. You yourself noted that this program is worrying, and an overreach, which to me implies that you are happy it broke, since otherwise you wouldn't even have known about this. Yet now exposing the program makes you a fuckwad? Not very consistent of you, there. I suppose shooting the messenger is working..
http://www.nationaljournal.com/polit...owden-20130612Quote:
The Snowden narrative matters mostly to White House officials trying to deflect attention from government overreach and deception, and to media executives in search of an easy storyline to serve a celebrity-obsessed audience.
For the rest of us, the questions seem to be:
- Are the two programs revealed by Snowden legal and constitutional?
- Are the programs effective? The government says yes, but most Americans don't trust government. The Obama administration claims National Security Agency spying helped foil a plot in New York, but that claim has been convincingly disputed.
- What else is the government doing to invade our privacy? Until a few days ago, paranoids were people who claimed Washington had cast a vast electronic net over our communications. Who isn't a bit paranoid now?
- Why did the U.S. government for years debunk what they called a myth about the National Security Agency seizing electronic data from millions of Americans?
- Why did the leader of the U.S. intelligence community mislead Congress in March by answering a question about the program in the "least untruthful manner" -- a phrase that would make George Orwell cringe.
- Why do Democratic lawmakers who criticized President Bush for exploiting the post-9/11 Patriot Act now defend President Obama for curbing civil liberties?
- Why do Republicans who defended Bush now chastise Obama for ruthlessly fighting terrorists?
- Rather than fierce oversight, why did the White House and congressional leaders restrict full knowledge of the programs to a few elites, and stage, for the rest of Congress, Potemkin briefings?
- Why does a secret federal court almost always side with the government's requests to seize information.
- Why didn't the president find a way before the leaks to tell the public in general terms what he was doing and why? Obama ran on a pledge of government transparency, opposed Bush-era surveillance tactics, and denounced the "false choice" between security and liberty.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...edward-snowdenQuote:
The questions Americans do and do not find sensible to raise also provide grounds for sorrow. It makes sense to Americans to ask, "What kind of person would defy authority in this way?" But somehow it does not make sense to ask, "What kind of person seeks to join the special forces of a country known to conduct unjust wars?" or "What kind of person helps the state conduct its business outside the scope of public deliberation and democratic authority, and does not seek to expose it?"
[...]
Whether the NSA's monitoring programmes are actually legal and effective may be morepressing questions than whether Mr Snowden deserves our esteem. But it became possible to address those questions openly only because Mr Snowden chose to speak up. If we wish to keep similarly pressing policy questions available for public examination, we must defend the honour of whistleblowers like Edward Snowden.
Quote:
Without defending Snowden for breaking his vow to safeguard secrets, he’s only done in the macro what the national security establishment does in the micro every day of the week to manage, manipulate and influence ongoing policy debates.
[...]
The willingness of the government to punish leakers is inversely proportional to the leakers’ rank and status, which is bad news for someone so lacking in those attributes as Edward Snowden. But as the Snowden prosecution commences, we should question his selective prosecution. Let’s ask, as Isikoff did of the Obama administration officials who leaked to Woodward, why Snowden is singled out for punishment when he’s essentially done what the insider dissenters did when they spoke with Risen and Lichtblau in 2005 about an invasive NSA program. He deserves the same justice and the same punishment they received.
http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/...ting-of-leaks/
http://www.economist.com/news/leader...formed-consentQuote:
Our point is not that America’s spies are doing the wrong things, but that the level of public scrutiny is inadequate and so is the right of redress. Without these, officials will be tempted to abuse their powers, because the price of doing so is small. This is particularly true for those who bug and ban.Spooks do need secrecy, but not on everything, always and everywhere. Officials will complain that disclosure would hinder their efforts in what is already an unfair fight. Yet some operational efficiency is worth sacrificing, because public scrutiny is a condition for popular backing. Even allowing for the need to keep some things clandestine, Americans need a clearer idea of what their spies are doing in their name.
(which had the amusing comment: “The Constitution defines treason as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Edward Snowden is being called a traitor for leaking NSA information to the American public. Does that mean that the American public is the enemy?”)
Now there are reports that retired 4 star General Cartwright is being investigated for leaking cyber attacks on Iran....but the press hasn't handled it very well. http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.co...tigation/?_r=0 :bulb:
I'm not convinced anymore that Snowden really exposed anything, as much as he's increased diplomatic tensions for no reason. I just don't think he's revealed that much, and his slides on PRISM continue to hit the bullshit meters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
It also means Snowden took a series of pretty serious oaths that he had every intention of violating. It's a very unacceptably standard to have for our public employees, which are already very low.
