Slashdot Mirror
The New York Times Pushes For Clemency For Snowden
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "The Editorial Board of the New York Times has weighed in on the criminal charges facing Edward Snowden and writes that 'Snowden deserves better than a life of permanent exile, fear and flight..' 'He may have committed a crime to do so, but he has done his country a great service. It is time for the United States to offer Mr. Snowden a plea bargain or some form of clemency that would allow him to return home, face at least substantially reduced punishment in light of his role as a whistle-blower, and have the hope of a life advocating for greater privacy and far stronger oversight of the runaway intelligence community.' The president said in August that Snowden should come home to face charges in court and suggested that if Snowden had wanted to avoid criminal charges he could have simply told his superiors about the abuses, acting, in other words, as a whistle-blower. In fact, notes the editorial board, the executive order regarding whistleblowers did not apply to contractors, only to intelligence employees, rendering its protections useless to Snowden. More important, Snowden told The Washington Post that he did report his misgivings to two superiors at the agency, showing them the volume of data collected by the NSA, and that they took no action. 'Snowden was clearly justified in believing that the only way to blow the whistle on this kind of intelligence-gathering was to expose it to the public and let the resulting furor do the work his superiors would not. ... When someone reveals that government officials have routinely and deliberately broken the law, that person should not face life in prison at the hands of the same government,' concludes the editorial. 'President Obama should tell his aides to begin finding a way to end Mr. Snowden's vilification and give him an incentive to return home.'"
give him an incentive to return home.
"Gee, that's a nice family you have here. Would be a shame if something ... happened ... to it."
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
and the Medal of Honor, just for starters. Snowden has done more for this country than our "Nobel Peace Prize" winning President!
Make damn sure you get it in writing, sigh=ned by a pretty important son of bitch. Or two.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Why??? Snowden did far more harm than good. Nothing has been done about anything he revealed, courts have been ruling it's legal.
So you are totally skipping over the whole "lying to congress" thing as if its inconsequential?
Snowden may have pulled the curtain away to reveal what was suspected with regards to who spies on who, but in doing so he also showed that the intelligence services were out of control and arrogant in their stance.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
He has damaged our ability to know what Angela Merkel and our allies are up to.
FTFY
Fuck you, statist scum.
The NSA admit they were wrong? Hell, when has anyone in government admitted they were wrong?
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
When a liar is caught lying, who is at fault for hurt relations? Is it the revealing-person's fault? Or the liar's fault?
No government agency should lie. It's irresponsible. It's disrespectful.
That is the appropriate response to what he did.
---- Booth was a patriot ---- If you dont agree with me, dont bother replying as i dont care what you have to say ----
So says the guy with "Booth was a patriot" in his sig. Now that is funny.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
They shouldn't have broken the law. Yes the courts have ruled it all legal but everyone knows that to be a farce.
They shouldn't have persecuted Snowden. What has that accomplished?
They shouldn't have doubled down on their right to spy because that has caused an international incident.
And now their corporate partners are all turning on them one by one.
Give up, NSA. Have the national discussion you should have had a generation ago. We'll talk about it.
If we decide as a nation to go down that path... so be it. But we won't. Which means you'll have to operate within more limited rules and capabilities. And as much as that might vex you or put the public at greater risk such is the price of living in a free country.
What you have done is wrong. What snowden did violated the law but served the interests of the American people. We owe it to him to shield him and any like him.
If we don't stand up for men like Snowden then what chance do any of us have when the feds come for YOU.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The amount of power held by those who applaud Snowden the amount of power held by those who got/retained power from things snowden disrupted
Snowden has mainly revealed metadata -- what info collection programs exist, rather than actual data -- what was collected.
The NSA has emphasised what it does is benign as in mainly collects metadata.
Metadata -- no harm. no foul on either side.
When that bootlicker shows up, you can refer him to this article:
If Snowden Returned to US For Trial, All Whistleblower Evidence Would Likely Be Inadmissible
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2013/12/if-snowden-returned-us-trial-all-whistleblower-evidence-would-likely-be-inadmissible
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Snowden did far more harm than good to the US government and the businesses wielding the US government like a club. For the rest of the world, Snowden gave us something we didn't have before: knowledge. We got information on who was spying on us and how. Who could be trusted and why. Which protocols were known to be compromised. NIST nearly lost all their credibility as a cryptography standards body. RSA lost the remainder of its credibility. Google and other companies discovered the government was stealing their data. The NSA was revealed as the most lawless organization on the planet, briefly eclipsing the CIA in illegal notoriety.
And we're supposed to just sweep this all under the rug because "everyone's doing it" and "oh look you pissed our allies off, now look what you've done?" What they're doing is wrong and illegal -- and the only reason they've been getting away with it is because they had no one that could hold them accountable. (Whether the public can actually hold them accountable in a representative democracy is currently up for open debate.)
What harm can come from the truth that is not deserved?
We are free to do what we please, but the legal system SHOULD deal out punishment for indiscretions (especially those that go against the ultimate law of the land, for the US this is the Constitution). As you pointed out, no one has been punished, this is THE core fault in the system given the public's knowledge of things.
Evidence of Constitutional breaches are important, evidence is far more powerful than what "everyone already knew" ("suspected" would have been a better word). Otherwise "knowing" is simply the realm of those with tin foil hats (who I have to assume have upgraded to full steel medieval helmets).
Some of us still care about the Constitution, and would like to see it upheld.
Burn a flag, everyone freaks out. Burn the Constitution, no one notices. This is especially clear given the critical information Snowden has released.
The Constitution is on fire. And that is what "we deserve"???
BlameBillCosby.com
We have a president who, after promising the most open administration ever, has done a complete 180 and tried to limit press coverage, access to records and administration officials, and so on. He has offered pardons to fewer people than any other president. That doesn't sound like a welcoming environment to come home to, when you get right down to it. That said, I've always had mixed feelings about Snowden. To be honest, China and Russia probably know much about what is going on, because they do the same things themselves. In addition, it's not unlike the Wikileaks dump...people in Iraq and Afghanistan know what's going on there...it's the American people who are kept in the dark. On the other hand, we want the "American standard of living," which is no different from the "British Way" back in the 1800s, and so on. We're not a bucolic merchant republic any more. America is a global empire, the Rome of our day, and maintaining that position requires an awful lot of "off the books" action. People scream for more security, lower gas prices, salute the flag all over the place, and don't want to deal with paying taxes to maintain military hegemony, the rabid pursuit of dissent, or the corruption which invariably accompanies a concentration of power.
I think it would be very foolish for Mr Snowden to return to US soil.
The government has had their pet judges rubber-stamp rulings that everything the NSA is doing is legal thus he has no protections under the whistleblower laws. I would not trust anything the US Justice department/Obama administration says, even if in writing, as the US government does not have a very good track record in honoring any agreements it makes. Why should Snowden return to this country where it would be far easier for him to have a "car accident"?
