Slashdot Mirror


In First American TV Interview, Snowden Talks Accountability and Patriotism

mspohr (589790) points out NBC News's interview with Edward Snowden, the first time Snowden has talked with an American television reporter. It's a wide-ranging conversation, in which Snowden emphasizes his ongoing belief that he did the right thing to release the many documents that he did, even at the cost of his ability to travel. Snowden told NBC's Brian Williams "he had tried to go through channels before leaking documents to journalists, repeatedly raising objections inside the NSA, in writing, to its widespread use of surveillance. But he said he was told, "more or less, in bureaucratic language, 'You should stop asking questions.'" Two U.S. officials confirmed Wednesday that Snowden sent at least one email to the NSA's office of general counsel raising policy and legal questions." Perhaps paving the way to eventual repatriation, Snowden also indicated that he would be willing to accept a "short period" behind bars. But, he said, the U.S. should "reform the Espionage Act to distinguish between people who sell secrets to foreign governments for their own gain and people who return information to public hands for the purpose of serving the public interest," and to include contractors as well as government employees.

389 comments

  1. How does one determine the difference... by Xaedalus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Between serving the public's interest, and serving one's own interest at the expense of the public? This is intended as a serious question--I like Snowden's idea, but how would we determine the difference between someone who's alerting us to government malfeasance, versus someone who's ideologically bent on disrupting government regardless of whether there's malfeasance or malevolent intent involved?

    --
    Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
    1. Re:How does one determine the difference... by jimminy_cricket · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is exactly the reason for public hearings with juries of our peers. The constitution already contains the means whereby we may come to these determinations.

    2. Re:How does one determine the difference... by aeranvar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They key words being "public hearings"... something that people charged with espionage have a difficult time getting.

    3. Re:How does one determine the difference... by c0d3g33k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Between serving the public's interest, and serving one's own interest at the expense of the public? This is intended as a serious question--I like Snowden's idea, but how would we determine the difference between someone who's alerting us to government malfeasance, versus someone who's ideologically bent on disrupting government regardless of whether there's malfeasance or malevolent intent involved?

      Wrong question. If the bar is set so high that people like Snowden have to prove their intentions unambigously, beyond a reasonable doubt, in order to prove their credibility, then they are lost before they begin, because the system assures that's never possible. But that's not why it's the wrong question. It's wrong because information about the workings of a government should never be secret except in the most exceptional of circumstances. Revealing information that should never be secret in the first place should not pose the risk of "disrupting government" regardless of the intent involved. If "disrupting government" merely means "learning what we are doing so you can debate the issue and vote to stop us", then the problem is more fundamental than you think.

    4. Re:How does one determine the difference... by vux984 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Between serving the public's interest, and serving one's own interest at the expense of the public? This is intended as a serious question--I like Snowden's idea,

      Its pretty easy to tell the difference between someone selling information to a foreign government in secret, and divulging it to the public publicly.

      If you are concerned someone is going to "maliciously" divulge secret information to the public for no personal gain but the satisifcation of causing disruption? So what? I can live with that trade off. Its better than the treat whistlblowers as traitors we have now.

      And realistically, most of government secrets shouldn't be secret anyway. If that person releases troop movements, under cover agents identities, and your private health information 'the public' will crucify him regardless of the law.

      If he releases the contents of a secret in-the-works treaty and you can't tell whether his intentions were disruptive or public service based on the contents of the treaty, I'm ok with erring on the side of public service. And I don't think treaties should be secret anyway.

    5. Re:How does one determine the difference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a very clear standard for this; if you follow the law or appear to do so in all outward respects and there is no grounds for investigation against you then you have the right to privacy/secrecy. If you break the law in one way then you are subject to investigation in all ways.

      If a group of US government officials is knowingly breaking the law by spying on US citizens then nothing that they do should be subject to secrecy. They are criminals who happen to have a job in the US government. Everything they have ever done, except for specific, limited and clearly justified redactions to protect other people who might be in immediate danager should be subject to publication.

      Anybody who is working for the US government and attempts to support these actions, either through actions or through, for example, comments on Slashdot should be subject to investigation

    6. Re:How does one determine the difference... by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't be much of a problem here. Snowden's already shown all the cards the NSA didn't want anyone to see.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    7. Re:How does one determine the difference... by aeranvar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, but will the Judge in the trial let him present classified documents as evidence even if they're already available in the press? I suspect not. I vaguely something like this happening in Manning's case.

    8. Re:How does one determine the difference... by FuzzNugget · · Score: 5, Funny

      Two problems:

      1. Like hell he'll get a public trial, or any trial at all, before he's shipped off to Gitmo. Even if he does...

      2. As once brilliantly stated (I think I saw it in a Slashdot sig), 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty is not a jury of my peers.

    9. Re:How does one determine the difference... by sjames · · Score: 2

      The last person to out an operative was Scooter Libby. His sentence was commuted so that he served no jail time.

    10. Re:How does one determine the difference... by Richy_T · · Score: 2

      The government serves the government, not the people. So it's a moot question anyway.

    11. Re:How does one determine the difference... by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Informative

      The last person to out an operative was Scooter Libby. His sentence was commuted so that he served no jail time.

      Are you really that misinformed, or are you just trying to deceive?

      The person who disclosed Valerie Plame's name was Richard Armitage, not Libby. Libby's legal trouble revolved around how cooperative he was during one round of questioning, and his prosecution had nothing whatsoever to do with her name getting out. Because ... it was a guy in the State Department, not the White House, who told the reporter her name. And Armitage never got any grief during the witch hunt.

      Of course, Armitage was NOT the last person to "out" an operative. Just a few days ago, the White House stupidly disclosed the name of the top CIA official in Kabul. You know, a guy actually out dealing with dangerous ground, rather than occupying a desk in Virginia like Plame was.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    12. Re:How does one determine the difference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And this is EXACTLY why you owe it to your true peers to submit to jury duty. If you were falsely accused, or accused of something not well understood, wouldn't you wish that people just like you didn't duck it?

    13. Re:How does one determine the difference... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 2

      If the bar is set so high that people like Snowden have to prove their intentions unambigously, beyond a reasonable doubt, in order to prove their credibility, then they are lost before they begin, because the system assures that's never possible.

      But that's not the US justice system - the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    14. Re:How does one determine the difference... by sjames · · Score: 1

      So where are the calls for a trip to gitmo or a life sentence?

      BTW, Libby was charged with the disclosure, they needed a fall guy to try.

    15. Re:How does one determine the difference... by iluvcapra · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you are concerned someone is going to "maliciously" divulge secret information to the public for no personal gain but the satisifcation of causing disruption? So what? I can live with that trade off. Its better than the treat whistlblowers as traitors we have now.

      That would suggest that random government employees can exercise their personal moral judgment over what their country's allows to do. So, PRISM is illegal, disclosing it, assuming ti works like Snowden says it does, it's legitimate whistleblowing. However, tapping foreign leader's phones is completely legal and every country on Earth does it -- disclosing this serves no purpose, Snowden has disclosed it because he believes he's qualified to morally arbitrate which US programs should be secret and which shouldn't.

      That's kinda the issue -- a crankish libertarian former Ars Technica poster/current Russian agent is effectively nominated himself as US national security declassifer in chief, regardless of what our elected representatives or anyone else who's legally been given that job has to say about it. It's illegal to spy on Americans but it's also illegal to leak stuff -- and leaking stuff that isn't illegal and doesn't really affect Americans serves no purpose but to hamstring US intelligence gathering and embarrass the US government. Which is why he works for Vladimir Putin now.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    16. Re:How does one determine the difference... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is a very clear standard for this; if you follow the law or appear to do so in all outward respects and there is no grounds for investigation against you then you have the right to privacy/secrecy. If you break the law in one way then you are subject to investigation in all ways.

      In today's environment, that is no protection at all, because there is always some law that can be applied that you are breaking. In fact, speculation is that the average American commits three felonies a day.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    17. Re:How does one determine the difference... by tranquilidad · · Score: 1

      By definition within the law, Valeria Plame was not an operative.

      Scooter Libby didn't out her.

      Scotter Libby lied to investigators, for whatever idiotic reason, and was convicted of that crime. His sentence was commuted but the conviction and its costs are still on his record.

    18. Re:How does one determine the difference... by preaction · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mod this up. The Jury is (by design) the closest the average citizen gets to the system of laws and government that controls them. This belief that jury duty is to be avoided is one of many reasons why this country is in the fucking toilet. Whole treatises have been written on The Jury Trial being the keystone of a fair and just society, but nobody seems to care or understand why.

      I continue in my belief that Civics should be taught every year from 8th grade through 12th grade.

    19. Re:How does one determine the difference... by Brulath · · Score: 2

      Given the media exposure of Snowden it'd probably be very difficult to acquire an unbiased jury of his peers to judge him fairly, which is a bit of a flaw in the system. It can be very difficult to change a preconceived notion – even when you've been been presented evidence proving what's wrong and right the original notion can still influence your decisions.

    20. Re:How does one determine the difference... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How do you have public hearings on an entity that is spying on members of Congress and the judiciary? That is not accountable to Congress, and is so above the law that they have their own court to make up laws depending on their needs?

      Our surveillance regime exists outside of government.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    21. Re:How does one determine the difference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not that society doesn't want to avoid jury duty because of jury duty. It's because it messes up your life.

      You get paid $40/day for Jury Duty, and many employers don't pay for Jury Duty at all. For a typical middle-class American, you lose your $100-$200/day job for a $40/day ($5/hour) jury duty. You can't live on that much of a cut in pay.

      If you got paid the same as your job for the brief time you're on jury duty, I bet Americans would relish the opportunity for a 'break' or 'vacation' from their day to day job. But that's not how it is today.

      I had a co-worker who had jury duty EVERY Thursday for 2 straight years. His bosses still expected him to put in 40 hours at work. He had to work 10 hour days for 2 years straight. Not fun at all.

