The Obama Administration has only itself to blame after the precedent it has set with previous whistle-blowers. In any case, if Snowden were a spy, he's doing a piss-poor job of making a quiet profit selling off documents, isn't he?
This is largely how I feel about him. While I think he has done a service by revealing the extent of the surveillance program I do question how much access he had and find when he claims he could wiretap or read anyone's emails as questionable and self-aggrandizing. He no doubt had access to classified material but by most accounts he wasn't that high up. Knowing several people who work in the type of IT role that Snowden had, yes they have a lot of access but it's not like they have access to everything. As far as Snowden's controlled release that might be true about what he has released to Greenwald and the Guardian but that doesn't necessarily mean that the PRC hasn't gotten more. The PRC is rife with getting all sorts of data from visitors and I have sat in enough talks about computer safety when on business trips to the PRC to know that there are many ways to gain access to data stored on laptops and drives there. While Snowden personally might not have believed he gave info to the PRC I have no doubt that the PRC did everything possible to get that data off of his laptops and have only let him go because they feel they have enough and to embarrass the US.
The moment the US issued an arrest warrant for Snowden, he automatically became at the mercy of China. Prior to that, China can't do anything to him. They probably threaten to hand him over to US if he will not release whatever data he has. Fact is, he is now out of Hongkong. In hindsight, maybe the US should have waited out and issued the warrant when he is on a friendly country. This theory brings to question why did Snowden, as "patriotic" and intelligent that he is, went to the lion's den with all those info that he claim he has? Did it ever occur to him the chances of it being compromised is greater in that place - and in the next location he went to? I don't think it is his plan all along. It just went out of control.
Wait - earlier, you were saying that free speech is absolute in all cases, with no exceptions or consitions. Now you're saying it only applies to people who disclose illegal activity? Where in the Constitution is that stated?
Has it occur to you that USA could be the lion den to Snowden after he had witnessed what USA had done in years?
At this point, we don't know his original plan. He has stated that he took the job to secretly find out what countries we were spying on. That doesn't fit with his claim of "I'm a patriot and came across all this stuff and just wanted to expose it!" He was doing something illicit before he ever found out about the domestic stuff - the question is why he was doing it (or potentially who was he doing it for). His story thus far is full of holes that don't make a lot of sense.
The Obama Administration didn't begin this. The Bush Administration did. As for Snowden being a "spy," I didn't say he was, but rather that his own actions when he fled the country hurt his credibility and could cause someone to think that he could be working for someone else. Personally, I think he's suffering from some kind of mental disorder. I also think he damaged US national security, perhaps badly (we don't know what he had on those laptops), by going to Hong Kong and into the arms of the PRC and its intelligence service. And now he's in Moscow. As I said, as soon as he got off the plane in Hong Kong, he lost whatever control he had over both the data he's carrying, and where he's going. He also made himself look not like a "hero," but rather like, in my opinion, someone with a form of mental illness or, some might say, like an agent of a foreign government. I don't believe he is the latter, because his actions have been so clumsy and publicized, but rather the former. The man should probably be on medications for his condition, whatever it is. Perhaps he'll be treated for it in prison, which now looks to me to be his ultimate destination.
If you don't utterly agree with the Obama administration's actions, you must be crazy. Right? I think Northside Storm's observation is closer to the truth.
No.. YOU idiot. The information he has released in China was through a Chinese newspaper meaning he released that information to everyone.
This post is a must read, but is easier to read at the orig link and includes links to sources etc: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...owden-Blowback US & NSA Accused of Criminal Privacy Violations in Dozens of Nations - Snowden Blowback Do you remember this story from last September? It wasn't a big story in the US, but the rest of the world took a keen and somewhat alarmed interest in it. It's the beginning point -- the first clue -- that something was very much amiss in America: It seems AntiSec had stumbled upon a tiny piece of the vast NSA "global" spying dragnet that was collecting private data profiles on ordinary citizens-- not only in the US, but throughout the world. Ten months later, halfway around the world, Edward Snowden was monitoring the systems that were collecting this illegally accessed very private citizen data. And the data was not just from ordinary Americans and Chinese, but from all our friends and allies -- Germany, Australia, Canada, Scandinavia, Latin and South America, and many others. It took three months for Snowden to decide to put a stop to this illegal activity. If Snowden were a criminal, he could have exploited the data. Or sold it to identity thieves. Or, even sold it to a foreign enemy. But in order to do the right thing -- and expose the crime -- Snowden would have to give up his own life and throw himself on the mercy of the ordinary citizens of the world. The right to privacy from electronic surveillance is granted in most national constitutions. This expectation of privacy has been declared a human right by the UN. It is a crime to collect it secretly. It may be hard for Americans to wrap their minds around this concept because, in their case, human rights are not directly conferred upon them, constitutionally -- and can be suspended by the Executive Branch or the high court at any time, if it is deemed (often secretly) to be in the best interest of the "defense" of the nation.[/COLOR] Read that last sentence again. You are living in that reality. The citizens of other nations are not. Their constitutions declare and affirm human rights that are specific to the 21st century issues. Americans have have little expectation of general human rights, many of which were circumvented by the Patriot Act. But, right npw, the rest rest of the world is dismayed and outraged that the US has illegally breached their sovereign laws to spy on their citizens and businesses. The world regards what the NSA is doing as an international crime and a direct violation of their human rights. Yes, the collection of this kind of personal data is illegal in almost every nation in the world. The right to privacy from electronic surveillance is granted in most national constitutions. This expectation of privacy has been declared a human right by the UN. It is a crime to collect it secretly. It may be hard for Americans to wrap their minds around this concept because, in their case, human rights are not directly conferred upon them, constitutionally -- and can be suspended by the Executive Branch or the high court at any time, if it is deemed (often secretly) to be in the best interest of the "defense" of the nation. Read that last sentence again. You are living in that reality. The citizens of other nations are not. Their constitutions declare and affirm human rights that are specific to the 21st century issues. Americans have have little expectation of general human rights, many of which were circumvented by the Patriot Act. But, right npw, the rest rest of the world is dismayed and outraged that the US has illegally breached their sovereign laws to spy on their citizens and businesses. The world regards what the NSA is doing as an international crime and a direct violation of their human rights.
