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.'"

20 of 351 comments (clear)

  1. Abandon their harmful behavior? by NoKaOi · · Score: 5, Funny

    He continues, 'I am confident that with the support of the international community, the government of the United States will abandon this harmful behavior."

    Has he even read the stuff he leaked?

    1. Re:Abandon their harmful behavior? by deathcloset · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He continues, 'I am confident that with the support of the international community, the government of the United States will abandon this harmful behavior."

      Has he even read the stuff he leaked?

      Probably. And he lived in the country from which he leaked it. I think his attitude is actually quite heartening. I wonder if, like me, when he thinks of the United States he thinks not only of the abstract bureaucratic entity and its questionable activities, but that he thinks of the actual people that entity consists of and is made by. You know; his friends, family, neighbors, shopkeepers, etc. He probably thinks that most people would drop these charges and move on, and he may be right. But entities, yes, they don't drop charges. I'm not trying to oppose your point, but I think his optimism is reasonably warranted.

      If your tire gets a leak, you shouldn't waste time or energy on punishing the nail - you should fix the tire and drive more carefully and maybe avoid that road you had just gone down.

      The analogy can go further, but that's as far down that road as I'm prepared to go.

    2. Re:Abandon their harmful behavior? by xevioso · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The problem is that there are a significant amount of people in the U.S> who believe that some of the things Snowden leaked are harmful to the US.
      For example, he leaked that the U.S> was spying on specific Chinese Universities, to determine how they were hacking into our military and industrial computers. Now those universities know how to be more careful. It is unlikely they will stop trying to hack into us.

      The problem Snowden has is that even if he "started a conversation" about U.S. intelligence, he still leaked a number of things that could easily be found to be harmful to the U.S. Even if 98% of the things he leaked were good things for the world to know, he will ALWAYS be at risk of being charged for the 2% of the things he leaked that are genuinely bad for the world to know.

    3. Re:Abandon their harmful behavior? by alexgieg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    4. Re:Abandon their harmful behavior? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually the entire problem the US has is it's designed to be too collaborative. "Checks and balances" is a fancy way of saying "if all y'all motherfuckers can't agree on shit, shit don't happen." The Senate makes consensus requirements even more onerous because one guy can bring the entire Legislature to a halt for six days per bill voted on. Any Senator can force three days of debate on the question of "Should we debate Bill X," when those three days are up he can force another three days of debate on the actual vote. If the House insists on changes to the bill the Senator can add another three days by filibustering the conference report.

      The end result is a legislature that talks a whole bunch of shit about shit (which nobody will care about six months from now), and doesn't actually do anything, which allows the Executive branch to run wild. Since the elected people in the Executive are forced to spend inordinate amounts of time dealing with aforementioned BS (which nobody will care about in six months) Obama doesn't have time to over-see the Executive. Which means that the executive branch people running wild have very little to do with the people we actually elect. In a Westminster system nobody would believe a PM who claimed he didn't know he's tapped Merkel's phone. In the US everybody's like "Oh I can see why if they put in the fifth bullet point of a presentation that he had to squeeze in between dealing with Islamists/political opponents with a political death wish/North Korea/etc. Obama might not notice that."

      More collaborative government would just make this worse. You could never change anything complicated because individual voters always vote no on complex changes. When things get rough (ie: the ObamaCare rollout) they tend to decide to abandon the changes on the basis that if everything stays the same there's no risk of things getting worse. You'd end up with a lot of small-c-conservative stuff. For example, it would be impossible to change the zoning in any neighborhood because the local busy-bodies would all vote hell no and nobody else would bother voting. On national issues it would be even worse. If you have a vote on gun control people aren't going to let you sit out of the gun control debate.

    5. Re:Abandon their harmful behavior? by smpoole7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      OK, I'll play.

      > "Checks and balances" is a fancy way of saying "if all y'all motherfuckers can't agree on shit, shit don't happen."

      Remove the profane language and actually, that's pretty much what James Madison said. Our system was designed that way on purpose. Of course, then you say ...