Maybe it has something to do with those two nations being part of a small group that isn't beholden, in one way or another, to the U.S., and therefore would be significantly less likely to put a bag over his head and send him back to the states?
"When someone reveals that government officials have routinely and deliberately broken the law, that person should not face life in prison at the hands of the same government,"
hang on... errr... if it's been pointed out that GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS have broken the law, remind me again why it's *edward snowden* that's being pursued for criminal acts?
Well, it took a few years as a young man to realize that all those special laws with all those good moral purposes, well - they never actually apply to you.
Learn this. Marriage, for example bad idea today for men. Was maybe okay for your grandparents but things change and a person must look around and see what actually applies (and fits) for them.
Snowden and Manning are examples of the same thing. One is in jail and tortured for years, the other one knew the score and had the resources to take the smart steps.
Snowden get's a pardon only after Manning, as far as I'm concerned, not until. You can't just take the one you like though they are the same motivators.
What about Julian Assange and Bradley Manning? Perhaps these two also should be let go to Russia?
Like in Dostoyevsky's "Crime and punishment" to Siberia? There will be a grand bridge construction project near Yakutsk, here: http://osm.org/go/8_ABot--
The English language and IT teachers are badly needed at schools there. The nature is harsh, -37 C now, but magnificent. What a waste to keep those two young bright men locked up.
Really? So what have YOU done to further the hope for greater freedom in the United States?
IMO, he's exactly the type of hero our country needs many more of.... People willing to take action when they see government wrong-doing, rather than sit back, collecting a paycheck at the taxpayer's expense, and perpetuating the problem. All the while, convincing themselves they're "just doing their job".
If nothing gets done based on what he revealed, that just speaks to how deep we're all stuck in the pit of Fascism, inside our nation that pays lip service to completely different concepts. The courts should NOT be ruling this stuff is legal, and people should be outraged when they do! Unfortunately, we seem to live in a country where the majority still take an attitude of, "I don't care as long as it doesn't affect me personally right now. I'll happily piss away a basic right or freedom if it punishes people for doing something I'm not personally a fan of."
As far as your claim that all Snowden did was confirm what everyone already knew? I strongly disagree with that! I don't think the vast majority of people knew, for example, that the NSA might redirect your mail orders for brand new computer systems, planting spyware on them before they reached your address. I don't think the vast majority of people knew for sure that the NSA collected as much information about US citizens as we now know it does. (It's one thing to joke in passing about how the government "already knows you sent that email" or "heard what you said in that phone call". But that just speaks to a very vague, general sense that a well funded government agency with spying capabilities could theoretically do such a thing. Having an inside contractor verify they actually do it, AND detailing the extent of it is a whole different level.)
The fact Snowden found it safer to run to a nation known for a lack of personal liberty and huge privacy issues speaks volumes about how far the USA has slipped. If our country was a more sane and just place to live, he would never have felt the need to flee at all! Fact is, he couldn't trust any of the B.S. spouted off by govt. officials, promising to work with him if he just turned himself in. (Heck, a former head of the NSA was recently quoted as essentially saying he'd like to see Snowden's head on a platter.) These people still view him a a traitor who deserves execution, since he didn't go along with the status quo of trampling all over the rights of U.S. citizens in order to build a more powerful organization for themselves.
spooks. herding behavior. probably bots that look for 'snowden' then post crazyass trator responses. there's way too many of them and they show up way too quickly on every snowden story (notice most of such negative posts actually reference the story they're commenting on!). trying to change public perception by being outliers and pushing discussion into "he's a trator" territory (after all, if entire message boards scream he's a trator, folks might think twice before posting anything truthful).
I'm not even going to bother asking if you read the article. The fuck.... you did not even read the goddamned SUMMARY.
It is NOT up to a court at this point, you nitwit. The article asks OBAMA to provide clemency. Not a fucking court. OBAMA.
He can do that, you know. Do try to keep up.
While such a position is surprisingly non-toadying for the NYT, fuck 'clemency'. 'Clemency' is the merciful withholding of some portion of a deserved punishment. Since Snowden deserves a hero's welcome, rather than any punishment, 'clemency' is an insult.
If there's anyone who is in a position to be begging for 'clemency' it's the Oh-So-Very-Serious-and-Responsible spooks currently whining about how much damage Snowden has allegedly done to their hitherto impressive record of completely and utterly unverifiable or demonstrable terrorist hunting.
Your allegations are without any sources or proof, right?
Snowden embarrassed too many people to get off the hook that easy ...
Of course, if the tables were turned, e.g. somebody had published the same sort of information about any other's country intelligence agencies, the U.S. most likely would be the first to thank them for blowing the whistle on unlawful acts ... two standards ... 'nough said.
Given the broad definitions the gov tends to use, I'd say their idea of metadata probably contains a great deal of individually identifiable markers that others would consider to be more than just "metadata".
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Government for the people by the people
The hell it isn't about the court of public opinion in this case. I don't know of too many people in this country that are happy with or want the government doing what its doing to their own citizens... The same citizens the government should be working for not against....
courts have been ruling it's legal.
A court has ruled it is legal. A week earlier another district court required an injunction (stayed upon appeal), ruling the program is "likely illegal." How quickly people forget...
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/12/judges-ruling-could-jeopardize-nsa-surveillance/282409/
For all those morons calling Snowden a traitor: consider this scenario.
Reviewing circumstances of that Petraeus scandal in the light of Snowden's revelations, it's pretty clear that NSA knew about CIA director affair, and more importantly kept the fact to itself (if, of course it wasn't a parallel construction by FBI, which is easy for them to check)
Now what we have? We have that NSA had dirt on a top CIA official, a popular political figure, with very probable presidential candidacy on the horizon. And what it did with that info? It kept it's chips to itself to cash-in at the most opportune moment! And the whole infrastructure at the NSA is built in such a way (intentionally!) that unless NSA wants to, nobody can say with absolute certainty what they knew and when they knew that.
In my books that is a direct threat to the republic.
I believe what he said was he no longer has any of the documents in question, and he could not turn them over to any possible asylum provider even if he wanted to.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Snowden absolutely should be pardoned for leaking information about the NSA's domestic spying activities, and/or covered under whistleblower policies. This was an act of a patriot.
But I don't think he'd get a pass for all the subsequent leaks which were only done to undermine the NSA's foreign spying (that's what they're for!). It's not benefiting US citizens or it's gov't. Now it seems like he's just trying to do as much damage to the US as he can.