    22. Re:How does one determine the difference... by Brulath · · Score: 1

      I've thought about this point a bit when others have mentioned it on slashdot – the idea that a government should hold nothing beyond easy public access unless it presents a true danger to the people, as defined by the people. It's a great ideal, but I don't think it'd survive the news media in any country; the 24/7 news vultures would shred any political who enacted such legislation to bits. No matter how well-intentioned your actions are, someone will spin it into doom to sell ads.

      It's not entirely the media's fault – a lot of things that happen behind closed doors really shouldn't occur at all – but there's little point in denying that it'd be political suicide. If you've gone to the effort of getting elected, why would you want to nearly guarantee your opponents get the next election for free? First thing they'd do is reverse your openness policy, and we'd be back at square one. A good example of this happened in Australia recently; the prior political party openly reported on the attempts of refugees to enter the country without prior authorisation, and their opposition shredded them over some invented crisis. First thing they did when they got elected? Suppressed all information related to refugee entry attempts.

      The ideal is a good one, but it requires mass education and critical thinking that currently doesn't exist in any country I've heard of.

    23. Re:How does one determine the difference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      1. Like hell he'll get a public trial, or any trial at all, before he's shipped off to Gitmo. Even if he does..

      I'm pretty fucking sick of people saying things like this. Why does anyone believe things like it?

      To even joke about it shows a flippant disregard for the rule of law. Not only do you think there is no rule of law, but you don't even care if there is -- you're simply accepting it as fait accompli. You're practically pushing it along. If people think it's funny to think that nobody cares about him getting a trial, then why should anyone involved with actually getting people like him fair trials be the only people to care about it? If nobody cares about the rule of law, then why should anyone care about the rule of law?

      Joking like this isn't funny, it's basically abdicating any civic and personal responsibility you have. It's disgusting. Every single person that makes a drone joke or whatever about Snowden is a fucking retard and ought to be ashamed of themselves.

      Edward Snowden returning to the USA to face trial would be one of the most public things that has ever happened in the history of the world.

    24. Re:How does one determine the difference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Between serving the public's interest, and serving one's own interest at the expense of the public?

      I may be going out on a limb here, but the last time I checked, giving up a hot girlfriend, a $200K/year gig, and any hope in hell of ever setting foot in your home country again for the rest of your life, probably doesn't indicate that one is interested in serving one's own interest.

    25. Re:How does one determine the difference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Perhaps there is a reason that jurors are treated like crap by the court system, precisely to make sure that only the "right" jurors show up. There is no legitimate reason why being on a jury should take ten times more time than the amount of time actually spent in the courtroom. No one in that court room, except maybe the defendant, has their time wasted as liberally as the jury.

    26. Re:How does one determine the difference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, whatever news source you got that idea from is completely incorrect. Karl Rove outed Valerie Plame for political retribution. Scooter Libby got caught lying under oath then Bush gave him the pardon at Dick Cheney's behest.

    27. Re:How does one determine the difference... by Imrik · · Score: 1

      So you're saying Snowden was wrong because the NSA was giving the appearance of following the law in all outward respects?

    28. Re:How does one determine the difference... by Zynder · · Score: 3, Informative
      Then you need to come fix my county's stupid way of doing jury duty. They assign you a whole month that you may or may not be called. You have to call their number or (finally) check their website every single morning and then call the boss to let him know you won't be coming in. You may or may not get paid for it, I do because I'm Union, but most regular joes don't get but the measly ~$10/day the court hands out. Work all day to make $100 or waste all damned day for $10. Which would you choose?

      This belief that jury duty is to be avoided is one of many reasons why this country is in the fucking toilet

      Would you make the same statement if you replaced "jury duty" with "paying your taxes". I would, but most seem to think it is some kind of legal obligation-nay necessity- that you do whatever you can to avoid paying them. Why would me not dodging jury duty as much as possible not fall in the same category?

    29. Re: How does one determine the difference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why does anyone believe things like it?"

      Because that's what the people who we elected into government do. 99% of those losers don't care about freedom or integtity or bravery or any of the things that America was founded on, they only care about how much money they make as a politician. Don't get upset when people tell the truth...

    30. Re:How does one determine the difference... by NoKaOi · · Score: 1

      Its pretty easy to tell the difference between someone selling information to a foreign government in secret, and divulging it to the public publicly.

      Not always (who says it has to be in secret?). I'll make up an example. Let's say we're at war with Islamistan, and a DoD contractor or employee discovers a serious flaw in a cruise missile that was a main weapon we're using against Islamistan that would allow anybody with a couple of hundred dollars worth of equipment to take it down if it was being shot at them. The contractor or employee also discovers (with evidence) that there was corruption involved between the contractor who makes the missiles and the congressman who made sure they got the contract. Let's say you can't divulge the corruption without divulging the flaw. I know it's not a perfect analogy, but the point is - let's assume you can't expose the corruption that the American public deserves to know about without exposing the flaw that you don't want the enemy to know about.

      What would you do? Would you expose it? If somebody exposes it, would you expect them to go to prison for aiding the enemy? How do you know that their motivation was to benefit the American public, and not to benefit the enemy and cause the US to lose a war?

    31. Re:How does one determine the difference... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Not everyone on a jury is stupid. People will serve on juries if they think it is their civic duty. In Greece the equivalent would be "people so stupid they actually paid their taxes."

    32. Re:How does one determine the difference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the bar is set so high that people like Snowden have to prove their intentions unambigously, beyond a reasonable doubt, in order to prove their credibility, then they are lost before they begin, because the system assures that's never possible.

      But that's not the US justice system - the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense.

      The U.S.A. does not, and never has had, a justice system. It has a legal system. The distinction is important, and explains most of the questions being raised here.

    33. Re:How does one determine the difference... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I see Jerry Sandusky has internet access from prison now.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    34. Re:How does one determine the difference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course you do...you're a conservative.

    35. Re: How does one determine the difference... by preaction · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree with your stance on taxes. I take the itemized deductions I'm entitled to for my house and my small business (tax incentives for contributing to the economy), but I would be fine without them. The spreading of tax burden down the economic ladder is class warfare and has been going on for a long time...

    36. Re:How does one determine the difference... by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      Its pretty easy to tell the difference between someone selling information to a foreign government in secret, and divulging it to the public publicly.

      Snowden gave the NSA documents to well known American journalists.
      Now imagine if he gave it (under the same terms/conditions) to journalists at Russia Today (a state sponsored newspaper) or Xinhua News Agency (China's state newspaper).

      The difference gets a little fuzzier, doesn't it?

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    37. Re: How does one determine the difference... by preaction · · Score: 2

      Forgot the other bit: I believe companies should either be required to pay salary, or the gov't should be required to pay at least minimum wage for jury duty. But I also believe that the US is behind most civilized countries when it comes to labor rights. Unions are one way of fighting for rights, but those are being broken pretty handily these days.

    38. Re:How does one determine the difference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh you... you're so cute...
      Unfortunately, these days, the more correct and factual statement would be "But that's not what the US justice system is supposed to be like; however, these days, the burden of proof is no longer on the prosecution, it is on the defense"

    39. Re:How does one determine the difference... by Zynder · · Score: 1

      Your optimism is refreshing and noble. Too bad things don't work like that anymore.

    40. Re:How does one determine the difference... by Zynder · · Score: 1

      conviction and its costs are still on his record.

      And he is doing so bad these days because of it. What with his syndicated radio show and the advertisements I've seen him in, it is wonder the guy can afford ramen noodles.

    41. Re: How does one determine the difference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Even someone who didn't care about freedom or integrity or bravery wouldn't try to send him to Gitmo. It's one of the dumbest fucking ideas I've ever heard. A hypothetical scenario in which every single person in a government position cares only about one thing -- money -- wouldn't ship him to Gitmo. How would that make them any money? Making jokes like these or trying to pretend like you're stating the hard truth that everyone else is scared to is idiotic at best. Pretending that it is even in the realm of possibility enables it more than any loudmouth politician whose primary interest is CYA ever does just by giving it some credibility.

      You should probably hold off on the "we elected" statements until you actually elect someone to something too, btw.

    42. Re:How does one determine the difference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really believe that the U>S> Government would allow any thing remotely near a fair trial for Snowden?

    43. Re:How does one determine the difference... by dryeo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Are you talking about the country with over a million people in jail due to plea bargaining?

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    44. Re:How does one determine the difference... by vux984 · · Score: 1

      That's a pretty contrived situation.

      What possible rationale do you have for an American whistleblower selecting to disclose it to the Russian Chinese state sponsored papers?

    45. Re:How does one determine the difference... by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Taking your example:

      How do you know that someone else hasn't discovered the flaw and already sold it to Islamistan?

      How do you know the flaw isn't a deliberate conspiracy between the corrupt people providing the flawed system.

      Now 'Keeping it a secret' is putting your own country at risk (since the enemy potentially already has the flaw through some other channel or may have it shortly, and you are potentially shielding the very people who put it there...)

      So you do exactly what Snowden did, you release the story to American journalists. They can verify the story, and report it to the public without revealing the details. They can merely reveal that its flawed.

    46. Re:How does one determine the difference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since I don't live in your county, I am not really in a position to fix it for you.

      Perhaps you should fix the problems in your county?

      Or maybe move to a county that does things better?

    47. Re:How does one determine the difference... by John.Banister · · Score: 1

      Isn't appearing intelligent and interested in learning the truth and having it prevail often a good way to spend ones entire jury duty time in a pool of prospective jurors not getting picked?

    48. Re:How does one determine the difference... by cavreader · · Score: 1

      If similar information was turned over to the media in Russia or China that information would never have been published and those supplying the information would be in jail or dead. Snowden sealed his fate when he started releasing information about foreign intelligence programs that had nothing to do with the American public. And he and his journalists helpers have decided they are qualified to determine what information is dangerous and which information is not dangerous.