Though I'm amused by the folks who have pulled up chats from Snowden years ago where he said leakers should be shot in the balls. I get the sense he is a very politically unsophisticated and over-excitable person veering from position to position.
[Sorry, I meant to write a longer response but I'm rushing out for a trip where I'll have limited Internet access.]
You've held a very black and white opinion though this whole thread, but regurgitating half understood bullshit from elsewhere is getting lame. Its not just the idea of leaking, but what was leaked, and why.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
and I love how you just justified the police union problem, something you love bitching about, because of how you want to interpret an oath.
So, a member of the Mafia/Al-Quaida/IRA would be a traitor of deplorable depths as soon as he talked to officers of the law about their activities - as long as those guys have oaths.
In Germany we call that kind of shit "Korpsgeist" - it's the kind of thing where cops protect each other by not talking even when they have clearly broken the law.
He would be a traitor to the Mafia/Al-Qaeda/IRA...
One of course has to wonder which is the highest authorityQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Didn't expose anything? Correct me if I'm wrong, but last march your Director of National Intelligence, under oath, told your Congress things that he now says were answered in the 'least untruthful' way - e.g. he lied to the public about this very thing. Denying it has been exposed seems rather silly, don't you think?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
As opposed to the oath that your Director of National Intelligence broke? Or, I suppose that's not really an oath, but the way the NSA is breaking laws (not oaths, I grant you) by spying on your own citizens? Yes, it appears the standards are very low indeed... By the way, I would imagine any such oath (did he even make an oath? I thought that sort of thing is reserved for officers, not contractors - which, I suppose, makes him technically not even a public employee) for an intelligence organization would center around protecting the nation, the people, and the institution, and you could argue that this was something that the public was supposed to know. Either way, and the rest of your post seems to make my point, discussing the man only serves to draw attention away from the real problem.Quote:
It also means Snowden took a series of pretty serious oaths that he had every intention of violating. It's a very unacceptably standard to have for our public employees, which are already very low.
How is that relevant? Using Khen's analogy, Snowden is a traitor to the US. Sure, he might be a hero to the Russians and Chinese, to whom he provided American intelligence, but he's a traitor to his own country. And quite frankly, no one likes a traitor. There's a reason even China (and now Russia) are trying to get rid of him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
If the only intelligence that Snowden revealed had to do with domestic spying, one could make a case that he was being loyal to the American people while being disloyal to the American government. But that is clearly not the case. It also doesn't help Snowden's argument that he's trying to move to Ecuador or Venezuela, not exactly bastions of free expression.
No, using Khen's analogy Snowden is a traitor to the NSA and possibly the US government. The question is whether or not that means he's a traitor to the US including the American people (or to rightness, justice, ice-cream for dessert, peace, etc). In his particular case perhaps he is, but I don't think it makes sense to equate the government with the people by default.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Quote:
If the only intelligence that Snowden revealed had to do with domestic spying, one could make a case that he was being loyal to the American people while being disloyal to the American government. But that is clearly not the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnus Uggla
Man's gotta live, man. It's not reasonable to expect him to jeopardise his own life even further by surrendering himself to American authorities.Quote:
It also doesn't help Snowden's argument that he's trying to move to Ecuador or Venezuela, not exactly bastions of free expression.
Because the US is a dictatorship and the American people do not choose the American government. And of course anything that prevents the US government from being able to function abroad does not directly or indirectly harm the American people. :bored: I guess an al-Qaeda member that tells someone all of his organization's secrets is only betraying al-Zawahiri and not the entire organization...
So once again, how does Snowden benefit the American people by telling the Chinese government the exact methods through which the US spies on it?
As for the hypocrisy argument, Snowden could have gone to Iceland. Presumably he wants to spend his time on the beach with a new stripper though. That takes precedence over not discrediting his own ideology.
For starters, they don't--only a small majority of the American people are involved in choosing the government. Moreover, the American people don't choose the American government's every action. Finally, saying that the American people choose their government--and, in extension, everything the government does, right or wrong--is not the same as saying that they make an informed choice. That's less problematic if the lack of information is due to indifference, but in this sort of situation we're not talking about the indifference of the voter--rather, it's the active deception of the government that prevents the making of a completely informed choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Whether that's good or bad is up to you to decide, but to say that the US government = the US because the US govt. is not the Ecuadorian govt. but still lies to its citizens is just :bulb: :bulb: :bored:
So basically what you're saying is that anything and everything the US govt and its reps do at home or abroad are beneficial to the American people in the long and short terms. That's in fact the implicit claim you're making. I don't need to tell you how absurd that claim is in the general case and never mind the question of what's morally right or wrong.Quote:
And of course anything that prevents the US government from being able to function abroad does not directly or indirectly harm the American people. :bored: I guess an al-Qaeda member that tells someone all of his organization's secrets is only betraying al-Zawahiri and not the entire organization...