Do they really think that will happen? He blew the cover on the country's illegal spy program, most people in the government wanted him dead. You hear that, dead! They wanted him back in the country so they could kill him for treason. I'm really surprised they didn't order a drone strike on him and claim nothing happened. They'll never grant him clemency. They revoked his citizenship and the only way the government will let him back in is in a box. Sure, the program breaks the law. The government has already made it known they don't want to follow their own laws becuase it prevents them doing their spying and everything else they can to revoke our rights. This isn't the action ofnanfree country, this is the same crap North Korea would pull. Were no better than the communist dictatorship regime they tell us they're protecting us from. Voting isn't helping, ever asshole that gets elected is probably told "this is how it works, and if you try to change it you'll meet the same fate as JFK."
Snowden is probably better off in Russia. Does NY Times have the balls to start talking about bringing charges against the NSA ? 2,776 incidents of unauthorized collection of legally protected communications
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
I haven't been following it too closely but my understanding was that everything that Snowden was complaining about were data collection activities that the courts had allowed and just that Snowden (and probably the majority of the public) thought was excessive. If I'm right with that than I'm not sure if you can claim whistle blower status if there is no crime being done. The law might need to be changed or interpreted differently but that doesn't undo the fact he didn't have the right to disclose legal actions.
Sometimes doing what is right isn't what is legal and sometimes doing what is right costs you dearly (example parent fighting off an attacker so their kids can get away and end up dying/convicted of manslaughter because of it). Actions have consequences some positive some negative. You weight the options and make the choice then live with both.
Can we all now put pressure on Congress to have Clapper tried for high treason? you know it makes far more sense than accusing Snowden of the same offense!
But Snowden, just like Bradley Manning, did a massive document dump of everything he could get his hands on.
That's espionage - and no government on Earth would stand for it. In fact, I'd bet if they had one that to other governments, both Snowden and Manning would already be dead. In many cases in quite a gruesome fashion. What would North Korea do to someone who leaked Dear Leader's secrets? Iran?
Sorry, no soup for you.
Let's be clear; the NSA has not broken the letter of the law, simply because there are judges, and a government backing those judges, that deems what the NSA is doing is appropriate and legal.
However; the NSA has certainly broken the spirit of the law, and certainly, those Americans that created the bill of rights and particularly the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, would be appalled at the government over-reach and how a government of the people and for the people has been corrupted into something else, something that smacks of evil.
So, whether you think Snowden is a hero or a traitor seems to hinge on whether you agree with the spirit or the letter of the law.
And the New York Times is foolish to appeal to the government to consider the spirit of the law, because it's the lawyers and accountants who have corrupted that law by many decades of "loopholing" the letter of the law, finding every legal out they can to avoid paying taxes or winning a case -- to the point where the spirit of the law is no longer a consideration, which is also why every piece of legislation is now thousands of pages long, and not four pages.
It's unfortunate that we no longer have a justice system in this country, which would observe the spirit of the law, we have a LEGAL system in this country, which only observes the letter. And by the letter of the law, Snowden is guilty of his crimes, which is why if you're looking for justice, you have to leave this country.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
suggested that if Snowden had wanted to avoid criminal charges he could have simply told his superiors about the abuses
Because that worked out so well for all the other people that did exactly that.
face at least substantially reduced punishment in light of his role as a whistle-blower
So... why should he want to submit to that again? If I were in Snowden's shoes, I wouldn't exactly take a "come back here, but stop what you're doing, force the Guardian to stop publishing articles on this subject, face some prison time, and... maybe we'll call it even" as a serious bargain.
Snowden is not the one that needs to be making compromises here, and I hope he'll stand strong. If there's any justice left in this country, he'll be free.
Whoosh?
I guess you would applaud a North Korean whistleblower's execution, for uncovering the concentration camps in NK. Because it's treason and damaging to the image of the state.
In case you don't realize it, that is a pure fascist mindset, look it up.
Why??? Snowden did far more harm than good. Nothing has been done about anything he revealed, courts have been ruling it's legal.
So you are totally skipping over the whole "lying to congress" thing as if its inconsequential?
If the NSA pays folks to play video games, they will most certainly also pay folks to troll Slashdot. The comment that you responded to above looks, smells, walks and talks like a government flak.
But the real problem is that most folks in the US are more concerned about important things like the future of "Duck Dynasty" and if Kim Kardashian's ass will fit into her wedding dress to notice that a government agency is wildly spinning out of control . . .
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
How about France forcing passenger jets in their airspace to land with fighters, because the NSA thought Snowden was on board? Right, surely he would have been safe in the EU or one of the other allies. And surely this was all legal. Right.
I guess you conveniently forgot the part where he asked pretty much everyone else, and they said no?
There are paths provided for expressing concerns, none of which he appears to have taken.
I like how you automatically parrot this talking point, even when the summary itself contradicts it.
Government employees swear an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I think you've confused who broke the higher law and in how many instances and who deserves a firing squad.
You know, I almost would have agreed with this view; but all in all I have to disagree. The entire world should be having this debate, not just the U.S. Countries that are raging about it will have that much more pressure to practice what they preach. Hence why Putin recently sypathized with the NSA's position. He doesn't want to be accused of double standards when the heat is on his own government later There is indeed justification for spying on Russia and China; since they are spying on us after all, but the foreign spying is out of control as well. Why are we tapping Angela Merkel's phone, for instance? What is the purpose in that? Why can't our government get over the fact that the cold war ended over 20 years ago? Not only that, but wouldn't the NSA be more effective at it's job if it focused on targets that are actually justified, instead of spying on everyone and everything just because they can?
Specify what exact revelations apply ONLY to foreign intelligence capabilities please. The point of all leaks I have read so far is that the NSA's dragnet capabilities consist of wholesale compromise of core internet protocols, US-based email and web services, and commodity PC and cellphone hardware, with absolutely no indication of any effort on their part to limit this to foreign individuals or governments. Again, it is the blanket capability that is the concern here. The fact they are confirmed to be hovering EVERYTHING means these methods DO harm Americans first and foremost.
It was labeled as such. That's what an editorial is.
Shill:Fail
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
I still subscribe because the coverage and writing is so much better than the 5th grade level journalism in the local paper, but I agree that the news journalism of the NY Times has become pretty ideological in recent years.
The fawning over Obama has abated a little, but there is still too much cheerleading for Democratic policy generally and over specific issues like gun control there is not even a glimmer of objectivity, it's outright page 1-A advocacy reporting.
What bugs me almost as much as the ideological cheerleading is how there's no real alternative at the national level. Nobody is claiming the mantle of objectivity, it's all so incredibly partisan.
Some of the wonky monthlies aren't bad, but they're too essay-ish to count as news. I like the Economist but it's too expensive and often too business focused.
It's up to exactly the court of public opinion. If enough people think Snowden did the right thing, Obama will issue a pardon for whatever crimes Snowden may have broken.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
If you have a decent nest egg to start with, it's still a country with greatest potential for personal growth. That is probably the single greatest advantage of USA from personal stand point.