    49. Re:How does one determine the difference... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      No, whatever news source you got that idea from is completely incorrect. Karl Rove outed Valerie Plame for political retribution.

      How's that Koolaide tasting? Richard Armitage not only was the guy the reporter got her name from, he sat down for interviews and said as much. Then, the reporter conceded as much. If you're going to revise history, pick a topic that isn't so well documented - you'll still look like an anonymous coward, but perhaps like a slightly less foolish one.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    50. Re:How does one determine the difference... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Libby was charged with the disclosure

      No, he wasn't. Where do you get this stuff?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    51. Re:How does one determine the difference... by s.petry · · Score: 2

      the 24/7 news vultures would shred any political who enacted such legislation to bits.

      So you change the system without any Constitutional amendment process as defined by law to suite a few private individuals that wish to take profits over duty? I'm sorry, but I believe you are looking at this from a bad angle.

      It's not entirely the media's fault – a lot of things that happen behind closed doors really shouldn't occur at all

      That statement is a circular logic condition based on your first statement, which is not correct in my opinion.

      Not that long ago there was this thing called integrity and duty which most journalists had. Many journalists today have the same sense of duty and integrity, but we have allowed the monopolization of "news" agencies and further allowed them to become anything but "news". Journalists don't tend to work there, actors and actresses that read teleprompters and look pretty work there.

      Citizens can take some of the blame for this, but the Government allowed monopolization and allowed media to outright lie to citizens. Let's not forget that the media outlets started both fabricating "news" and omitting real "news" in order to manipulate the public. I put most of the blame on the Government actors that allowed this to occur.

      I fully agree that the issue is complex but propose a different view of the problem. Citizens are being attacked from many sources, citizens need to learn to defend themselves from those various sources. If you want to give up and stay home, that is your right and I'm okay with that. However, it is not right to tell others that they should maintain a broken status quot because it's a complex problem to solve.

      The real solution is that we have to fix a whole lot of things. Media, Corrupt politicians, Corrupt laws, Banking monopolization, etc. etc.. Nope, there is not one person that can fix them all so pick a target and get people motivated to make a fix.

      If you don't start somewhere you will never get started, and things will never change without action. Wake people up, teach them what's happening, and point them to a solution. Any solution is better than no action, even if it may be the wrong one (almost).

      **I'll get off my soap box now**

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    52. Re: How does one determine the difference... by cdwiegand · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Oh, please. Unions aren't there for "the workers" they are a separate management system trying to get themselves (the "union bosses") better control without having to do any actual work. I will _never_ work for a union. I worked at Lucent/Avaya for a couple of years as a contractor, and the union employees barely lifted their fingers to do any work - I had to work around them as much as I could just to get MY job done. Maybe back in the 1900s unions where useful, but these days I'm pretty anti-lazybutt, whether that's unions or just slacker coworkers.

      That said, jury duty pay in America is crap - in Colorado the first three days are paid by your employer (so small companies are punished more than large ones, YAY!) and then after that you're paid by the government a paltry sum that wouldn't buy me my lunch and bus fare to/from said courthouse. It's embarrassing.

      --
      . Define sqrt(x) as something really evil like (x / rand()), and bury it deep. Watch your coworkers go nuts.
    53. Re:How does one determine the difference... by kualla · · Score: 1

      Sadly, the prosecution can frame evidence to make you appear guilty by a legal definition, which in reality does not prove guilt.

      The so-called burden of proof bar has been lowered to an seemingly vague level of crap! Even technicalities can be found as guilt, resulting in a severe sentence that any moral and intelligent person would think is ridiculous. But because it was a law and it is technically considered to be breaking the law, the judge still comes down with his hammer following his orders like a slave following their master to obey.

    54. Re:How does one determine the difference... by sjames · · Score: 2

      From his indictment. Have a look at items 14, 17, and 24 of the grand jury charges.

      I presume a court document is sufficiently authoritative?

    55. Re: How does one determine the difference... by preaction · · Score: 1

      The unions have the same problem the government does: An ostensibly democratic/representative organization that is dominated by special interests and concerned more with self-perpetuation than the welfare of the people it is supposed to represent (who themselves are generally lazy, selfish, and short-sighted).

      When pitted against each other, this is fine (ideal, even, checks and balances). When one side gains too much power over the other (as unions have in Illinois, or as government has in Wisconsin), they cannot permit the other to live. It's becoming worse as government becomes the mouthpiece of big business...

    56. Re:How does one determine the difference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There still within the government, just outside the rule of law

    57. Re:How does one determine the difference... by jxander · · Score: 1

      That last bit works about the same in the US, except it's along rich/poor lines, instead of smart/stupid.

      "People so poor they actually pay taxes"

      Those who fall into the not paying taxes end of that spectrum would probably argue that our two quotes are synonymous.

      --
      This signature is false.
    58. Re:How does one determine the difference... by jxander · · Score: 1

      OK, so we just frame the whistle blower as the prosecution. Snowden is trying to prosecute little old NSA and certainly doesn't have the proof to back it up, because they burned it all. Or just labeled it all "Top Secret" so that it can't be shown in court.

      And once that falls flat, the NSA can charge snowden with Slander, Libel, corporate fraud or whatever else they can think up. His claims were baseless, obviously, as the NSA got off scott free. And all this time he spent trying to prove it has wasted government resources. Throw the book at him.

      --
      This signature is false.
    59. Re:How does one determine the difference... by DavidHumus · · Score: 1

      So, you're talking about the Tea Party?

    60. Re:How does one determine the difference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In today's environment, that is no protection at all, because there is always some law that can be applied that you are breaking. In fact, speculation is that the average American commits three felonies a day.

      If you honestly believe that, which would be clearly unconstitutional, then you have no business working in a part of the US government which might in any way be forced to be involved in any form of enforcement of US laws. If this were true then it would make the CIA/FBI and NSA criminal organisations. That would mean that any action involving one of those organs of the state would be illegal (in the same way as AlQueda is a terrorist organisation, so merely belonging to it is a crime) and any attempt to keep an action secret would be a form of conspiracy and a crime in and of its self.

      I guess, that the only way out would be if a) you didn't believe this or b) you believed that since these laws were mostly illegal your organisation would not attempt to enforce them.

    61. Re:How does one determine the difference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is legal and what is moral are two separate things.

    62. Re:How does one determine the difference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a pretty contrived situation.

      What possible rationale do you have for an American whistleblower selecting to disclose it to the Russian Chinese state sponsored papers?

      Well, perhaps the American newspapers are being coerced into silence by NSA. Without any American newspaper being willing to report on the governments illegal activities the next option is to let a newspaper that isn't under the same governments control report it.

      Not really that contrived since NSA chief Keith Alexander wants to do exactly that.

    63. Re:How does one determine the difference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't public trial in a democratic sense long dead and burried in the United States of America? I mean, did they forget? :>

    64. Re: How does one determine the difference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except you're looking at this from the point of view of someone who cares. Most Americans don't even know who Ed Snowden is...

    65. Re: How does one determine the difference... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      The problem with unions in the US is lack of competition. In most of the rest of the world that has had a labour movement, you have a choice of which union you wish to join (or not joining one at all). There are also often legal protections preventing paying union members more than non-union employees so that the collective bargaining by the union benefits everyone (although if they have fewer members then their possible threat of strike action doesn't do much). In the USA, it's very common to have a single union that can represent you - your choice is either to join that union (and be screwed by union management that is only out for itself) or not join and be screwed even more by the company because you're not part of the collective bargaining. When unions have to compete with each other for membership, then they have a strong incentive to at least be seen to represent their members.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    66. Re:How does one determine the difference... by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 1

      Simple. If they're a Republican, they're ideologically bent on disrupting government.

    67. Re:How does one determine the difference... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The Lay Judge system has some benefits over the jury system. Basically you have a panel made up of say three professional judges and 11 "lay judges" that are similar to jurors, i.e. selected at random from the public. The judgement is made by the panel, with the professional judges being involved in the deliberations to make sure that the lay judges act appropriately. Eliminates a lot of the prejudice and other bullshit that goes on in the jury room, and makes sure there are legal professionals offering advice through the whole process.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    68. Re:How does one determine the difference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, tapping foreign leader's phones is completely legal and every country on Earth does it -- disclosing this serves no purpose, Snowden has disclosed it because he believes he's qualified to morally arbitrate which US programs should be secret and which shouldn't.

      If tapping Angela Merkel's phone in perfectly legal and done by every country on Earth, then she should hardly be surprised when someone openly alleges that a particular country has tapped her phone. Seriously: if Merkel's phone can legally be tapped by everyone from the US to the Central African Republic, then she has little reason to be outraged and insulted when someone suggests that her phone was tapped by the NSA.

      Same for Obama and Boehner - we should just sit back and be happy in the knowledge that the Russians and Chinese are listening to all of their private conversations and be happy that this is perfectly legal. According to iluvcapra, it's only illegal for a country to spy on its own people. Illegal and shameful for the NSA to record my phone calls; legal and even banal for the FSB to record my phone calls.

    69. Re:How does one determine the difference... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't know. The number of private corporate contractors that are doing the work now, I think there's a good argument to be made that they are outside of government.

      Or at least the government no longer has any control of the security regime.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    70. Re:How does one determine the difference... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The only reason Libby isn't doing serious time is that

      Long stories aside, reality has a slightly different view: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Libby_clemency_controversy)
      The only reason he didn't do time is because the President commuted his sentence and showed that some people were above the law under his administration.

    71. Re:How does one determine the difference... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Outing Plame turned out to be not a crime

      So what was he convicted of then?

    72. Re:How does one determine the difference... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      and embarrass the US government

      Which appears to badly need that happening to it when portions of it are blatantly defying the constitution and acting against the people of the US. Those toy soldiers deserve to have their crimes and stupidity exposed - I suggest pulling them off their fake Star Trek set and get a bunch in that focus on the national interest instead of personal power.

