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.'"

42 of 354 comments (clear)

  1. How about complete amnesty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    and the Medal of Honor, just for starters. Snowden has done more for this country than our "Nobel Peace Prize" winning President!

    1. Re:How about complete amnesty by sconeu · · Score: 4, Informative

      Snowden is not a member of the US Armed Forces, and is therefore inelgible for the Medal of Honor.

      The equivalent civilian award is the Medal of Freedom.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  2. Re:And the opinon of the NY Times matters because? by OzPeter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?
  3. Re:Hang him by nitehawk214 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  4. The government only does stupid things by Karmashock · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:The government only does stupid things by BobMcD · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're right on many points, but as it stands, the NSA has every reason to persecute Snowden. It's a deterrent.

      If he gets pardoned then leaks become more likely in the future. If he gets executed, on the other hand, they'll be less likely.

      So in simple 'less work for us to do' terms, the NSA really does need to take a toughguy stance on leakers.

      We the people, on the other hand, have exactly the opposite interest.

    2. Re:The government only does stupid things by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As to the deterrent... for what? Is this something you want to deter?

      To the contrary, I want to encourage this sort of behavior.

      Understand, I make a distinction between treason and whistle blowing. This is whistle blowing.

      If the police department starts raping women in the jail cells and then covering it up... do you want to deter people that try to inform the public of it?

      Yes. The relationship is valid. The NSA has been wantonly breaking the law on a vast scale. And what is more the judicial branch is enabling it. Does the rape become more valid if the judge is okay with it? No. Its actually worse and worthy of increasingly outrage until the issue is resolved.

      As to leaks, leaks are almost never punished. The white house, congress, the pentagon, the CIA all leak things all the time that they're not supposed to leak. There was a big flap lately about the CIA leaking things about seal team 6. The leak was ultimately traced to the white house. Anyone go to jail for that? Nope. So what you're doing is not punishing leakers. Leakers don't get punished. What you're doing is punishing a whistle blower. The guy that calls RAPE. You want that silenced.

      Sound like a good idea? I don't see how it could be anything but an encouragement for FURTHER corruption.

      As to the interest of the NSA versus the people. I think you're confused here... the NSA works for us. Where our interests conflict we take precedence without exception. If the NSA is under any illusions on that issue then why are we paying them with our tax dollars and why are we giving them special extra legal authorities? If they want to go rogue that's fine. They can see how far they get with no money and no extra legal rights. They'd be a non-entity in a week.

      So no. They have no conflicting interests that I need to respect. If anything, the public has an interest in treating what interests they have outside of their duty with utter contempt.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  5. Re:And the opinon of the NY Times matters because? by allypally · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:Cold Fjord by anagama · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

    If Edward Snowden comes back to the US to face trial, he likely will not be able to tell a jury why he did what he did, and what happened because of his actions. Contrary to common sense, there is no public interest exception to the Espionage Act. 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.

    https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2013/12/if-snowden-returned-us-trial-all-whistleblower-evidence-would-likely-be-inadmissible

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  7. Re:And the opinon of the NY Times matters because? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.)

  8. Re:And the opinon of the NY Times matters because? by turp182 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  9. In perspective by Akratist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:What about the foreign stuff? by Akratist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  11. Snowden a "spineless criminal"? by King_TJ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re:law-breaking by Akratist · · Score: 3, Informative

    In Kafka America, you don't break the law, the law breaks you?

  13. Re:NY Times? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  14. Unimpressive... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Unimpressive... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Funny

      'Pardon' would be better. I'd prefer to see 'ticker-tape parade to the Capitol, down a street lined with intelligence creeps hanging from the lampposts'; but I'm told that my pony is being held up by customs...

  15. Won't happen ... by garry_g · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  16. Re:And the opinon of the NY Times matters because? by g0bshiTe · · Score: 3, Informative

    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!
  17. Re:And the opinon of the NY Times matters because? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    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/

  18. Remember general Petraeus? by sshir · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  19. Re:And the opinon of the NY Times matters because? by Kelbear · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  20. That's nice but what about NSA charges? by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
  21. Re:And the opinon of the NY Times matters because? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!