You know, I actually respect cold fjord. He posts thought-out arguments, is sharp enough to catch when someone is bullshitting, and doesn't often (at least that I've seen) start randomly insulting people. Even though I disagree with him, he's the kind of person that I like to see on /. and other forums. You need differing opinions if you ever want to have an intelligent conversation. GP is an example of the only differing opinions we'd get if people like fjord left ("omg fuck the hivemind! lawlawl snowden==traitor!"). I don't want that, and I'm guessing neither do most of the other people here.
Everything is better with chainsaws.
Who the hell's on the writing staff for reality these days?!!
These damn character names would embarrass Ian Fleming.
First we've got a guy building ICBMs right under the government's nose with the ridiculous name "Elon Musk".
Now we have a lily-white uber-hacker with the eponymous name "Edward Snowden".
I'm sure "Julian Assange" must be a ludicrous double entendre in some language, but I haven't tracked it down yet.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
... I want us spying on Russia and China - and I don't want them knowing how we do it. This information should have been kept to himself.
Personally, I haven't heard of or seen any Snowden revelations about how the NSA spied on countries like Russia or China in particular; only about how they spied on everyone, our NATO allies and the American people included. Also, if our government were functioning properly, Snowden would not have had to ask anyone for asylum. However, I'm sure the NSA is using your exact same argument to justify everything they did, including congressional perjury, and to be allowed to continue on as before. That should teach everyone to think twice about questioning anything they do!
He should get a pass for everything. Shoot, give him $10 million US and a pile of gold, he is the winner of the "Who watches the Watchers?" award of the year.
Why? He exposed what is basically the collection of "all information" (anyone, anywhere, anytime, at least where there is some technology).
Good or bad, the US spies on everyone. No one's cell phone is out of the question. No one.
Total Information Awareness has been achieved:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Awareness_Office
Are you comfortable with that?
Blowback will include a return to cash transactions, more barter, and in-person communications (maybe personal letters, I have a feeling they are monitored as well). Basically a revolution against technology. The Matrix is a great model, some have woken up (escaped the system, maybe never in the system), most are still asleep and monitored, and the system itself can fully track anyone that hasn't woken up.
The US government is the machines from the Matrix (is or are, complicated question?).
I just scared myself with the realization. When Agent Smith spoke of humanity being a disease it never dawned on me that the machines were also a disease. And one that, while suckily, were resolved by the end of the extra movies. If only the complete spying by a "free" country could be resolved so easily, via a few hours of entertainment.......
BlameBillCosby.com
During the Nuremberg trials the Nazi's excuse was exactly that... "By our laws it was legal..."
Agreed.
The reason that spying on ally countries, especially mass spying of ordinary citizens of allies, should be frowned upon is because it makes it far too easy to arrange a reciprocal spying agreements where no agency breaks it's own countries laws but still gets all the juicy intel about it's own citizens.
These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
You're right! No harm, no foul. NSA can ONLY collect metadata.
And we know we can trust the NSA! They are the BESTEST agency ever and I WANT TO HAVE THEIR BABIES!
So relax, citizens. You have nothing to fear and we'll keep the evil terrorists out of your living rooms.
Signed,
Not an NSA shill.
Like "Extra-ordinary rendition"/"Kidnapping" and "Pretexting"/"Wire-fraud", "metadata" is a PR euphemism at best and an outright lie at worst. Anyone who thinks the NSA has truly restricted themselves to metadata is either being disingenuous or is a fool.
May the Maths Be with you!
The real question is, what incentive is there for Obama to do so ?? It would require him to pretty much throw his entire National Security team under the bus.
"showed that the intelligence services were out of control and arrogant in their stance."
And that hasn't changed either. In fact, now they are out of control and arrogant out in the open and nobody cares. If anything, the government has learned that the American People will let them get away with a whole lot more than they thought. The vocal minority hasn't gotten any traction and the silent majority has taken the "guarantees" that they aren't being spied on and that the NSA will be watched more closely as fact without any proof.
You make it sound as if there has been real action against any of the things that were brought to light. Just because you can read about it on Slashdot and a small group remains up in arms about it, doesn't mean that the majority care. And all any politician these days cares about is subduing the majority.
The president of the United States during his campaign for president campaigned on objections to Bush's mass data collection. Obama expanded that data collection. When NSA officials were asked about it they lied to congress. I didn't know they were lying. This is a democracy.
If we are going to have mass data collection we have a broad public debate on the topic, congress issues a specific mandate, mechanism are put in place by congress for oversight and the executive branch issues regulations to implement that congressional mandate. That's the way this NSA program should have been done if we were going to do it. Snowden forced the first step the broad public debate.
It would have been better if the NYTImes had negotiated a joint statement with FoxNews and other news outlets that they ALL consider Snowden a whistleblower. By coming first (yay! we're first! ) they may have enhanced their reputation with a few liberals as defenders of civil liberties but they also invoked the "NYTimes is wrong about everything ! " reflex in a lot of conservatives. In fact, from what I've seen conservatives are just as outraged about the NSA spying scandal as are liberals.
If he wanted to maximize damage he would have revealed specific intelligence assets. What he is doing is showing the extent of the program.
The NSA's use of general warrants to spy internationally is not "what they are there for".
All he did was confirm what everyone already knew
Err, no. Hence the whole ordeal.
Great job normalising and trivialising government failure. If only everyone embraced it like you.
I don't. He constantly tries to blur the lines between illegal and immoral. If you argue morality, he'll argue back about the law. He of course does not respond well when pointed out perfectly good examples of why morality and legality are not the same.
I don't mind well worded contrary opinions (I like roman_mir, for example even if I disagreewith most of his conclusioins), but not Cold Fjord since I think he is intellectually dishonest.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Can, won't.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Certainly Snowden's actions made it a little bit more difficult for the US government to undertake certain actions. As those actions themselves are harmful and illegal, cry me a river. Snowden may not have helped the US government per se, but he helped the citizens of the US, and people around the world as well.
If the NSA pays folks to play video games, they will most certainly also pay folks to troll Slashdot.
Cold comments such as this serve only to open a fjord amongst the technocrats around here.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
A fate they quite arguably deserve.
He should do it because it's the right thing to do, there should not be any need for more incentive than that.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Good or bad, the US spies on everyone. No one's cell phone is out of the question. No one.
Oh, I dunno about that... after all, while they were busy listening in to Angela Merkel's calls, they let these guys slip through nigh undetected.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
sup lazy NSA troll.
He's not even in exile, but we thanks for letting us know you're an idiot.
You have no idea just how much money he has saved us from expanding even further on completely fucking useless NSA programs with nothing to show for them. In a sense he has added significant economic value/efficiency to the US.