It will spur American govt. ingenuity and also make China feel safer :downcast:Quote:
So once again, how does Snowden benefit the American people by telling the Chinese government the exact methods through which the US spies on it?
Quote:
As for the hypocrisy argument, Snowden could have gone to Iceland. Presumably he wants to spend his time on the beach with a new stripper though. That takes precedence over not discrediting his own ideology.
The Icemen cannot be trusted.Quote:
Asked why he did not go directly to Iceland, where he has said he would like to obtain asylum, Mr. Snowden said he sought a place where he was less likely to be immediately arrested.
“There was a distinct possibility I would be interdicted en route, so I had to travel with no advance booking to a country with the cultural and legal framework to allow me to work without being immediately detained,” he said. “Hong Kong provided that. Iceland could be pushed harder, quicker, before the public could have a chance to make their feelings known, and I would not put that past the current U.S. administration.”
Yes. My point exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Yes, because he'd get such a fair trial in the US. And that he's moving to those countries is a giant strawman of yours - but you're free to give us an example of a country with free expression which would not automatically extradite him to the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Iceland? Please.
It's also nice to see that your government is spying on our heads of states as well. I can just hear the rhetoric if we planted bugs on the POTUS...
Who needs enemies with friends like those?
Wow, so now America does not have fair trials? :bored:
Put yourself in his position: The highest circles of the government label you a traitor. In a trial you'll be subject to the very same circles of government (and don't give me crap about "judges being totally independent"). The same circles which spit on your constitution by creating secret courts and warrantless surveillance.
In short: Your verdict is depending on the same guys you "betrayed" who already have shown an utter disregard for playing by the rules.
Yes, a fair trial is completely and utterly assured.
For people who have betrayed and embarrassed the government? Are you serious?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
The treatment of Manning and that current trial is a good hint of what our "fairness" entails.
And "the government" goes far beyond POTUS or any particular administration. It includes House and Senate, and their special committees (with bipartisan representation) that are fully briefed by the Pentagon and DOJ and other agencies. We can bitch about too much secrecy or lack of transparency....but the rules were written and/or agreed to by congress. Including any self-imposed 'gag' rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
It's their job to act as oversight, ask the right questions, put the puzzle pieces together. Budget committees should be demanding facts from other agencies, including the Pentagon, Homeland Security, CIA, FBI -- anything related to National Defense, Military, or Intelligence.
Congress also made the decisions to out-source several contracts to private corporations (like Booz Allen, Blackwater, etc.) in order to "save money". :rolleyes:
Oh, this is just in: Germany is a "3rd class partner" and as such an "attack target" for spying (official terms, people!). Tens of millions of telephone communications and internet connections are surveilled in Germany.
Just for reference: France is surveilled as well but only with a tenth of the numbers I've just given.
I'm more and more for abandonding the free trade talks with the US and telling those jokers that if they want to come to the EU, they'll have to get visas with the same procedures as we have to. And we should kick out the remaining US bases like Ramstein.
In general he's not keen on divulging enormous amounts of detail into tactics/operations in a public hearing. Obviously transparency must be full to a certain layer of our elected politicians, however I don't take a spymaster being somewhat coy in a public hearing to automatically imply guilt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Regarding Snowden, so far his "revelations" broadly break down into two main areas.
1) The US spies on foreign diplomats- No surprise, but revealing when/where/who is guaranteed to provoke diplomatic incidents. Only a naive person believes that it's immoral/unique for countries to spy on each other.
2) The US has back-end data access to the servers of major tech companies to pull data on users- This claim looks more and more dubious each day.
Those aren't really stunning revelations, so I am left talking about this guy who is making a spectacle because he wants to live in a fantasy world in which the US and China and EU states don't gather intelligence on each other.
Actually a misquote by "Der Spiegel" the original says third party.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
All of this new information leaked by Snowden is clearly in the interest of the American public. :rolleyes:
You mean our judges and juries are told how to rule by politicians and intelligence agencies?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
at the very least they can do so via an amicus brief?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki