Slashdot Mirror
Snowden Seeks International Help Against US Espionage Charges
An anonymous reader writes "Edward Snowden is calling for international help to persuade the U.S. to drop its espionage charges against him. Snowden said he would like to testify before the U.S. Congress about National Security Agency surveillance and may be willing to help German officials investigate alleged U.S. spying in Germany. Snowden is quoted as saying that the U.S. government 'continues to treat dissent as defection, and seeks to criminalize political speech with felony charges that provide no defense.' He continues, 'I am confident that with the support of the international community, the government of the United States will abandon this harmful behavior.'"
If I were US president, I'd declare a presidential pardon on all charges. I believe what he did is in the best interest of our country. Not our government, but our country.
Yeah, because THAT'S what's keeping him from being elected. It's not that a good percentage of the country has bought into the line that he's a communist traitor who has put American lives at risk, handed over secret documents to the "enemy", and was acting out of a desire to harm the United States. None of those things are true, mind, but that's not stopping people from demanding we send SEAL Team 6 into Russia.
The anger directed toward this man was so quick to start, so widespread, and so homogenous in tone and intent that it makes me suspect an NSA influence operation using internet sockpuppet accounts, and the already completely dominated mainstream cable channels (I won't use the word "news" to describe what they are). We actually know the government does this, we even knew before the Snowden documents, so it's not that much of a stretch in my mind. But on the other hand, I know quite a few living, breathing, people who really are that intellectually retarded. They're vociferously and sincerely calling for blood. He wouldn't live to see his name on the ballot if he comes back here. Our government has spoken: he's a traitor aiding foreign powers. We kill people for that.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
They all do this shit, and you merely put them in the spotlight. The ones not yet caught have, of course, feigned indignation at the US, for doing what they all do. (Hmm, which ones have protested the loudest here?)
Make no mistake, though, if the US has done worse than any of its peers, it has done so only through having more opportunity, not more will or effort.
So tired of people excusing our government's behavior just because others do it.
Others include Pol Pot, Idi Amin, 'Papa Doc' Duvalier, and Joseph Stalin. (No point in invoking Godwin here).
We keep telling ourselves we are better than that. We keep passing whistle blower protection laws.
We pretend we have a constitution and that government is Of the People, By the People, For the People.
Then invariably when government gets caught doing something its not supposed to, some useful idiot comes along and says don't worry about it, every other country does that.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
As it should be. Regardless of how one feels about what he has done, be it for or against, he broke the law and should have his day in court.
Barrack Obama broke the law, and didnt got his day in court. George W. Bush broke the law and didn't got his day in court. Bill Clinton broke the law and got his day in court even though it he didn't deserve that. Personal sex life is private, nobody should be allowed to asking these questions and therefore lying about it is fine.
America is more interested in blow jobs then corruption, waste of taxes payer money, unlawful wars, secret court and execution without due process.I don't want to live on this planet any more.
He's not a hero. He's a traitor.
Going against the petty interests of a minor group in favor of the broader interests of humanity is the kind of stuff for which one's remembered as an hero down the line, including despite one's personal faults.
He would have been a hero if he leaked the NSA spying on US citizens and stopped there.
As a non-US citizen I most certainly disagree.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
People who complain about him taking refuge in a country with a more oppressive government are missing the point entirely; maybe even intentionally. For years the U.S. government has put itself on a pedestal and acted as if it holds the moral high ground when it comes to the rights of it's citizens. Edward Snowden shattered that by revealing how full of crap they were. Does Russia have a worse human rights record than the U.S.? Absolutely. Does that give the U.S. the right to crap all over the 4th amendment and become a surveillance state? Hell no. Edward Snowden didn't defect to Russia and announce to the world that they are better than the U.S., he simply ended up there because he had no other choice; and he obviously would like to be able to come home. Personally, I am ticked at our government not just for violating our constitutional rights and branding whistleblowers as traitors, but for embarassing all Americans on the world stage by making us look like a bunch of hypocrits.
So let's compromise. I'm a conservative: after realizing that we have (for example) HUNDREDS of freakin' destroyers in our Navy, not to mention that we're building planes that are being put in storage because we don't need them, and on and on ... I'd be
willing to accept substantial and severe cuts in military
spending. Stop being the world's policeman. Don't touch military
pay and benefits, because those folks have earned it. But there's
plenty that could be trimmed, billions and billions of dollars.
OK ... so what are my liberal friends willing to surrender in
return? It's got to be something near and dear to their hearts. :)
So ... according to you a compromise means that you are willing
to get rid of something we both agree is wasteful and unnecessary
only if I am willing to give up something I believe is essential,
non-wasteful, and perhaps even provides good ROI. This is
exactly the kind of "compromise" the Tea Party recently proposed.
They were only willing to do something they agreed needed to be
done if others would make significant concessions in unrelated
areas.
Doing something we both agree should be done is not a compromise; it is agreement. Demanding additional concessions in other areas before you are willing to do what you agree should be done is about as far away from compromise as possible; it is extortion and hostage-taking. It's basically saying "we're going to ruin it for everyone unless we get our way".
You have perfectly encapsulated the reason why there are no longer any compromises in DC.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
OK ... so what are my liberal friends willing to surrender in return? It's got to be something near and dear to their hearts. :)
Right now the conservatives have cut food stamps, and they want to eliminate it entirely.
Food stamps are one of the most effective welfare programs we have, supported until recently by Democrats and Republicans alike.
Without food stamps, we'd be back to third world hunger like we were in the 1930s, with people stealing bread and children with rickets.
Is that a realistic compromise? Can I in good conscience bargain away food stamps and let people go hungry again?
I don't believe in false balance. Both sides aren't equally wrong. When you ask the Republicans what they want on health policy, they say, "Abandon Obamacare and leave the free market in its place." I can't go back to that. This is the free market. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1312793 Obamacare was already a compromise with the Republicans, modeled on Romneycare and the Heritage Foundation plan. Obama gave them everything they wanted, and they were still against it. How can you negotiate with people like that?