Easier to get at him and make him disappear for a lovely weekend at a domestic Black Site.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
I agree, but the standard in ANY administration is that when bureaucrats lie and cover up to protect the President, he protects them back. If the people who are ACTUALLLY doing the lies and coverups (and yes, Admiral Clapper, I **AM** looking at you . . .) knew they would NOT be covered. they'd throw the President under the bus FIRST. . .
NYT>Preeze stop picking on Snowden.
Communist Nazi Regime> No
Passenger jet? It was the Venezuelan government's version of Air Force One.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety". - Benjamin Franklin.
Snowden seems to be one of the few Americans who actually read the constitution.
Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
Booth did not attack his own government.
Uh, yes he did. Secession was never recognized by the US government, nor was it recognized by any other government. Also, when Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia, that de facto ended the war and brought the Confederate states back under the control of the US government. Not to mention the fact that Booth, with that single shot, doomed the South to much harsher terms during Reconstruction: Lincoln wanted to reconcile with the South, while those around him wanted to punish the South. With Lincoln dead, the South got punished.
Now that I think about it, I see a lot of Lee in what Snowden did. Both were torn between his duty to his job and his government and his duty to his people. Both knew that by taking the choice they made they would be vilified, hated, and hunted, but both took the path they believe to be right. Both permanently lost their homes. History has restored Lee's honor and reputation. Hopefully it does so for Snowden as well.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
If Jonathan Pollard was right, does that make Snowden right?
If Pollard was wrong, isn't Snowden wrong too?
Does Snowden's "service to humanity" compare to Pollard's "service to Israeli intelligence"?
Now, Pollard was an officer in the US military. Snowden was a mere "contractor" for the NSA. What were their obligations?
I'd like to see a debate on these questions.
If the NSA pays folks to play video games, they will most certainly also pay folks to troll Slashdot. The comment that you responded to above looks, smells, walks and talks like a government flak.
See Hanlon's Razor. There are more than enough mindless authoritarians in the general population willing to do this for free.
I'm not sure if that makes it less outrageous or more...
After all the lies the government has been shown to have perpetrated, even if they did offer clemency, a pardon, or whatever, if you were Snowden, would you believe it?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Prosecutors in recent cases have convinced courts that the intent of the leaker, the value of leaks to the public, and the lack of harm caused by the leaks are irrelevant -- and are therefore inadmissible in court.
So much for Thomas Aquinas. I think half the problem with our justice system is that it is WAY too focused on consequences and not nearly enough on intent, simply because the one is much easier to measure than the other.
As far as I'm concerned Murder shouldn't even be a crime, but Attempted Murder and Reckless Endangerment certainly should be and should carry stiff penalties. If you set out to kill somebody is it really relevant whether you bungled the deed or not? We should be locking up people who are a danger to society and recklessness and antisocial behavior are far bigger indicators of whether somebody will commit a future crime than the consequences of past actions which were unintended and not reckless.
He does not. It just shows how bad the US has really gotten when these are attractive places in comparison.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Doesn't that make it even worse ? (and it was the Bolivian President's aircraft, and he wasn't intercepted, was rerouted as overflight clearences were whitdrawn and had is aircraft searched in Vienna ).
Had it been the "Air Force One", there would have been a war....
A dark episode on Europe's foreign relations, now (unfortunately) forgotten.
If a state is willing to strong-arm other states into viollationg international law, diplomatic immunity and common courtesy to an head-of-state, then it certainly only has good intentions....
You basically said that the US is the enemy of everybody else. Is that really what you mean? Would explain a few things though...
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Ya know, back in 1984 I would have thought you were fabulously flippin' crazy if someone told me Big Brother would actually be, you know, a brother!
If the NSA pays folks to play video games, they will most certainly also pay folks to troll Slashdot.
You don't say? :)
Snowden absolutely should be pardoned for leaking information about the NSA's domestic spying activities, and/or covered under whistleblower policies. This was an act of a patriot.
IMHO the whisteblower policies with jurisdiction should allow Snowden to walk free, never charged with a crime. Any existing charges should be withdrawn, and any pardon worded as a "just in case" kind of thing, making clear no implication of an offense the pardoner believes requires being pardoned.
But I don't think he'd get a pass for all the subsequent leaks which were only done to undermine the NSA's foreign spying (that's what they're for!). It's not benefiting US citizens or it's gov't. Now it seems like he's just trying to do as much damage to the US as he can.
The fact that the authorities failed to provide him a path that involved him feeling ordinarily secure as a citizen, as well as feeling his loved ones enjoyed the same protection under law, I see all his delicate subsequent actions as justifiable self-defense. When Keith Alexander has accused you of being as guilty as a hostage taker who murdered 10 of 50 hostages, I don't think that _ethically_ we could fault the man for revealing any level of national security destroying information to enemies of our state that might do us harm. Put a gun to mans head, and he is not ethically responsible for what words come out of his mouth, or what actions his body takes while that gun is against his head.
His current NSA team has shown themselves to be incompetent. They didn't stop 9/11, they didn't stop Snowden, they didn't recover the stuff Snowden stole and the press reported on, they didn't stop the pressure cooker pair at the marathon, they have no terrorists in jail for Obama to use in a press conference. If you don't punish failure, you are rewarding it.
The reason that spying on ally countries, especially mass spying of ordinary citizens of allies, should be frowned upon is because it makes it far too easy to arrange a reciprocal spying agreements where no agency breaks it's own countries laws but still gets all the juicy intel about it's own citizens.
Good point, put it's not just that. Breaking the laws of another country is still breaking laws.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Secession was never recognized by the US government
They didn't have to.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
nice one. But did you realize that this guy actually starts with 2 points because his karma is so damn good.
So there are quite a few of those government shills aound. And yes, I am protecting my own good karma by posting as anonymous coward because it is a bit strange to complain about the karma bonus of someone if poster has it too.
It's not the LEGAL consequences that Obama is afraid of, it's the loss of influence. If the people of the world decide the USA can't be trusted, then they will stop buying American stuff, they will stop buying into American stuff. What happens when America declares a war on someone and ALL the allies decide to stay home? What happens when allied intelligence refuses to hand over phone intercepts? What happens if foreign (allied) countries start enforcing their laws against American spying and rendition? It is vital to the National Defense of the USA that the president of the USA deal with this issue, before it has long term consequences. (and the safest way to do this is drag the whole thing out in public and let the people decide how to deal with it. Pick some respected public figures to run hearings, and have a national referendum leading to a constitutional amendment. Maybe even have some show trials for the worst stuff. And then let the NSA continue on in secret as before.)
When a liar is caught lying, who is at fault for hurt relations? Is it the revealing-person's fault? Or the liar's fault?
No government agency should lie. It's irresponsible. It's disrespectful.
It is unfortunately necessary sometimes to hide or bend the truth not only in government but in business administration and even in personal relationships. For all the other ideals that the human race has aspired to, total honesty is the one thing that we've never managed to make work.