I thought you knew Marx. How can you possibly read the 18th Brumaire and believe that? Were the Athenians unable to communicate their will meaningfully when they approved the Sicilian expedition? Was the Jewish rabble unable to communicate their will meaningfully when they executed Christ? Was the South unable to communicate their will effectively when they established Jim Crow, or the United States unable to communicate their will effectively when they tossed the Japanese into camps? Heck, go read or watch An Enemy of the People sometimes, by Henrik Ibsen. A democracy is no more effective a system of governance than an autocracy over the aggregate - what a democracy has over an autocracy is not a superior sense of governance, but a superior sense of legitimacy - a democracy has a much easier time of establishing its legitimacy since it ostensibly represents the people while an autocracy has to resort less material ends to do that. However, if an autocracy is capable of pulling off legitimacy, like the Emperors of China did over thousands of years, it's just as fine. I could go over the rest, but this is a key linchpin in my attack. The rest of it, I can for now sum up with a quote which was once my signature.
Well I gotta say, I find it hilarious some here think Snowden has anything of value to the Chinese or Russian spies. Let's be perfectly honest here, Snowden is NOBODY. The Chinese and Russian spy agencies could tell him how the NSA/CIA etc is spying/hacking. If you're someone higher up in China, you're probably sitting back and having a popcorn while watching Snowden and the U.S. government destroy each other's credibility.
Funny, you added 'Hero' to the title and poll. I see Snowden as neither that or traitor. To me he is a disgruntled employee who gratefully did not go postal. I am two years younger than Snowden, so I like to think I can identify with him. Perhaps he felt he was doing less than he was capable. He lived too fast. But, in the words of Lynyrd Skynyrd, 'Watergate does not bother me'.
I posted this in the other Snowden thread. I think he's a hero if his disclosures have been to the media only. I would think he's a traitor if he sold or gave that information to other nations. He can't have it both ways because a hero is a public embodiment of an idea, so once public opinion fails, it's hard to see how those actions are for the intent of being one. People can claim heroism in their actions but merely use it as a shield or cover for other actions. Snowden's book is still unraveling so the verdict is still out. To some it's resolved since opinion on the matter might've been concluded with wikileaks' disclosure of sensitive and sometimes unfiltered Sec. of State cable wires. I thought that was a reckless, harmful, and ineffectual move but if the ends was opening transparency to a political body held by citizens, the maybe the means can be debated. I don't think that's how the real world operates but I can't give a better answer other than how about the government not doing that **** in the first place and making me decide **** choice vs ****tier choice. Drake was acquitted only because the information he "leaked to the media" was already in the public domain by their own representatives and publishings. The man knew far more "secrets" because of what he worked on. But his act of whistleblowing was considered espionage only for the fact that the government wanted to make an example out of him. Schwartz killed himself, which some blamed the government for exerting heavy and hamfisted pressure on him for an act that any person could easily do rather than what people think of as hacking or wire fraud. And Manning, since he's enlisted, he's been subjected to torture, but not torture torture, and deprived of his human rights because he's not a civie traitor but a traitor traitor. Elsburg himself almost got messed up by a Nixon goonsquad and went through well known ordeal. So I disagree with the assertion out there that whistleblowers have to become some saintlike martyr in order for people to wake up and stand up for their rights. There's already plenty of martyrs to choose from. Doublespeak wasn't intentional...