    73. Re:How does one determine the difference... by jittles · · Score: 1

      Every Thursday? That seems odd. Or was he on a grand jury?

    74. Re:How does one determine the difference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Revealing information that should never be secret in the first place

      In many cases he revealed information that should never have existed in the first place, never mind be made secret.

    75. Re:How does one determine the difference... by arobatino · · Score: 1

      And this is EXACTLY why you owe it to your true peers to submit to jury duty.

      They only take people who are willing to give up the right of jury nullification.

    76. Re:How does one determine the difference... by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

      Between serving the public's interest, and serving one's own interest at the expense of the public?

      To me, whistleblowing becomes legal and acceptable the second the activity that you don't like crosses the line into clear violation of U.S. law and the U.S. Constitution. There is also a permissible gray area of public safety, where the activities involved may not technically be illegal, but could be a direct threat to public health or safety. But since Snowden's case is clearly the former category, there isn't even a gray area here.

      It CANNOT be made illegal to publicly report illegal activities. Trying to argue that someone committed an illegal act by reporting ongoing illegal activities in a public forum makes a mockery of the entire justice system. And Snowden even tried to do the right thing by first going through proper channels. But once those proper authorities ignored him, they became accomplishes in the crime themselves, leaving him with only one legal and moral option.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    77. Re:How does one determine the difference... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      He escaped everything pre-Magna Carta style as if a young King John was on the throne looking out for his cronies. That's how far the clock gets turned back by such choices about telling the rule of law to go fuck itself while the King is in charge.

    78. Re:How does one determine the difference... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      However, tapping foreign leader's phones is completely legal and every country on Earth does it -- disclosing this serves no purpose, Snowden has disclosed it because he believes he's qualified to morally arbitrate which US programs should be secret and which shouldn't.

      If this is public knowledge, then what has Snowden disclosed? And if it isn't, what is your source? Are you simply projecting?

      The US more and more resembles an alcoholic who gets all annoyed when someone doesn't keep up the charade. Man up, admit you have a problem and go to rehab or go the way all empires have before you. You might not get another chance, with various agencies tightening their internal security.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    79. Re:How does one determine the difference... by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty fucking sick of people saying things like this. Why does anyone believe things like it?

      Uh, gee, I don't know. Maybe because it's fucking ABSOLUTELY TRUE? Espionage Act cases are tried before secret courts, and detainees in those cases are often held indefinitely under permanent gag orders. Even their own defense lawyers often aren't allowed to know the specifics of the case.

      Throw out all that "fair and speedy trial" horseshit you learned back in school, Sandy. In the real world, thousands of people in the U.S. are held in indefinite detention every day with no fair trial in sight, no regular access to a lawyer, and no choice but to hope for a plea deal that might finally get them out for time served--even if they're completely innocent. And if the prosecutor or government doesn't want them talking to the press, they've under a permanent gag order too (so they can't even complain about it).

      Thought that shit only happened in "evil commie" countries? Think again, Nancy.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    80. Re:How does one determine the difference... by william.meaney1 · · Score: 1

      Except when the only people who will take jury duty are the kinds of people who don't MAKE $5/hr...I know not EVERYONE in that income range is stupid or misinformed about things, but it's a pretty common theme...

    81. Re:How does one determine the difference... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      If this were true then it would make the CIA/FBI and NSA criminal organisations.

      Have a cookie.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    82. Re: How does one determine the difference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "but I would be fine without them"

      You may be fine without them, but the majority of small businesses actually need them to survive so don't be saying things like that and ruin it for all of us because you feel so casual about them

    83. Re: How does one determine the difference... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You might want to differentiate between unions in the US and unions elsewhere. Unions in quite a few other countries work as expected.

    84. Re:How does one determine the difference... by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Why is jury duty thought of by so many people as some godawful burden? Getting out of work for a week or two and actually contributing to democracy, heck yes I'd do it. At least with *me* on the jury, I know there's one person who brings a decent perspective and halfway open mind to the table.

      Granted not everybody can afford to lose than income, but I'm betting you're not in that demographic.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    85. Re:How does one determine the difference... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2

      It's not that society doesn't want to avoid jury duty because of jury duty. It's because it messes up your life.

      The biggest problem with general jury duty is it is unbounded. If it was a guaranteed - I go and 8 hours later I'm done, or even in special cases 1 week and I'm done, that would be fine. With today's technology, it would be simple enough to condense down the case to less than 4, 8 or even 40 hours of video testimony (objections and grandstanding lawyers would be erased, for example) so that the jury only sees what all sides agree they should, and blammo, the jury reviews said testimony in the time given, then however long it takes to reach a verdict and done.

      Even better, the jury could be selected when the video is done, so the trial could go on as long as the lawyers want it to, but the jury doesn't have to deal with their delays and extension nonsense. Jury duty didn't used to take over 12 people's lives for weeks just because some douche drank and drove and wrecked, killing someone. That kind of thing used to be - was the defendant drunk and did they do 'a'? Yes? Jury - guilty! Not some presentation of 90 days of history of how their parents neglected them, a sibling or spouse abused them, how life was unfair to them, etc etc etc.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    86. Re:How does one determine the difference... by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      with the professional judges being involved in the deliberations to make sure that the lay judges act appropriately

      What could possibly go wrong.

      Unfortunately, any system that depends on people being objective, selfless, and honest is doomed to failure, so juries are iffy, too.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    87. Re:How does one determine the difference... by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Then you lie. Are you under oath when they question you before they put you on the jury? If so, then you weasel your balls off.

      If they're purposely going to do everything in their power to keep me from knowing about a concept that some SUPREME COURT JUSTICES have extolled the virtue of, why the fuck should I be honest with them?

      Maybe should be posting AC but fuck it.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    88. Re:How does one determine the difference... by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      To even joke about it

      Ha ha only serious

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    89. Re:How does one determine the difference... by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Where's Hagbard Celine when you need him? Only, er, with winning the court case, too.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    90. Re:How does one determine the difference... by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Assuming honor on the part of someone who has demonstrated themselves to not be honorable is folly.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    91. Re: How does one determine the difference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is not the truth, that is just your personal bias and perception speaking. Snowden returning to the US would be such a huge press event that being shipped off to Gitmo or tortured or any of that crap would never happen. And it wouldn't happen anyway. You're being a deluded cynic.

    92. Re:How does one determine the difference... by Xaedalus · · Score: 1

      Prove it. Show me news links that "Thousands of people in the US are held in indefinite detention". If they were, then NPR, Democracy Now, The Daily Show, MSNBC, and Fox would be screaming about it.

      --
      Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
    93. Re:How does one determine the difference... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      Actually the white house outed a CIA op last week

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    94. Re:How does one determine the difference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No he was not, he was changed with obstruction and making false statement for not recalling his schedule perfectly two years after the fact correctly.

    95. Re:How does one determine the difference... by NotDrWho · · Score: 2

      Every state in the union allows for pre-trial detention of criminals convicted of serious crimes. Every one of these detainees is held indefinitely. Theoretically, this is just temporary and they will receive speedy trial. In actual practice, they can be held for as long as the prosecutor wishes to stall. If they don't have a smart lawyer who files a speedy trial petition and they're not willing to accept a plea, this could be years. It could be a lifetime. That's why it's called "indefinite."

      You want proof? Head down to your nearest local or state pre-trial detention facility and see for yourself. You'll find a lot of people there who couldn't make bail and who couldn't afford decent lawyers, and who have no idea when (or even if) their case is actually going to be heard.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    96. Re:How does one determine the difference... by sjames · · Score: 1

      So when do they start prosecuting?

    97. Re:How does one determine the difference... by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      That depends how you define "public interest."

      The two variables in this case are "public safety" and "government transparency," and the one you value more largely determines how you view the issue.

    98. Re:How does one determine the difference... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      He escaped everything pre-Magna Carta style

      No, he escaped doing time for disclosing Valerie Plame's name to the press because it turns out that someone else is the person who did it. Try to keep up.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    99. Re:How does one determine the difference... by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      No. Charges are not authoritative. If they were, we wouldn't have trials.

    100. Re:How does one determine the difference... by sjames · · Score: 1

      See the indictment.

      The charges were in relation to his disclosure of the information. Yes, there was also some scapegoating going on.

    101. Re:How does one determine the difference... by bonehead · · Score: 1

      Any solution is better than no action, even if it may be the wrong one (almost).

      The fact that so many people sincerely believe this is a major underlying cause of most of our problems.

      Making things worse is most definitely NOT better than leaving things alone.

      I agree that things need to change, but care should be taken to ensure that they actually change for the better. It's foolish to advocate change for change's sake.

    102. Re:How does one determine the difference... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Read what I have said again.

    103. Re:How does one determine the difference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I'm selected for Jury service and go on a trial I'm going to have problems paying my bills, because my employer is not obligated to (and therefore doesn't) pay me at all while I'm out of work. If this was fixed I think people would a lot less reticent to perform their civic duty.

    104. Re:How does one determine the difference... by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Very often, you don't know what works until you fail a few times. In this case, nobody rational (in my opinion) is saying we have to dismantle the US and start over. The foundation of our Republic was extremely well thought out. What people are starting is that we must start cleaning house, and for that to happen it may take a bit of blood shed. Entrenched power does not normally like to lose their accumulated power.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    105. Re:How does one determine the difference... by Kreplock · · Score: 1

      To even joke about it shows a flippant disregard for the rule of law. Not only do you think there is no rule of law, but you don't even care if there is -- you're simply accepting it as fait accompli.

      I don't think that was flippant disregard, but growing disgust for the downward spiral into 3rd world style gov't, because there is no rule of law, only rule of some laws as they fit the policy of the person in office at a given time.