However, it should be the case that lies are kept to the minimum necessary. If for no other reason that the more you get caught in a lie, the less people will believe future lies. Or truths, for that matter.
Then again, he could simply be a Tom Clancy/Civil War Buff kind of guy who has made a serious hobby out of all this and keeps scrapbooks on the subject.
It's not even that hard. Most of cord fjord's references show up on the first page of Google searches for relevant terms.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Why ruin a perfectly good bus? :p Drawing and quartering in the streets isn't considered cruel and unusual is it?
Bitch, how you not a hobbit again?
I always assumed by "metadata" they really mean "all". BB joycamp doubleplus good.. (or something like that..)
Even with clemency I don't believe some in power will get over what he did though, there is a special sort of punishment reserved that happens when you embarrass the power structure.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Cold fjord starts from a basic assumption: The government is not inherently evil. This is the basic tenet that garners so much hatred from the hivemind. Many Slashdotters have decided, with or without reason, that the government is bad unless it is handing out welfare*, especially if the government tries to gather information of any kind.
From that perspective, the next progression is whether the government's courts are supposed to decide what is right or wrong. Many Slashdotters say "yes", but the US justice system isn't actually designed that way. The courts decide whether the law was infringed, and it's the legislature's job to pass laws that meet current standards for morality. Only once the facts of a case have been decided at trial, and the case is still at odds with the law, then it is appropriate to permitted for the appellate court to overturn a law.
This is why, on stories about judges saying this-or-that, cold fjord keeps discussing legality rather than morality. So far, no there is no court ruling that actually determines the surveillance program's legality. There are conflicting opinions, but neither has enough jurisdiction to affect much. At this point, morality is irrelevant. Right now courts are just trying to figure out whether the NSA willfully broke the law, which hinges on the modern interpretation of a 200-year-old intentionally-vague document.
* I mean that in the "promote the general welfare" sense, not necessarily the "welfare program" connotation.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
If there was somehow a clemency offer that Snowden accepted, he could still never return to the US. He'd get disappeared as soon as possible once he got back to US soil.
Booth did not attack his own government.
Uh, yes he did. Secession was never recognized by the US government, nor was it recognized by any other government.
Why would it have to be "recognized"? If you are married and want a divorce should your abusive husband have the right to kill you if he doesn't agree with it? The so called freedom of the US died the second the secession wasn't accepted.
Snowden did far more harm than good.
...
All he did was confirm what everyone already knew, that the NSA was spying on everything.
Uuuh, so how did Snowden do any harm if everyone already knew that the NSA was spying on everything? What Snowden did was shine the light on the NSA's illegal activities. Should the government be able to do whatever it wants to anyone it wants? Should the voters even have a say about this? This is essentially where this is headed, think about it: Guantanamo, secret courts, secret laws... But it seems the US voters want this, so you get what you vote for.
Even supposing the US government could be trusted (which it definitely can't), there are enough nationalistic nutters with guns to pose a serious risk to his life.
I think you're right, I don't know if I'd have the magnanimity to quietly hide while the USA is hunting me down for merely doing the right thing by blowing the whistle on domestic spying.
The US treated him like an enemy after that initial disclosure, I guess it's not that surprising that he retaliated as if the US was his enemy. In a way the US turned on him first.
A fate they quite arguably deserve.
He should do it because it's the right thing to do, there should not be any need for more incentive than that.
I agree. If I were president I would do so, because my family has the same ideals I have. They know we can not be used as bargaining chips against each the other, no matter how dire the circumstance. Ask yourself: With a name like the Secret Service do you think they are protecting Presidents or Secrets?
Why??? Snowden did far more harm than good. Nothing has been done about anything he revealed, courts have been ruling it's legal.
You are now aware that not only the allies but our enemies can do what Snowden did. He revealed the NSA to be one giant single point of failure. That the government is ruling something illegal or legal doesn't make it just or correct. Jim Crow was once a law. Rosa Parks went to jail you twit.
Cold fjord starts from a basic assumption: The government is not inherently evil. This is the basic tenet that garners so much hatred from the hivemind. Many Slashdotters have decided, with or without reason, that the government is bad unless it is handing out welfare*,
You mean the general consensus is that the government is pissing away money on programs that do nothing but suppress freedom instead of help the citizenry in any way?
Furthermore you are being foolish. Are citizens to be considered innocent until proven guilty? Yes? Right, then the Accuser, Police, Prosecutor, FBI, NSA, even Judges and Laws themselves are considered WRONG by default. In short: That the government is considered guilty unless proven innocent is a CORE principal to the establishment of law, and illustrates precisely why we must not allow governments secrets: They can't prove they're working in the best interest of the citizens otherwise.
Snowden has mainly revealed metadata -- what info collection programs exist, rather than actual data -- what was collected.
The NSA has emphasised what it does is benign as in mainly collects metadata.
Metadata -- no harm. no foul on either side.
Why do you purposefully remain ignorant? Metadata collection is far more powerful than is warranted.
We don't need wiretap spying. No serious threat can make a move against us without us knowing instantly. Seriously. Cars and Cheesburgers kill 400 times more than a 9/11 attack every year. We need no expensive War on Terror, DHS, or massive spying apparatus: The Flu kills 6 times more every year than a 9/11 scale attack -- Yet we still accept the risk in driving kids to get a happy-meal and let them play with other kids. If they want to spy they can get out of the damn basement and stand next to me or point a laser microphone at my windows. An encrypted chat/voip program on a burner phone illustrates why the massive spying is incapable of preventing any danger. Further, as a Scientist, I need evidence to believe a claim. Aggregate data of this size is harmless? Prove it.
A government without secrets is immune to spies. Snowden showed the NSA to be leaking worse than a sieve -- All of our taxes spent on data collection the enemy can easily leverage against us too. Tracking everywhere I go and what ideals I hold by what places and sites I visit is a perfect tool for terrorists and enemies to silence those who advocate greater freedom.
"No harm. no foul on either side" -- Grow up kid, you have some history to study.
Snowden did far more harm than good to the US government and the businesses wielding the US government like a club.
Snowden didn't harm anyone. The NSA was doing the harm. Their secret was bound to get out. Don't shoot the messenger.
You left out "and are lousy at statistics". That's needed for your argument to work. (Of course, it's also true...)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
So, the Press is finally doing its fucking job ?
No, few press outlets are. The mainstream news is doing the bare minimum to report on this so they don't look like the completely statist slanted corporate controlled filters that they are.
Hey, let's get Snowden to come back so we can Kennedy, or John Lennon, or MLK him real good. Next up: Oh, look at that, Snowden doesn't want to return even if offered an olive branch? Guess he's un-American for rejecting our hospitality.
What Bollocks.