Honestly, the only thing Snowden has done is 1) somehow unite the HK politicians under 1 voice, something that hasn't been accomplished in centuries 2) raise the awareness of US government hacking into ordinary citizen's data I have no doubt that the Chinese, Russian, whatever, intelligence are fully aware of each other's hacking efforts, so as far as a 'traitor' goes, he's not much of a traitor in terms of actual dangerous material leaker. On a large scale, the public was blissfully unaware until Snowden came along. For exposing this to the wider attention, I have to say thank you.
Don't know most of Marx, I've only ever finished reading his books on capital and french politics. Anything else I know about him is from what I've seen/read about him. If we're talking from a purely political structure perspective, I'm not a big fan of Marx. The core of our difference in opinion is what I've bolded. 1) A democracy is not only not more effective... in fact it is more effective. For the same reason the dictatorial structure in companies make good profit, for the same reason the right wing in most countries is richer than the left, it's why Dubai is considered amazing. Any time you exert total control over a process it will be more coherent. But more importantly... 2) People don't seek democracy for effectiveness in the way you've framed it above. It may be your belief that an effectively-run country would not care about self-determination. Perhaps not as much, but history is littered with people becoming unhappy with effective governments. I have yet to see a population seek a change in government because of too much freedom to determine their own governance - perhaps you can point me to an example. We're always arguing at this fundamental level. You believe the success of a government is based largely on its ability to be the most powerful country in the world. After living in 2 countries who - by your measure of success - have been rapidly increasing their "success" rate I can safely say that that success is not the business of the government. That success is the dream of a 15 yr old kid experimenting in his head about what he'd do if he were all powerful in the world. Through artistic expression, our society has actually designated that goal as one which is commonly shared among the villains whose personalities we create from scratch. It's a silly goal IMO. It's even sillier for you to believe it, unless you happen to have a business interest involved. It's not increasing your standing in the world, it's not improving your security, it's not making you more wealthy, it's not doing anything that would be particularly helpful to you. IMO the form of government you support was always and will always be highly effective. But it will never again be succesful. Even the most succesful autocracies of today will fall and die, and that's within our lifetime. That's an afterthought, just a matter of time. What's more important is that the autocraticish democracies have already begun dropping as well, some peacefully, some not so peacefully. I'm no stranger to your line of thinking given where I've lived. I understand it. I believe it's effective. I believe it has had success. I don't think today's democracies are necessarily more effective or representative. Doesn't matter. It's not what people want when they are not worried about their financial security. This is why Greenspan was so fond of worker insecurity. It keeps people on a leash. But that leash is not going to hold up forever. People always want more. For better or worse, they always will want more. Even if you were living in the safest country with the most lavish income and in a country with great international status, it will be one or maybe two generations before more self-determination is needed. I'm not sure why this is a revelation to you given the last remaining openly autocratic leaders have acknowledged this in their strategies for dealing with stability. I can't say much more about that, but a quick look at government PR in autocracies the last decade shows they clearly do not believe that an effective government can - on its own - keep a population content.
Not much has changed in other countries - yes he would be considered a traitor in China if he were Chinese, or Russian, or whatever. That's a problem, but that's not what this problem is about. The problem that has arisen is that the US is either now beginning or now showing that it is not significantly different than a lot of those countries in its treatment of whistleblowers. So yeah, if you want to make the argument that "We're better than this country and that country", that's fine and you are right. But don't act like what has been revealed does not severely dent AT LEAST the perception of America, and does not undercut AT LEAST a good portion of the arguments Americans and their governments have been making for America in recent history. This is serious - this is not just the host of hypocritical people from less liberal countries pointing fingers. The vast majority of humans in the world are pointing at you guys right now and saying: "this is not cool, even if you don't give a **** about your own personal privacy". That's South America, Canada, Europe, Asia, Africa. This is the overwhelming global public opinion. The only people on the side of the NSA are the monarchs and the imperialists and the Islamic extremists and the bribed/corrupted leaders of servant countries. That is not the company you were proud to keep in the past, and you should be ashamed of it today. It's gone too far this time and the party that's slightly left of the GOP should be ashamed. When Bush started this program, the left were aggresively against it. Today, too many of them are defending the NSA. Way too many. You talk about how your country is divided, but if you are not willing to join hands with the other party and the people who don't like any of the parties... on this particular issue, then you can not point the finger at other parties when they act like enemies, because you are helping out plenty. Just a real shame. For what? For nothing. No one is injured. No one is at risk. No one has gained anything. The Russians and Chinese and the monarchs of the world are using this to justify their behavior in their countries, and to slash the credibility of the self-annointed face of liberty. Instead we're on here talking about whether Mathloom's country is any better. What kind of hypocrisy does it take to concoct a story (re Russian and Chinese intelligence) which can only be proven by a whistleblower in those countries, while undergoing a public international vicious pusruit of a whistleblower?