      > bring the entire Legislature to a halt for six days per bill voted on ... force three days of debate ... another three days of debate on the actual vote

      These are simply the (admittedly dumb) rules which the Senate has decided to impose upon itself. Those rules could be changed at any time. That's why I view Washington as a slapstick comedy: they keep shooting themselves in the foot, the whine and wail about how bad it hurts. :)

      Actually, what scares me more than anything is the slow move in this country toward "rule by elites." Whether Republican or Democrat is irrelevant to me. One other thing that the Founder Fathers specifically tried to prevent was the appointment of "special masters" -- especially Caesars (or to use the more modern form of that word, "Czar") -- with broad power and the ability to act *WITHOUT* a consensus on the part of the governed.

      That might seem like a good idea to you NOW, as long as a "special master" is in place making changes that you like. But change masters, and you might not think it's such a great idea.

      This, in a nutshell, is why our Constitutional system of government was set up the way it was. No one person (or small group of people) was to have power to rule by "dictat" and decree.

      Finally, what troubles me the most about this country is that we've forgotten how to compromise. Political compromise basically boils down to, "we hammer out an agreement that no one really likes, but that everyone can live with." Instead, we have people on both Left and Right screaming that it MUST be all done their way, no compromise ... and that's the REAL reason why nothing gets done.

      Just my opinion, and worth precisely what you paid for it. :)

      --
      Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
    6. Re:Abandon their harmful behavior? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You know, one of the best things about Snowden is that not only he exposed the abuse of powers by the government, but it also exposed the worthless ass-licking cunts like you who would rush to sign up to become Stasi informers if only given a chance. It's very refreshing to have you guys come out in the open like that, and proclaim loud and clear that you are who you are. Thank you, Mr Snowden!

    7. Re:Abandon their harmful behavior? by DrJimbo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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
    8. Re:Abandon their harmful behavior? by nbauman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

  2. Don't do it Edward by ISoldat53 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Nobody in Congress is interested in protecting you. No intelligence service in the world is interested in helping you. As soon as you set foot in any country that has an extradition agreement with the US you are gone.

    1. Re:Don't do it Edward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Don't do it Edward by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is illegal to obey illegal instructions. Those documents detailed crimes and hence where classified illegally in order to hide those crimes. He disclosed those crimes publicly due to the conspiracy to hide them by a government department with the approval of elected officials. Seriously, what the fuck do you not understand about the idea that it is illegal for any government department to break any laws and the requirement for any member of that department to report those criminal acts, be they criminal or constitutional infringements. Do you get it yet? The government can not legally order anyone to break the law, end of story and in the attempt that person so ordered is required by law to report the attempted crime, let alone obey the criminal order. Crimes can not be legally hidden under the auspices of national security, that would be a licence to run the government as a criminal organisation rather than being the democratically representatives of the electorate. I don't have to try, the law is the law.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  3. How bad was... by mschaffer · · Score: 5, Funny

    How bad was his first day of work at the tech-support line?

  4. Presidential pardon by neghvar1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:Too bad Snowden will only be 33 in 2016 by wjcofkc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Your level of hopeless pessimism is in itself a sign, and possibly a symptom, of effective brainwashing.

    --
    Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
  6. Re:Too bad Snowden will only be 33 in 2016 by sqrt(2) · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  7. Re:Poor, poor Ed... by icebike · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  8. Re:Really? by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He reported a crime.

    The powers that be wrongly classified the information about the crime in order to cover it up.

    There is a long history in law of recognizing that even the best intentioned laws may sometimes be wrong and that breaking them may sometimes be justified. In that long history, such justified infractions are not to be considered crimes. This is where we get such things as justifiable homicide.

    I don't blame him one bit for running. He is not likely to receive justice here at this time.

  9. So many people just don't get it. by Dega704 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:Really? by sjames · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, the Patriot act did NOT authorize spying ion citizens except in the narrow case where that citizen was speaking with a foreign national suspected of terrorism. The NSA collected ALL call metadata and has been looking at it with their '3 hops' policy. That was not authorized. Notably, the NSA has repeatedly perjured itself before Congress on that very issue.