    106. Re:How does one determine the difference... by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Even then any whistleblower with half a brain would simultaneously release it to the freest presses belonging to America's strongest allies around the world.

      He wouldn't select just the Chinese state sponsored paper. That's absurd.

      He'd send it to journalists in Finland, Canada, New Zealand, Sweden, Iceland, the UK, France, Germanly, AND the United States. (even if the US was too afraid to do anything with it itself, it would still be released there, just to establish that it was attempting to reach the US public and the closest friends of the US -- because yes, despite the fact that the US is becoming a xenophobic bully it still has genuine allies)

    107. Re:How does one determine the difference... by phorm · · Score: 1

      And that's not even a locked-in jury like they have in big cases. Part of moving towards a fair court system is fair recompense for one's time. If being on a jury costs me being able to buy a big TV or possibly go to Mexico, I can live with that. If it costs me my house and possibly my marriage... not so good.

    108. Re:How does one determine the difference... by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      It's on the internet, so it must be true!

      Here's the rest of the story of "clear shipping bags." http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/...

      Unser was charged with a misdemeanor and fined $75, so... not a felony. Oh, the humanity!
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      "Honest Services" -- Oops, no example of "honest services" fraud. But it could happen! But it hasn't. (Note: I agree that we should be vigilant against potential abuses, but let's concern ourselves more with real abuses.)

      Espionage Act -- Another "didn't happen."

      Obstruction of Justice -- the lawyer admitted to a lapse in judgment by helping the church cover up the crime. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12...

      Computer Fraud and Abuse Act -- DID happen. My sympathies are with Bret McDanel. Notably, however, the Justice Department admitted error, his conviction was overturned, and a precedent has been set against future misapplication of the law.

      Wire Fraud -- Misattribution. Lori Drew was prosecuted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, though the conviction was overturned in this case as well. I think we all agree that the woman was knowingly malicious, however, and she did not "accidentally" commit a felony. It was important that the law not be used outside of the scope of its intended use though, which is why I'm glad the EFF filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant, even though what she did was horrible.

      Providing Material Support for Terrorism -- Another "no example," of misapplication, but one to watch out for. Though I think we all understand how laws are created and tested at this point.

      Making a False Statement to a Federal Official -- Terrible example. This guy was clearly trying to skirt the law and provide material support to militant jihadists. http://www.telegram.com/articl...

    109. Re:How does one determine the difference... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      That's kinda the issue -- a crankish libertarian former Ars Technica poster/current Russian agent is effectively nominated himself as US national security declassifer in chief, regardless of what our elected representatives or anyone else who's legally been given that job has to say about it.

      Well, apparently, he was the only person willing to blow the whistle when it was necessary, while all those elected representatives who have been "legally" given that job failed utterly at it.

      As for all the "Russian agent" BS, what evidence do you have? So far you just sound like a crankish conservative Free Republic poster.

    110. Re:How does one determine the difference... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      haha like the dems will stick to the same standard they had in the past. This guy wont get prosecuted, he will be given a raise

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    111. Re: How does one determine the difference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the average time to trial for them is?

    112. Re: How does one determine the difference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Outside the world of Slashdot, LOTS of people don't know who Snowden is.

      Or Bitcoin. Or Linux.

    113. Re:How does one determine the difference... by ChainedFei · · Score: 1

      What they should do is legislate that an employer must pay the employee double their current wage while on jury and then limit it to volunteering once or twice a year. The price of doing business in America is you support the balance of the legal system.

    114. Re: How does one determine the difference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Justice is subjective, like "fair".

      So we technically have an objective legal system, but I think it is reasonable for someone to call it a justice system in the same way they can call it fair, because those are both goals when writing the laws.

      If you feel the end result meets those goals, then call it a justice system.

    115. Re:How does one determine the difference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The biggest problem with general jury duty is it is unbounded.

      Indeed, we can go further and say that the right to not have one's time wasted is fundamental. This, after all, is why we outlaw kidnapping: it robs a person of a precious portion of a finite life.

      It is exceedingly foolish to claim, as the earlier poster did, that we need more participation in jury trials. This only makes sense if the time spent is not time wasted. Given the disastrous mess the US legal system has become over the years, this is extremely problematic.

      Just as the amount of a person's income the government can take should be reasonably bounded, so to should the amount of a person's time the government can take must be reasonably bounded.

      the jury only sees what all sides agree they should

      You are making a very dangerous assumption here, namely that what a group of legal professionals thinks the jury should see is a good determinant of what that jury should see.

      In many (but certainly not all) ordinary cases, this assumption might not cause much harm. But certainly if somebody like Snowdon were to be tried, this could be a big problem.

      Remember that the US Bill of Rights retains unspecified rights to the people (9th Amendment), and reserves unspecified rights to the people (10th Amendment).

      Now consider that "to the people" does not mean the same things as "to the people, but only with the permission and approval of the legal profession". A government of the lawyer, by the lawyer, and for the lawyer is not the same thing as one of the people, by the people, and for the people. Putting this in different words, legal professionals, as a class in society, are in a position of ethical conflict of interest with respect to the nature, scope, and form of the legal system.

      As a result of the legal professions ability to come to terms with this ethics problem, the US legal system is riddled with very serious ethics issues. You can read about this issue in many previous Slashdot posts, so I'll let you do the research.

      In some cases, trusting the legal profession to make the right judgements regarding what a jury should see, or to provide instructions to a jury, is going to be a very bad idea.

      There have been all sorts of miscarriages of justice over the years, and many of them come down the unwillingness of the legal profession (despite the adversarial relationship that theoretically exists between opposing sides) to act ethically. Consider, for example, the Jim Crow laws, and the willingness of the legal profession to enforce these clearly illegal laws (laws that violated fundamental rights arising under the 9th and 10th Amendments) for so many decades ...

    116. Re:How does one determine the difference... by 14erCleaner · · Score: 1

      The biggest problem with general jury duty is it is unbounded.

      IMO, the biggest problem is that the two sides get to reject jurors. If they just picked 12 random people without any challenges allowed, then required (say) only 10 of 12 to agree on the verdict, the system would work more efficiently and with less gaming. Maybe exceptions could be made for hardship or disruptive jurors could be ejected (and fined), but the current system is mostly gamesmanship. Lawyers don't want intelligent jurors, they want jurors they can manipulate.

      --
      Have you read my blog lately?
    117. Re:How does one determine the difference... by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      It's not that society doesn't want to avoid jury duty because of jury duty. It's because it messes up your life.

      You get paid $40/day for Jury Duty, and many employers don't pay for Jury Duty at all. For a typical middle-class American, you lose your $100-$200/day job for a $40/day ($5/hour) jury duty. You can't live on that much of a cut in pay.

      The solution here seems pretty obvious, but undoubtedly the usual suspects would cry "socialism!".

  2. Repatriation, yeah right. by rogoshen1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The only place he'd ever get repatriated to is Leavenworth (if they're being generous) or Gitmo (if they aren't).

    Poking the bear is bad enough, making the bear feel foolish (while continuing to poke) is unforgivable. In this case, the bear is not Russia. :(

    If they let him go free, or off with a light sentence, he'll have a new career as a public speaker, or activist against the NSA and surveillance. No way the government would allow that sentiment to have a publicly acceptable mouth piece.

    1. Re:Repatriation, yeah right. by RicoX9 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have a fair amount of confidence that if he were freed, we'd read an article about his sad, untimely death within a couple of years. You know, those strange suicides where they shot themselves 3 times in the head. Maybe a tragic car crash. The powers that be have good resources and plenty of plausible deniability.

    2. Re:Repatriation, yeah right. by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      That's true. Or read about how the taxi taking to the Moscow airport was found at the bottom of a river.

    3. Re:Repatriation, yeah right. by uCallHimDrJ0NES · · Score: 1

      He could just get so fat that he's considered unattractive on television, so only those who know how to listen pay attention to him. It's kept Michael Moore alive for years.

      --
      Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
    4. Re:Repatriation, yeah right. by fleebait · · Score: 1

      I have a fair amount of confidence that if he were freed, we'd read an article about his sad, untimely death within a couple of years. You know, those strange suicides where they shot themselves 3 times in the head. Maybe a tragic car crash. The powers that be have good resources and plenty of plausible deniability.

      I don't think it would take any "powers that be" to do the job.

    5. Re:Repatriation, yeah right. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      You mean like what happened in Fort Marcy Park? There is nothing new under the sun...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    6. Re:Repatriation, yeah right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a fair amount of confidence that if he were freed, we'd read an article about his sad, untimely death within a couple of years. You know, those strange suicides where they shot themselves 3 times in the head. Maybe a tragic car crash. The powers that be have good resources and plenty of plausible deniability.

      Couple of years?

      Try a couple of weeks.

      Or perhaps days.

      Like the government has anyone to answer to after they deny everything. You still act like We the People have jack shit to say about anything anymore.

    7. Re:Repatriation, yeah right. by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      The only place he'd ever get repatriated to is Leavenworth (if they're being generous) or Gitmo (if they aren't).

      Poking the bear is bad enough, making the bear feel foolish (while continuing to poke) is unforgivable. In this case, the bear is not Russia. :(

      If they let him go free, or off with a light sentence, he'll have a new career as a public speaker, or activist against the NSA and surveillance. No way the government would allow that sentiment to have a publicly acceptable mouth piece.

      Don't speak so fast. I suspect there will be at least one person running for office in the next election that would pardon him.

    8. Re:Repatriation, yeah right. by bobbied · · Score: 0

      The only place he'd ever get repatriated to is Leavenworth (if they're being generous) or Gitmo (if they aren't).

      I'd bet it's Leavenworth, assuming they let him live. The guy is now claiming "He was a spy" which means he is admitting to espionage. To me, that makes him no-longer a whistle-blower, but something quite different. He's admitting to being a traitor, which entitles him to a trial on charges that can carry some serious penalties, including death. I'd be surprised if they went for death, given he's still alive. Being in Russia is only an inconvenience to the US, if they wanted him dead, he'd be dead by now.