  22. Letter Versus Spirit by tekrat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Letter Versus Spirit by naasking · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      Except the courts were lied to, and there is no oversight. There are thousands of documented cases of abuse. What the NSA is doing is far from legal.

  23. Re:And the opinon of the NY Times matters because? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Whoosh?

  24. Re:And the opinon of the NY Times matters because? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Informative

    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!
  25. Re:Snowden went too far by Dega704 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

  26. Re:NY Times not a credible source by some+old+guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It was labeled as such. That's what an editorial is.

    Shill:Fail

    --
    Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
  27. Re:did they break the law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm not trying to be an asshole here, but if you have to ask "did they break the law?" then you are absolutely right that you haven't been paying attention.

    The courts and congress, prior to Snowden's leaks, did allow it. You are correct there. But what they allowed was not the same as what the NSA was actually up to. They flat-out lied to get authorization for some things, then went off and did others so when/if they got caught, they could say, "But we were told we could do that!" It is a well-documented fact at this point that the NSA lied to both the courts and congress. That, in itself, is not legal.

    Then, we have the fact that they are definitely violating the 4th amendment. They are not "just" collecting "metadata." They have the content of every phone call or email you make, your browsing history, etc. and they intend hold it for at least 15 years. As American citizens have the right to not be unreasonably searched without warrant, they have violated the constitution in billions of instances over the last decade.

    First amendment rights have also been under attack. Some members of the media have stated that they've been under pressure (not clear if it's from their employers or otherwise) to not run any anti-NSA stories. Some businesses, such as Lavabit and Silent Circle, have had to shutdown because of ridiculous legal pressure to completely legal businesses simply because they did not want to provide all of their information in bulk and instead said they would comply with the law and turn over any information related to suspects. In the case of Lavabit, the FBI demanded they turn over their SSL public & private keys; this is not needed to unencrypt stored information on users, but instead to create a MITM attack on their network. I got a bit off-topic here, but the point is simply that people are forced to behave differently, including limiting their speech, out of fear of government backlash. It is a clear violation of the first amendment.

    Then, we have the fact that the NSA is participating in hacking and distributing malware. You know what that's called? Computer fraud. And it's very illegal. If you have some time to waste, go ahead and watch this presentation from 30C3.

    But, most importantly, remember that government propaganda is legal now so keep an eye out for their bullshit.

  28. what a bunch of lazy hacks! by Thud457 · · Score: 3, Funny

    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

  29. Re:And the opinon of the NY Times matters because? by turp182 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  30. Re:And the opinon of the NY Times matters because? by boristdog · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  31. Re:Howdy, cold_fjord! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  32. Re:NY Times? by X0563511 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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...
  33. Re:What about the foreign stuff? by cusco · · Score: 3, Informative

    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
  34. Re:Hang him by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  35. Re:Incentive? by TWiTfan · · Score: 4, Informative

    Proof, or it doesn't happen.

    I submit pretty much the entirety of South American history since WWII.

    --
    The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
  36. Re:Incentive? by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It's actually an interesting point you bring up. With the rendition practices where people are either tortured directly by the CIA overseas or are being handed over to 'friendly' torturers, legally approved water-boarding torture in the US, and who knows what else goes on, the CIA runs the direct risk of what the secret policy in the soviet era has undergone. When the job requirements are such that only thugs like it, only thugs will apply.

    I'm pretty sure that this last decade, the CIA has gone through a transformation where people capable of doing actual intelligence work have left the bureau, and mostly people that know how to 'extract' info from others remain. Unfortunately, such info is typically useless, making the CIA just another device for oppression of brown people worshiping the wrong god, as intelligence they will not gather anymore.

  37. Re:Incentive? by deconfliction · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The moment the US government starts harming families is the moment I declare war and cap some asses.

    “The females that we had, were the spouses or sister or cousin of high value detainees, that were being used as - ‘well O.K., we have your sister, we have your wife, you know you need to turn yourself in’. The same thing with the little children. I mean we had like nine year olds in there. I’m like why do I have a nine year old in a prison – that’s crazy - but yeah that’s what was there.”

    - Javal Davis,
    372nd Military Police Company,
    Abu Ghraib 2003-2004,
    “Ghosts of Abu Ghraib – HBO Documentary”