Printable View
Especially if 'with us' still means you're treated as if you are an enemy. Which is the way US spying on the EU in general and Germany in particular is viewed. It wouldn't surprise me if Germany pushes through with criminal investigations into people who facilitated the NSA.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
And one has to ask, which justification does the US government think can make it acceptable that they bugged EU missions?
Then again Russia and China aren't much in the way of trusting allies of the US who've been offended by the extensive NSA surveillance. Russia and China are competitors and always one small step removed from being enemies. The EU is a slighted friend, it has more wiggle-room as well as the moral high-ground.
Exactly, the US actively damaged the interests of the EU and Snowden has served those very interests by telling the world. The last of the fall-out of this we have not yet seen. There are calls already to suspend the free trade talks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Just imagine the SPD would win just because of this :mad:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/...aven-in-EuropeQuote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
Relations with whom? I don't get the impression that many in the American public are calling for Snowden's head, (in fact one poll I saw showed the majority surveyed believed this leak serves the public interest) and I certainly don't see the kind of outcry from the masses that you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I just said. Congress. It's spelled out right there in the middle of the text you quoted. The formal checks to abuse by the government are the application of checks and balances. If you want legal protection from retaliation via the exercise of state power by one of the branches of government, you need to go to one of the other branches. This is both an exercise in basic logic and common sense. There are internal mechanisms for whistleblowing within the Executive branch as well but they are somewhat ineffective even within their limited scope and are certainly not useful when you're trying to expose high-level policy or entire programs.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Yes he is. Given that America is embarrassed by revelations they are spying on their allies embassies and Kerry is having to be apologetic about it - if one of those allies give asylum (I don't think they will) what will America really do about it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Given the revelations that have come out - and the fact Congress was lied to about it - it's hard to see what Snowden did as being especially bad even if illegal.
If the government is acting illegally/unethically and misleading Congress about its actions is it terrible to whistleblow the truth?
Had he wanted to make these revelations to Congress:Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
1: Would Congress have heard him/let him speak?
2: Could he still be prosecuted?
Free speech via the media has always been an alternative means of disclosing the truth and official malfeasance. Hence it's First Amendment protection.
LA Times is reporting that Snowden is asking ~15 countries for asylum. No way the US is getting this guy back
No one gives a damn about the moral high ground. At an earlier time, giving refuge to Snowden would be considered an act of war. You protect another country's traitor, you face the price.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Ignoring the rather obvious fact that nothing that Snowden revealed was actually illegal according to American law. Most of what he revealed wasn't even beneficial to American citizens.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Anyone in the government apparatus that doesn't appreciate having years of intelligence-gathering go to waste and doesn't appreciate having relations soured with dozens of countries? I.E. Everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
He'll be watching over his back for the rest of his life, and won't be able to visit the US or any country that can reasonably be expected to hold him. He'll also have to worry about the possibility that a future government of whichever hellhole he stays in will decide to seek closer ties with the US by sacrificing him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
As far as I know he has not asked for Political Asylum in either in China or Russia until know. Now that he has, Russia in my opinion has no choice but to grant it. Putin would certainly lose popularity if he handed him over, the guy clearly acted in our interest and letting him be punished when we could protect him sends entirely the wrong message.
If granted I don't think he would need to look over his shoulder, I highly doubt once granted Russia would hand over no matter what (barring mass betrayal of countries interests 1990s style, but I don't think that is due to happen for another 50 years or so). And I don't think US would dare any operation on Russian soil. Not being able to visit the US, well I am guessing he factored that in when he decided to reveal the information. Most European countries would face criticism from their population if the handed him over as well.
You mark my words, he's going to be kidnapped by Americans and they'll blame it on enemies of the US.
Not true according to the source I just quoted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Congress explicitly asked if American citizens were getting spied on akin to this and were explicitly told no - despite the truth being yes. Lying to Congress is against the law. Therefore QED Snowden revealed an illegal action.
So?Quote:
Most of what he revealed wasn't even beneficial to American citizens.
Since when was good government based on the interests of big government apparatchiks? Inconveniencing Big Brother is now the end of the world?Quote:
Anyone in the government apparatus that doesn't appreciate having years of intelligence-gathering go to waste and doesn't appreciate having relations soured with dozens of countries? I.E. Everyone.
[EDIT: And its incredibly rich claiming that Snowden has soured relations with dozens of countries. The actions taken have soured the relations - Snowden just revealed the truth he didn't commit the actions that have upset people]
You're assuming this will still be a matter of interest years from now. He's embarrassed the current government, future ones are going to be a lot less bothered.Quote:
He'll be watching over his back for the rest of his life, and won't be able to visit the US or any country that can reasonably be expected to hold him. He'll also have to worry about the possibility that a future government of whichever hellhole he stays in will decide to seek closer ties with the US by sacrificing him.