      My guess is that they want him for the information he has about what he took and where he stashed all the documents. Which means they want to get their hands on him for trial. Further, I'd bet he could cut a deal with them, given the public perceptions of him, especially if he can get them information that stops further documentation from going public.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    9. Re:Repatriation, yeah right. by Beck_Neard · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And of course the inevitable stories of how depressed and lonely he had become, and how he had become paranoid and anti-social and started doing drugs, before he decided to take his own life. And the media would be all over that shit.

      --
      A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
    10. Re:Repatriation, yeah right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't speak so fast. I suspect there will be at least one person running for office in the next election that would pardon him.

      Elizabeth Warren?

    11. Re:Repatriation, yeah right. by Edgewize · · Score: 4, Informative

      Are you high? He was trained and employed as a spy *by the US CIA*. He is not admitting to espionage, he's saying that whenever the NSA paints him as a hacker and a low-level IT guy, the NSA is lying. And the CIA has now confirmed that the government has known all along that it's telling lies about who Snowden really is.

    12. Re:Repatriation, yeah right. by FriendlyStatistician · · Score: 2

      I'd bet it's Leavenworth, assuming they let him live. The guy is now claiming "He was a spy" which means he is admitting to espionage. To me, that makes him no-longer a whistle-blower, but something quite different. He's admitting to being a traitor, which entitles him to a trial on charges that can carry some serious penalties, including death. I'd be surprised if they went for death, given he's still alive.

      He is claiming that he was trained and worked as a spy for the US government, not (as you seem to think) that he spied on the US government for a foreign power.

    13. Re:Repatriation, yeah right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If they let him go free, or off with a light sentence, he'll have a new career as a public speaker, or activist against the NSA and surveillance. No way the government would allow that sentiment to have a publicly acceptable mouth piece.

      So it is every upright American's patriotic duty to make sure the next government would allow, according to the spirit of the First Amendment of the Constitution and the idea of democratic control, such a publicly acceptable mouth piece.

      So you owe it to Snowden to vote for a third party next election. That's the least you can do in return for what he did for you.

    14. Re:Repatriation, yeah right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTFI. He said he was a spy for the USA you doofus. He said covert overseas operative for both CIA and NSA.

    15. Re:Repatriation, yeah right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reading comprehension failure. Go back, reread, then come back and correct yourself.

    16. Re:Repatriation, yeah right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They haven't killed Daniel Ellsberg.

      Which reminds me of a recent debate he had on Democracy Now with former NSA counsel on the topic of Snowden. Ellsberg brings up the important point that previously, several NSA veterans had brought up complaints through channels and in return, the government, without any real reason to suspect they broke rules or laws other than the fact they believed intelligence methods were becoming unethical, raided their homes and, in the case of Thomas Drake, threatened prosecution for documents they found in his home (after fishing for evidence, not that they already suspected he had them) which they claimed were classified, but were actually marked unclassified, which they then re-classified and tried to prosecute ex post facto. Fortunately, a judge not only threw the case out, but actually apologized to Drake, but only after the ordeal ruined his savings, reputation and career. This intelligence professional, committed to older NSA principles of not violating rights of Americans, now does consumer tech support at an Apple Store. It is in this context (which Ellsberg notes is necessary to acknowledge when discussing whistleblowing) that Snowden went beyond channels to inform the public.

      Frontline also recently did a two-part series on eavesdropping involving NSA, Drake, Snowden and even a complicit tech industry.

      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/united-states-of-secrets/#part-one---the-program

    17. Re:Repatriation, yeah right. by bobbied · · Score: 0

      OK. OK... Yep I missed that part, but...

      IF he was trained (which I doubt) He's even more responsible for the crime he committed. This guy is a traitor, plain and simple. But he wasn't trained as a spy by the NSA, he's making stuff up. But it's not the first time he's made stuff up.

      http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/nsa-releases-snowden-email-nbc-truth/story?id=23918598

      Folks may think Snowden is some good actor, but he is not. He's lying about a lot of his story and trying to wrap himself in patriotism in an effort to sway public opinion. At best, he's really really lucky to have his escape work so well, at worst, he's working for somebody who is using him who planned and is funding this whole side show.

      My guess is that he is just a pawn being used in a game he doesn't possibly understand. He is self important and feels entitled, and somehow thought that he didn't have to really exhaust the reporting options he had and that "going public" would overshadow his crimes. How he's into the deep end of the hot water pool and doesn't know how to swim. As soon as Putin grows tired of Snowden or he becomes a liability for Russia, they will throw him out on his ear and poor Snowden will have nothing. The only question is how long does Snowden have? I'm guessing, until January 20th of 2017...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    18. Re:Repatriation, yeah right. by iluvcapra · · Score: 0

      Oh, so he was a double agent then? Worse, he was playing a double game for his own agenda? This isn't getting better.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    19. Re:Repatriation, yeah right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No way the government would allow

      You should drop the slave mentality.

      http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5218031&cid=47125357

      pro-tip: Snowden cannot possibly end up in Gitmo.

    20. Re:Repatriation, yeah right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5218031&cid=47125357

    21. Re:Repatriation, yeah right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you referring to the depressed guy who shot himself and his death earned tens of millions of dollars in ad revenue for Rush Limbaugh and all the other AM radio crackpots and conspiracy theorists?

      His name escapes me too.

    22. Re:Repatriation, yeah right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's hope so.

    23. Re:Repatriation, yeah right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would like to point out that this country was founded by traitors.

    24. Re:Repatriation, yeah right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy is now claiming "He was a spy" which means he is admitting to espionage.

      You really are stupid.

      Snowden admitted to working in espionage for the US government,
      and in the US that is not a crime but a job.

      What you need to do now is shut the fuck up and read the comments
      which were written by people who are superior to you, which is basically
      everyone.

    25. Re: Repatriation, yeah right. by VTBlue · · Score: 1

      I think Daniel Ellsberg is doing okay :)

    26. Re:Repatriation, yeah right. by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Now that is a funneh!!

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    27. Re:Repatriation, yeah right. by s.petry · · Score: 1

      The guy is now claiming "He was a spy" which means he is admitting to espionage.

      You are making it sound like he's a liar and did something illegal, which is wrong and wrong again. The CIA admitted that Snowden worked directly for them, and the NSA admitted that he did send "at least one email to superiors" regarding legal concerns over policies and actions. So far he seems to have been honest about everything, unlike certain agency heads and politicians.

      I'm not saying that he would not be killed by some of the slime we currently have hiding behind the Government mind you, but that we should be trying to protect the guy because it's our legal obligation.

      Given the recent issues with the VA, I don't believe very many soldiers are going to be willing to go on a Snowden mission. Or try to protect him him if/when he comes back to the US. This is not a clear cut issue, and things are getting very messy with those slimy fucks hiding behind politicians. There is hope.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    28. Re:Repatriation, yeah right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > My guess

      Yep, that's about quality level of your entire analysis, but it sure does keep you warm at night though, right?
      Your so invested in hating the guy that you "missed that part" and got it 100% wrong. If you had anything approach an objective mind you wouldn't just have brushed off such an egregious misunderstanding, you'd take it as a sign that you need to start thinking a lot more critically. The easiest bullshit to believe is the bullshit we want to believe. Your hate-on for snowden shows us just how much your love of authority has warped your perceptions.

    29. Re:Repatriation, yeah right. by Zynder · · Score: 1

      Why do you seem to keep running this guy down? Who's side are you on? Are you happy that we now know the extent of what was really going on and being done to us? I sure am, not that I didn't know it was already going on, but confirmation is nice. I don't care who the guy is or isn't as long as the info is legit, and so far that seems the case. The only people, imho, that would be against this guy are folks who work in that industry. Is that your angle? You a defense contractor working on this kind of project? If you aren't then why do you think it was better that we didn't find out?

    30. Re:Repatriation, yeah right. by qeveren · · Score: 1

      Wait, you're taking the NSA's word on anything that has to do with this? Ahahahahahahaha oh god.

      --
      Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
    31. Re:Repatriation, yeah right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This Snowden interview has shown he really did all of this for his self-serving needs. He went on record claiming he was trained to be a spy, and then was made to be a "maintenance" contractor as part of his cover, get fuckin real. He is starting to believe the media's and other world leaders misinformed delusions as well as his own bullshit.

      John Kerry and this Government is also pathetically delusional, I would agree that Snowden probably wouldn't have been in much trouble because the information the Media/Press has reported are things the US public (at least 60%) had already known. Your not a whistle blower when the public is already well aware of a US lead International spying ring. I can promise you politicians were fully aware of everything going on, but played dumb, part of "the game" they like to play, even worse is they continue with the game and they know the public doesn't buy into it.

      As far as I know no secret workings such as the specifications of computers, algorithms, ect, ect, have been made public. And to everyone's knowledge Snowden didn't hand any of those secrets over to foreign governments, (I doubt he does have anything as to the inner workings). So the US should just STFU and allow the guy to continue with his centric ego trip. Their going to waste tax payers time and money over a guy who really didn't give anything away. It is already bad enough politicians are wasting millions in tax payers money over court battles, and infighting only to sabotage the country themselves and yet their getting away with it.

    32. Re:Repatriation, yeah right. by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      ...no, he was not a double agent.

      Where are you getting this?

    33. Re:Repatriation, yeah right. by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      This guy is a traitor, plain and simple.

      There's nothing plain nor simple about this story.

    34. Re:Repatriation, yeah right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They haven't killed Daniel Ellsberg.

      They were short of several molts those days. I mean the chicken shit Nixon had to take his hat over is done endemically these days under the pretense of legality and/or patriotism. The organized crime syndicate running the government has wised up and included the Department of "Justice" in its payroll.