If he was simply a whisteblower for NSA spying on Americans I would agree. However, possibly during negotiations for asylum, he told other countries how we were spying on them.
You assume that the other countries' long running and well funded state sponsored spies have not already infiltrated the NSA far more deeply than Snowden did with his single stint at it. It was whistle blowing because there was no harm to be done in letting the public know how big of a Joke the NSA has become.
As a European, I agree 100% with you.
Keep the heat on the US, but the rest of the world and EU countries should take a long hard look at themselves too.
Yes, you seem to agree with the hivemind's worldview. Congratulations, I guess.
Now, try considering things from a different perspective: In the 1950s through 1970s, the US government's biggest concern was the infiltration of Communists and their left-wing ideology into the government. Surely you remember McCarthy's witch-hunts? The FBI was concerned about the Communists' ability to manipulate the American people through influential figures, so naturally they investigated most influential radicals and countered their influence.
Of course, in hindsight we call those "radicals" better terms like "visionaries", "martyrs", and "activists", but at the time they were cause for concern. History written by the victors and so forth...
Are citizens to be considered innocent until proven guilty? Yes? Right, then the [government is] considered WRONG by default. In short: That the government is considered guilty unless proven innocent is a CORE principal to the establishment of law
That's a false dichotomy. In many cases (such as most criminal cases found "not guilty"), there is nobody at fault. Not the individual, and not the government. Bad things may have happened, but nobody actually intended them. That's mens rea - the criminal intent. If nobody is proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, to have intended criminal harm, nobody is guilty. That is the default state.
To accuse and convict the government of something, you'll need proof. That's what the ACLU et al. are doing now, with limited success.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
It's not like Snowden managed to change anything other than the public dialog. Anyone who thinks every country on the planet isn't doing the same thing as the NSA is dangerously naive. Snowden deserves his exile if for no other reason than being naive enough to think he'd actually change the way the world works.
You mean the secret "rubberstamp" court?
Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
Like religion, theres no point arguing with an idiot.
You'll get no argument from me.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
it's the legislature's job to pass laws that meet current standards for morality
At this point, morality is irrelevant
If legislature is elected by people (directly or indirectly), and legislature converts public morality into law, how can morality ever be irrelevant in a public discussion?
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Hold fire on that for a few months, boy! The concentration camps and gas chambers are still under construction.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Because morality is no longer within the universe of discourse.
Morality was the issue when the original legislation was passed, and it will be the issue again when a lawsuit gets suitably far along to consider overturning such legislation. Until that reevaluation, the law is the standard of behavior that our society is held to, including both the NSA and Snowden.
As a less-emotionally-charged car analogy, consider how absurd it would be to debate whether we measure a distance in kilometers or miles, when the point of the discussion is comparing fuel efficiency of two vehicle models. We have already determined the standard for comparison (distance over fuel), and now it's time to determine the facts (which vehicle performs better). Afterward, we can review the results and decide whether we feel the metric was appropriate (accounting for the environmental toll of manufacturing a hybrid car, for instance) to get the result that seems "just".
From a scientific perspective, it seems backwards... we apply the metric, then think about whether it was right or not? Well, yes, because we're not running a science experiment. Democracy isn't science. It's engineering. This is one round of an iterative refining process. Slowly but surely, we form a set of laws that fit the common sense of morality, but to do so requires an evaluation phase that is free from the influence of mob mentality and social bias.
In an ideal world, Snowden would turn himself in, get a fair trial, and be found guilty. From the information I've seen, it's pretty clear he broke a good number of espionage laws, and depending on intent there's a case for treason, as well. Again speaking of ideals, his lawyer should appeal, and contest that the crimes were justified. Then ideally the court would consider morality and find that the existing espionage and treason laws are unfairly biased in favor of the state's authority, rather than promoting general welfare, and require changes to such laws so that whistleblower protection applies properly in such circumstances.
Of course, that ideal situation doesn't fix the NSA. For that, the best bets are the lawsuits currently in progress by the ACLU et al. arguing that the NSA's actions are inherently illegal, for any reason. Even if those lawsuits are unsuccessful, a good outrage over perceived rights provides a good opportunity for political endeavors. As we approach the next Congressional election cycle, I'll be surprised if we don't see half a dozen bills introduced to specifically limit surveillance. Of course, by the time such bills become law, the angry mob will move have moved on to its next cause célèbre, but that doesn't matter. We'll just start the next iteration of the refinement process.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Because morality is no longer within the universe of discourse.
You've not addressed why it is so in the long reply to a short question.
But you do show the talent to conveniently forget when it suits you that laws are modified outside of judiciary, in fact legislature is the primary instrument for that. And it can, should and must be done whenever public morality changes or a change is expressed or need arises, not just around an "election cycle".
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
You've not addressed why it is so
Until that reevaluation, the law is the standard of behavior that our society is held to, including both the NSA and Snowden.
Try reading that part again, and the illustrations around it.
America has rule of law. There is no king to simply declare the standards of behavior. There is only the objective law. There is no "right" or "wrong", only "legal" and "illegal". We can't just have a law that says "Snowden is innocent of all crimes, because he did good stuff", because that can't be fairly applied to anyone in the future. We have to define appropriate criteria for the judges to apply.
Morality is relevant when creating and revising the law, because morality is the basis thereof. During the application of the law, though, the nebulous concept of "morality" is just a bias that interferes with the objective law. That's why I linked to the dissection of the Zimmerman case, because that was a very blatant example of the public's subjective biases interfering with the objective rule of law.
But you do show the talent to conveniently forget when it suits you that laws are modified outside of judiciary
I'm not "forgetting" that at all. New legislation won't affect any current legal matters such as Snowden's case or any lawsuits pending against the United States. It is only a likely avenue for stopping future spying, as noted.
Since the original topic of discussion was cold fjord's perspective on current matters, I didn't (and still don't) see the point in discussing what Congress could do to change future matters.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Until that reevaluation, the law is the standard of behavior that our society is held to, including both the NSA and Snowden.
Try reading that part again, and the illustrations around it.
I already did, but it is stupid. For the reason I stated - law should always be on the mend, in the direction of morality. By public representatives. So public discourse should always include morality. There is no freeze on law mending like you imagine. And even if there is, public opinion around it would take time to mature, so morality being irrelevant in a public discussion is even more impossible.
Morality is relevant when creating and revising the law, because morality is the basis thereof. During the application of the law, though, the nebulous concept of "morality" is just a bias that interferes with the objective law.
Cold fjord is neither creating and revising the law, nor applying it. Nor are slashdotters discussing it with him. So this statement is irrelevant.
Since the original topic of discussion was cold fjord's perspective on current matters, I didn't (and still don't) see the point in discussing what Congress could do to change future matters.