It's not in Russia's interest to hand him over to the US. It's also not in Russia's interest to destroy ties with America. Putin will do the smart thing and let him flee to a third country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Asmodian
This all comes down to the ridiculous notion that the main result of Snowden's actions is that the US government was embarrassed. If that's what you actually believe, there's no point in carrying on this discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Not all that interested in your fantasies about the time before Facebook, or the time before the EU. What price exactly would the EU face if it gave Snowden asylum?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
1. Maybe, maybe not. As I said in the post you quoted and ignored, you try and convince a Congress-critter. Preferably a high-ranking one who is not on the Intelligence committee and not already aware of the activities. This will almost always entail letting them have all the public attention for it though and a lot of whistleblowers are not doing it entirely for altruism and the public interest. If you can get the Congress-critter on board, though, you can usually *no guarantee* get him/her to wrangle you protection from prosecution. And it does become more or less a guarantee if the critter can arrange for you to speak before a regular committee/subcommittee. There's been more than one poorly-crafted immunity agreement the led to the testifier talking about all sorts of things beyond the hearing's intended scope. If you can't get anyone in Congress on board you could conceivably also try using the courts for something like this, sue the government for invading your privacy and try and get all your documentary evidence entered into the record. You'll fail and will probably lose the job but it will get knowledge of the information (and eventually and inevitably the information itself) out to the public, again probably in a way that will protect you from prosecution.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
The press has protection when disclosing the truth and official malfeasance. The source of the information never has. That's why the press makes such a big deal about protecting sources. And even the protection the press has doesn't necessarily keep them out of jail. Journalists get held in contempt of court and tossed in a cell for refusing to disclose that sort of information. I repeat, if you want to be protected from a branch of government, your only legal source for it is another branch of government.Quote:
Free speech via the media has always been an alternative means of disclosing the truth and official malfeasance. Hence it's First Amendment protection.
But who do you turn to if you mistakenly believe that congress is in on the disgusting business as opposed to being asleep or playing golf?
This is rich, as the US government could be deemed guilty of an act of war given what Snowden exposedQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
As the acts of the US government probably were illegal in the countries concerned this again is a funny commentQuote:
Ignoring the rather obvious fact that nothing that Snowden revealed was actually illegal according to American law. Most of what he revealed wasn't even beneficial to American citizens.
You seem to have the odd idea that the interests of the US government override national interests in other countries' governmentsQuote:
Anyone in the government apparatus that doesn't appreciate having years of intelligence-gathering go to waste and doesn't appreciate having relations soured with dozens of countries? I.E. Everyone.
He'll probably be able to travel freely in most of Europe. I think he'll be quite happy.Quote:
He'll be watching over his back for the rest of his life, and won't be able to visit the US or any country that can reasonably be expected to hold him. He'll also have to worry about the possibility that a future government of whichever hellhole he stays in will decide to seek closer ties with the US by sacrificing him.
Most of these are insignificant threats once he is settled. I think that is one reason he went public with this instead of via official channels. Last "whistleblower" I remember that attempted official channels ended up dead. The US is not going to risk going after this guy once he is secure in his new home country, and whatever fear he might hold of being handed over at a later date by a new government is easily balanced out by the new US leadership not wanting to reopen such an event. I'm willing to bet he thinks he has seen enough travel for this lifetime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Not to diminish the personal sacrifices he made in airing the US' dirty laundry.
At the very least its pressured companies to fight for their 1st amendment rights and publicize how often the government requests personal information on their users. Largely because of citizens like Dread who are misunderstanding what the leaks mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I said you could try and use the court system though I've never heard of such a tactic actually being attempted. Depending on the abuse you could also try and pit the authorities in one of the 50 states against federal authorities though I can almost guarantee that's going to end up with you in federal custody at some point if the disclosure is illegal. Federal supremacy and all that. Or you can break the law and take your lumps for doing it. But I want to be clear, you're predicating this on the belief that all of Congress is aware of it, is in on it, as well as any former members who were aware of it and have since left that body, and that it is still a secret. This is a wildly unbelievable premise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Millions of people care about the "morality" of their government and its elected officials. IMO, this has less to do with Snowden, political asylum, extradition, or political allies...than conflicts within National Security/Military/Intelligence communities, and what "Acts of War" actually means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
There is recorded testimony from US and Israeli officials defining cyber-attacks as 'Acts of War'.....while they try to defend Stuxnet and other malware differently. There's evidence to suggest the UK and US conspired in wire-tapping G-8 summits. But we like to think that China, North Korea, Russia (or Islamic terrorists) are the biggest offenders, while turning a blind eye to our own activities and hypocrisies.
:donkey:
You seem to have an odd idea that helping other countries at one's own country's expense is going to be viewed positively by the latter's authorities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
He's not in the control of the latter though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
And this matters why exactly? As far as I know, most countries only hand out criminals if the offense is accepted in both countries. Also most European countries don't hand out anyone at all if they can face death penalty, or a prison sentence far above the one in their own country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
But I don't think Germany should give him asylum, they should give him witness protection.
Oh well, he's accepted the offer of asylum in Russia. Clearly Putin is not worried too much about making the US unhappy.
countdown till the first Indiana Jones "you have chosen poorly' reference...
http://news.yahoo.com/edward-snowden...210531789.html
Apparently the world would be a better place if it had the principles of Ecuador. :bored:
You mean espionage is legal in Europe?Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
You mean two wrongs make a right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Let me phrase this in as simple a way as possible. Is what Snowden did (by revealing specific information about American spying programs on China, Russia, and the EU) in the interest of the American public? If not, why shouldn't America do everything in its power to punish this traitor as severely as possible?
A solid analysis of the situation: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...-to-putin.html
And another piece about European hypocrisy on this issue: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...velations.html