    35. Re:Repatriation, yeah right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sure am, not that I didn't know it was already going on, but confirmation is nice.

      You should probably look up the words "know" and "suspect".

    36. Re:Repatriation, yeah right. by dbIII · · Score: 2

      Daniel Ellsberg made Johnson look bad while Nixon was in the White House elected on a platform of ending Johnson's war (that's what he'd promised anyway). While various spooks disliked him the administration of the time saw no immediate need to deal with him.
      Snowden however has seriously pissed off the current administration, which makes comparisons with Ellsberg somewhat naive.

    37. Re:Repatriation, yeah right. by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Seeing as you missed an incredibly salient part of this discussion, why on Earth should anyone listen to your hypotheses? Who's to say you didn't miss a few more words in all these stories and somehow think Snowden is some sort of time-travelling Communist robot from Mars. Your credibility is gone.

    38. Re:Repatriation, yeah right. by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      I don't think he's in the industry. There's simply a subset of America that is nationalistic. They truely believe that the NSA can be trusted, that they're fighting the good fight, that there are evil armies out there that can take down the USA, and that Snowden impacted the NSA's ability to keep them safe.

      He probably sees the scenario akin to someone blabbing about how we broke the Enigma cypher in the WWII. It's really more akin to someone busting Hoover's balls for COINTELPRO and impacting his ability to hunt the commie infiltrators. There really WERE communists infiltrating the USA, they just weren't that big of a problem.

    39. Re:Repatriation, yeah right. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      I won't disagree with you, but the men who formed our country tried to deal with the issues within the system first, and only after exhausting the legal options did they decide to rebel. Also, they fully understood and accepted that they would likely die in the attempt to secure their independence. Many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence where captured and killed. But the two points here are 1. They did everything they legally could first, and 2. Acknowledged and accepted the punishment for their crimes should their bid for independence failed.

      Snowden didn't exhaust the legal options he had, but went straight into violating the law by disclosing classified documents in an act of treason, in a vain attempt to preserve his freedom and life. There is no comparison.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    40. Re:Repatriation, yeah right. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Wait, you're taking the NSA's word on anything that has to do with this? Ahahahahahahaha oh god.

      And you take Snowden's word?

      The NSA activities have been fully reviewed and vetted by the administration and congress. You may not agree with their analysis, but they are NOT lying about what they do. What they do is a matter of record, some of that record is classified, but not disclosing stuff doesn't mean they are lying. Remember that they are subject to both congressional and administration oversight.

      Snowden, on the other hand, most likely has made up stuff (i.e. is lying) about things. Being a "trained spy"? Please... There are any number of things Snowden could have done to make his point that didn't involve leaking classified documents to the press.... Who's lying here?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  3. Snowden's lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    The part where Snowden claims he "tried to go through channels" is a lie, and he's trying to get out front of the NSA on it because they've "dumped" the one, low key, tangential email he wrote.

    The man that has dumped millions of documents has never produced any detailed paper trail documenting all these supposed attempts to "repeatedly" object to anything through "channels." The NSA has produced the one, single message they have. Of course it's not in their interest to show more, if it exists, but Snowden could show what he's got. The problem is he's got nothing.

    Just tell the truth. Stop the exaggerations about your "heroic" battle with the chain of command; it didn't happen. You did what you did and there is no need for pretense. Lying about it just damages your credibility and gives your detractors ammo. If you had tried to squabble with the NSA they'd have pulled your access and booted you out the door. We know that. Just stop lying about it.

    1. Re:Snowden's lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd honestly prefer that people not go through the 'proper channels', because when the government is violating the highest law of the land, or conducting immoral activities, it is the people that should be the first to know. Trying to tell government thugs of wrongdoings only jeopardizes the chances of successfully informing the people.

    2. Re:Snowden's lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? You're willingly ignoring evidence that doesn't fit your warped sense of reality?

      When will your type stop buying into the government propaganda and realize they are not your friend?

    3. Re:Snowden's lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      It is impossible for me to believe that Snowden, the guy that ripped the crown jewels out of the NSA and handed it to the world, conducted some righteous internal campaign to fight NSA criminality and have nothing beyond one fig leaf email to prove it. It's not plausible.

      My fanboi gland just doesn't have enough fluid to get me there. Sorry.

    4. Re:Snowden's lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      evidence

      What evidence?

      There isn't any evidence of Snowden "going through channels." The guy that blew up the NSA has got nothing—no paper trail, no document cache, nothing—to support his claim that he tried to fight NSA criminality through channels.

      What he did was great and historic. His lying about some noble internal struggle isn't so great. His credibility is all he really has now, and lying about this isn't useful.

    5. Re:Snowden's lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You said it yourself, you dope.

      The NSA has produced the one, single message they have.

      But we'll totally pretend that never happened because it would conflict with your preconceived notion that the government is here to protect you and that anyone that disagrees with that is obviously a terrorist!

    6. Re:Snowden's lies by xevioso · · Score: 1

      But you don't know that he lied about this. It may have been the case that he, as he said, mentioned this to higher ups in one form or another on multiple occasions and was told to shut up. It's not as though the NSA documents every single CONVERSATION its employees have while working. Snowden was under no obligation to actually document when he had these conversations or what they consisted of.

    7. Re:Snowden's lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      CONVERSATION

      His claim is that these "repeated" "objections" were "in writing". If you're not going to read the story then at least read the damn summary.

      The master whistle blower conducted an internal fight with NSA superiors IN WRITING and kept no copies? You'd have to paddle waaay up Fanboi River to buy that.

      So now that your one peg has been kicked out, what have you got left? The single email question about the legal force of EOs? That leaves you with the "repeated" and "objection" claims to cope with.

      Face it. He's lying.

    8. Re:Snowden's lies by qeveren · · Score: 1

      What would be the point of copies? You'd just then shout, "They're obviously faaaaaake!"

      --
      Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
  4. Re:But he did do it for his own gain by arbiter1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He has made no money in all this so how was it his own gain?

  5. Snowden's lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... And you know this, how?

    You're pretty sure of your own speculations.

  6. Re:But he did do it for his own gain by jareth-0205 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Otherwise he would have done it anonymously.

    You play games. If he had done it anonymously you would say "what has he got to hide? He must be a foreign agent!"

  7. Re: But he did do it for his own gain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Doing it anonymously didn't stop Bradley/Chelsea Manning from being prosecuted. Also, there's less plausibility for denial if there's someone is clearly an outspoken insider with verifiable access to privileged information.

    Coming up front with all this requires guts and he should be respected. Hell, even Slashdot calls us anonymous 'cowards'.

  8. Not the first interview by StripedCow · · Score: 1
    --
    If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
  9. First, he's a Patriot by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First, I'd like to say that he's a Patriot.

    There were a lot of things he could have told you that he hasn't.

    Second, if the US government would just follow the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, and stop spying on American citizens in America without individual court orders for individual American citizens, and instead focus on the actual sources of terrorism that we all know are the source: Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, and to a lesser extent Afghanistan, this would all go away.

    That said, I look forward to him being granted Amnesty by a free and independent 100 percent green energy Scotland soon.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:First, he's a Patriot by Rashdot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You make it sound like the rest of the world has no rights, which by the way seems to be the most prevalent American point of view.

      --
      This is not the sig you're looking for.
    2. Re:First, he's a Patriot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's reality.

      People outside of the USA have "no" rights. They are basically unaffected by American law, except in cases where America and the person's government have signed treaties to respect each other's law. Being outside of the jurisdiction of the United States means that they are not protected by American laws -- they have "no" rights -- but it also means that they cannot be prosecuted for failure to comply with American laws. A French man stealing from another French man in France cannot become an American criminal.

      This is a pretty basic concept. It's why nobody in their right mind cares about foreign citizens being spied upon.

      It doesn't affect them except as much as their feelings are hurt. There are some complications, obviously, namely that being caught spying is usually a crime with especially harsh penalties, and increased spy activity means more agents are placed in danger. Being caught also gives a foreign government the opportunity to grandstand and act insulted with varying degrees of honesty, but again, this isn't about a foreign citizen's "rights", it's about sovereign government's rights, and is dealt with on a diplomatic level.

      Of course, in this case, this is all moot because the USA wasn't actually caught doing anything. An American outed American efforts which were basically unknown to foreign governments, or known but allowed, and even after the fact there is not much proof of anything since so much of the NSA's domain is passive signals intelligence. ie, listening to people who speak too loud.

      This might be entirely different if the NSA listened to European mobile phones so that they could conduct corporate espionage and pass on the information to American businesses in order to gain competitive advantages over European businesses and, say, bankrupt Airbus so that Boeing would get more sales. But this doesn't appear to be the case, and it's incredibly doubtful that it ever would be.

      So yeah, in short, you're right. The rest of the world has no rights, because, by virtue of not being American, they are not granted American rights. Unless they're on American soil, of course, in which case they are assured to be protected under the US Constitution the same as any American would be, which is a step up from how most of the rest of the world treats foreign nationals on their own soil.

      Your government works for you. The American government works for Americans. If your government doesn't protect your interests as much as the American government guarantees it will protect the rights and interests of Americans, perhaps you should consider becoming an American citizen, or maybe handing over the keys to your country to the USG.

    3. Re:First, he's a Patriot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is the truth. The US does not need to grant any rights to foreigners. They have their own countries for that.

    4. Re:First, he's a Patriot by Xest · · Score: 1

      Scotland? You mean the country whose first minister forced the selling off of a Scotsman's land to Donald Trump counter to a vote of a local Scottish council and against the will of the majority of Scotts according to polls all so Trump could build a golf course on otherwise protected sand dunes? The same Salmond who has been desperately courting Rupert Murdoch for the past few years?

      If you think King Salmond wouldn't sell out Scotland to America within 10 seconds of becoming independent then you haven't been paying attention. Even more so if Spain blocks EU entry to discourage the idea of an independent Catalonia leaving it somewhat isolated from the EU.