We don't have any time machine to go and change the past, including the past causes of the present. So any purpose(1) for public discourse is necessarily for the future, even if the discourse is apparently of history, even ancient history. So no, this line of argument will not work.
1. Purpose in the sense of any real outcome that could conceivably arise except the entertainment of participants.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
I already did, but it is stupid.
An excellent way to proclaim that you don't understand what's going on.
law should always be on the mend, in the direction of morality
Nope. Changing the law in effect during a trial means that the law is unpredictable, undermining the entire legal system itself. That's why the Constitution forbids changing laws ex post facto - the British monarchs and nobles would change the laws to get whatever justice they wanted, fitting their own morality. Of course, given how easily humans can justify their behavior, that's less of a "morality" and more merely "opinion".
While the morality (and the underlying opinions) can change continuously, the law itself, within the context of a single case, must stay fixed for the law to have any effect. If every case is subject to the whims of the public, every accused can simply claim that they have a noble cause, and the case becomes a trial by media in the court of public opinion.
And even if there is, public opinion around it would take time to mature
By design, in the United States the opposite is true. The law moves more slowly than public opinion. Elections (the primary means for changing opinions in government) only happen every few years per office. There's time for opinion (and outrage) to flare up, mature, and settle down before anyone is driven to make radical changes.
So any purpose for public discourse is necessarily for the future, even if the discourse is apparently of history, even ancient history
From what I see, that future is pretty badly doomed due to a widespread lack of civics and political science education. As noted, we've had mutable laws before, and we've had Anonymous's vigilante justice before. Both ended badly, yet every time a new article is posted here about Snowden's latest juicy detail, the Slashdot hivemind is quick to demand throwing due process out the window in favor of rewarding Snowden and threatening Keith Alexander. Those comments are not about the uncertain future, but the present and current cases. These are commenters wanting to throw out the rule of law in favor of a tyranny of the majority.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
That's why the Constitution forbids changing laws ex post facto
I never said change laws ex post facto. If you read the post to the end, you would find it is all about the future. So these 2 paragraphs in your post are completely irrelevant, talking to a strawman. Moving on.
By design, in the United States the opposite is true. The law moves more slowly than public opinion. Elections (the primary means for changing opinions in government) only happen every few years per office. There's time for opinion (and outrage) to flare up, mature, and settle down before anyone is driven to make radical changes.
Wow! The US has determined the speed of public opinion. A Nobel Prize in physics is deserved here.
In the real world, public opinion is still changing about ancient history as people find new facts and discuss among themselves. Let me know of a law in the US that took thousands of years to pass. If you can't, your statement that public opinion is necessarily faster than lawmaking is rendered idiotic.
But you restrict morality discussions only to the end of the "elections cycle". Why shouldn't the public have the leisure of discussing morality for 5 years even if elected representatives are too lazy to pass laws before that? And where is the law prohibiting elected representatives from passing laws in periods that are not "end of election cycles" ?
From what I see, that future blah blah blah
Nothing to do with my argument. Still waiting to see you defend how morality in public discourse can ever be irrelevant.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
...so you don't bother reading, don't try to understand, and move off-topic to ignore the arguments that are actually relevant. I'll try explaining once more, real slow.
Morality, which is nothing more than a public opinion of judgement, is the basis of law, because that's what starts the legislative process. Once the legislative process is complete, that public opinion is no longer relevant to answering the question "did this person break this law?", since the relevant law is fixed by necessity. Since that question of fact is still open in Snowden's case, any comment implying that morality should be a part of judging Snowden's case is absurd.
Cold fjord understands this, and generally keeps his comments within the realm of law, usually discussing Snowden's current case and the relevant facts and questions. That is the extent of our discussion that relates to the original topic. You've extended the discussion far beyond its scope.
In a purely theoretical discussion of what the law should be for the sake of the future, morality is indeed relevant, but those are rare here, and those are not the discussions referred to in the original topic. Regardless of what should be law, there are two paths for changing laws: lawsuits and legislation. The lawsuits are underway, and getting legislation passed is a lengthy process.
Getting legislation through Congress means convincing a few hundred politicians that it's the right thing to do (because morality is a factor here). Per the limitations of law and reality, those politicians are typically older than the typically-young activists, and hold older views. They must be convinced. Politically, it's less risky to do nothing that to support a controversial bill, so causes must have significant support before they will see representation in Congress. At a federal level, consider the fights for marriage equality and marijuana legalization. Both have high levels of support (often polled in the majority) outside of Congress, but there has been no federal bill passed in their support. Historically, consider the civil rights movement, which culminated in a decade of intense activism before Congress passed desegregation laws, and another decade before such laws became standard.
Note that during that time, there were several election cycles. I have never said or implied that activism is somehow limited to a single cycle, but rather that an election is the time where it is most feasible to choose a representative who is more amenable to one's views.
If you can't understand that and insist on waiting for yet another reiteration, I'm terribly sorry, but your trolling has exhausted my patience and spare time. Take a civics course and try reading again.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Once the legislative process is complete
Which is never. Rendering paragraph irrelevant.
Cold fjord understands this, and generally keeps his comments within the realm of law, usually discussing Snowden's current case and the relevant facts and questions. That is the extent of our discussion that relates to the original topic. You've extended the discussion far beyond its scope.
No, I have read the thread from its beginning, and Snowden was never the sole topic of the discussion, main topic was the general posting history of a particular Slashdot user, with Snowden case serving only as an example. The post you replied to first didn't even mention Snowden as an example. Cold fjord has made posts on other topics too.
Even when Snowden is the main topic, that does not mean morality based discussions are irrelevant. Even without applying to Snowden himself, legally, morality is completely relevant in discussions related to it so as to prevent future morality-law mismatch solely pertaining to FUTURE cases in the FUTURE which is really the FUTURE. Have to emphasize FUTURE because you have ignored it multiple times harping on the past.
be for the sake of the future, morality is indeed relevant, but those are rare here
That is what I am saying, morality is always relevant. Since past cannot be changed, only future is subject to change. And future is always subject to change. And an attempt to modify the future should always be made. By discussing the past and present in moral sense. Since events that "happened" on 10th September 2014 are not yet available to discuss, comments on past events are a way to express one's moral opinion. To change the FUTURE
I have never said or implied that activism is somehow limited to a single cycle, but rather that an election is the time where it is most feasible to choose a representative who is more amenable to one's views.
WRONG. This post completely rules out legislation as a way to change laws without even mentioning it is for the past. And if it is for the past, it is not relevant as no one has a time machine to change the past. I didn't think you are so big an idiot to harp on the past when "change" is the context. Are you?
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
And yes, you didn't address the remarkable physics question of speed of public opinion vs speed of law making in the US. That was a very unambiguous statement from you, do justice to it by justifying it with at least an example of law taking thousands of years in hundreds of years of US history.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.