      Salmond is an Atlanticist as much as any British Prime Minister has been. Strong relations with America including treaties to hand over people like Snowden and such will be his first port of call.

    5. Re:First, he's a Patriot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100 percent green energy Scotland soon.

      Which is calculating their high standard of living to be based upon the continued production of North Sea oil.

  10. Actual Facts by gurps_npc · · Score: 5, Insightful
    1) Snowden wrote a letter to his bosses complaining about US Spying before he left. They did not respond to it.

    2) Snowden revealed information about USA spying

    3) Snowden claimed it was in violation of US Constitution.

    4) As a result of Snowden's revelations, US collection has gone down. But there has been no terrorist event since then, so no one possibly have died because of his actions.

    5) US claims that because collection is down, Snowden damaged US security. Snowden claims that because no one died, he did not.

    6)Previously people objected within the US spying agencies about their actions - Snowden was not the first. No one in the agencies ever did anything about the complaints.

    If you believe the US did wrong, then Snowden is a patriot. If you believe the US did no wrong, then Snowden is a traitor.

    Opinions: from here on out. But honestly, this is a question not of action, but of political belief.

    Most importantly, the people in the espionage agency SHOULD be more paranoid than the general population. Otherwise they are in the wrong job. That also means they need to deal with the fact that the general population will NOT want and should NOT allow them to do everything they deem necessary for a safe country. I can make the world safe for children by locking all the children up in a cage till they turn 18. But we don't do that because life is worth the risk. Similarly, we should NOT be giving any spy agencies all the power they think they need. And when we catch them going overboard, they need to be reigned back in.

    All of which means that Snowden should be given the benefit of the doubt

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Actual Facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has the letter he written actually surfaced yet?

    2. Re:Actual Facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      check definition for rein and reign

    3. Re:Actual Facts by mmell · · Score: 0
      You forgot the one where he knowingly and intentionally violated the law. His acts were, by definition, espionage.

      Yes, he should get a reduced sentence because he was acting as a "whistle blower". Don't shoot him. Life imprisonment should suffice. Or is there anybody here naive enough to believe that other nations don't do this?

      (waiting for the flood of "my country xyz doens't do this!" claims. How would you know?)

    4. Re:Actual Facts by jelIomizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You forgot the one where he knowingly and intentionally violated the law. His acts were, by definition, espionage.

      If such a law exists, then it is unjust. Revealing the government's unconstitutional or immoral activities should not be a crime.

      Or is there anybody here naive enough to believe that other nations don't do this?

      Is anybody here illogical enough to believe that that makes any of it okay?

      And I live in the US, so I know my country does this.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:Actual Facts by tomhath · · Score: 1

      If you believe the US did wrong, then Snowden is a patriot. If you believe the US did no wrong, then Snowden is a traitor.

      There are more than two choices. Most people think the NSA probably didn't break any laws, but got uncomfortably close to doing so. Perhaps the laws should be clarified or made stricter. But Snowden unquestionably broke laws by revealing NSA operations that are clearly legal.

    6. Re:Actual Facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Read it here.

      It's a brief, general question about the legal force of executive orders. It does not object to any specific NSA activity. One email does not constitute "repeated" objections to anything.

      The GP is advocating the Bush dichotomy; you're with us or against us. It is actually possible to praise Snowden as a "patriot" and call him on his lies as well.

      What he did was great and monumental. He's also lying when he claims he waged some mighty struggle "through channels" within the NSA over their criminal activities. He didn't do that, and you know he didn't because if he had then the man that obsconded with gigabyes of NSA content would produce a "paper" trail showing he did it. He hasn't because he hasn't got one.

      And that's fine. He doesn't need one. He just needs to stop lying about it.

    7. Re:Actual Facts by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So what about the rest of the NSA? They're breaking the law every day, all day. What should we do about them?

      I'm not for touching Snowden with any legal repercussions of his actions until the NSA is held accountable for their violations of our Constitution and Bill of Rights and outright lying to congress under oath.

      You can't have it both ways, you can't say Snowden is a traitor and the NSA is not, and advocate for punishing one and not the other. The NSA is hugely more guilty of law breaking than Snowden could ever hope to be. When I see some bigwigs of the NSA behind bars, then I'll accept Snowden needs to serve some time (not life) for his supposed crime of enlightening the rest of us of the huge disregard for the law the NSA has shown.

    8. Re:Actual Facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Espionage: the practice of spying or of using spies, typically by governments to obtain political and military information.

      So, you're saying that Snowden was a foreign government spy sent to obtain political and/or military information and disclose it only to that foreign government that he worked for? Do you have any proof of that, or are you just making excuses for the US government which has been targeting you (and friends, and family, and everyone you've ever known), violating your privacy, freedoms, and protections against unreasonable search and seizure, among other rights?

      I don't know how you can even call yourself an American when you just willingly throw your rights away so easily without even getting upset about it.

    9. Re:Actual Facts by WaffleMonster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You forgot the one where he knowingly and intentionally violated the law.

      The US government knowingly and intentionally violated the law when it began to demand records of ALL calls made within the us and then began to LIE about it before congress where Alexander et al redefined the word "collect" and hoped nobody would parse his words carefully enough to notice.

      The patriot act DOES NOT even authorize this. Collecting information on EVERYONE cannot possibly be relevant to a specific authorized investigation.

      Don't shoot him. Life imprisonment should suffice. Or is there anybody here naive enough to believe that other nations don't do this?

      The only thing that matters is the US government broke US law without any repercussion. Surely this is indefensible and any "but mommy johnny did it too" defense is worthless.

      The same way the previous administrations "intelligence community" knowingly lied about the veracity of their Iraq WMD cover story prior to invasion of Iraq leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths with no repercussions.

      I want to see US government officials go to jail.. hell in the case of Iraq no reason executions should not be on the table. Once that happens lets talk about Snowden's transgressions...

      Legitimacy matters. If the state does not follow the law and is not held accountable it is foolish to expect the governed to show respect for law. I personally don't even care that what Snowden did is illegal... Wish I did but I don't.

    10. Re:Actual Facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The whole point of the USA is that we are supposed to be better than other nations by virtue of the government being of the people, by the people, for the people. We don't belong to the government. The government belongs to us. If the government violated the 4th Amendment who holds it accountable? If Snowden is wrong, why is Congress passing intelligence reform bills?

      I don't buy the idea that this is an absolute. If the government started assassinating citizens in a secret program it would be espionage to divulge it, but wouldn't you have a moral obligation to divulge it if you had the proof? I guess it depends on whether you believe that there is a greater good than the laws of the government.

    11. Re:Actual Facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1)

      4) As a result of Snowden's revelations, US collection has gone down. But there has been no terrorist event since then, so no one possibly have died because of his actions.

      No terrorist event since then except the Boston Bombing.....

    12. Re:Actual Facts by swillden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But Snowden unquestionably broke laws by revealing NSA operations that are clearly legal.

      Only if his revelation was unjustified.

      If someone breaks into your house and is about to shoot your child, but you shoot them first, and they die, you have committed murder (or at least manslaughter). But the law includes a general provision that lets you off the hook: justification. If you committed your crime in order to prevent a greater crime, the law does not hold you accountable.

      The principle of justification is a general one, which can and does override absolutely any other statute.

      The NSA was clearly perpetrating a greater crime upon the American people than Snowden did by revealing their crime.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    13. Re:Actual Facts by xevioso · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You don't know that he lied. The people who produced the document are the ones he exposed. It is not in their interests to show that Snowden was telling the truth, and so if there were other emails with more detailed concerns about NSA policy, they are unlikely to see the light of day.

      Why do you folks keep accusing him of lying when a single email has come out? Surely you realize the government does not stand to benefit by affirming the truth of what Snowden has said, and in fact has already accused him of lying. How can you be so silly to think they would actually release the emails Snowden says he sent, even if they have them?

    14. Re:Actual Facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      to think they would actually release the emails

      Reading comprehension issues....

      We expect the NSA to lie. We don't need to rely on the NSA to release anything.

      We look to Snowden for that; he's the master whistle blower. Where is the paper trail? Where are the names of the people to whom he claims he raised objections? Where has he provided anything other than claims that he did this? It is not plausible to imagine that Snowden kept nothing — not one scintilla of evidence that could possibly be scrutizined — that he was working "through channels" within the NSA. That dog don't hunt.

      One email != "repeated"
      One general question about EO's != "objections"

      He claims this happened "in writing." Where are the copies, digital or otherwise? To whom was this stuff written? Names please.

      It didn't happen. He didn't do what he claims. Right or wrong that's the reality and only fanbois will say otherwise.

    15. Re:Actual Facts by iluvcapra · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Is anybody here illogical enough to believe that that makes any of it okay?

      Why is Edward Snowden qualified to decide what's "okay"?

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    16. Re:Actual Facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Boston Bombing - April 15 2013
      Disclosures from Snowden begin 6 June 2013...

    17. Re:Actual Facts by dunkindave · · Score: 1

      As the AC said, following the airing of the interview, the NSA immediately searched for the "repeated" objections Snowden claimed he had raised, and they say all they found was one email, which they have released, wherein Snowden following reviewing training material asked about whether Executive Orders can override statutes. The GC's response was basically "no", laws trump orders.

      I foresee people will claim that the government is lying since they are they are the ones claiming that was what they found, and if Snowden is telling the truth they have a motive to cover it up. By definition, a conspiracy claim is difficult or impossible to disprove since any evidence produced to dispute it will be dismissed by the believers as a fabrication/lie, which is what I suspect will happen here too. The trouble is, and why conspiracies theories enjoy such life, is sometimes it is true (but I believe a rare occurrence, not a common one like how they tend to see the world). In this case though, there are a lot of people who would have access to the true information and can benefit from its release, like certain senators, so it doesn't make sense that the NSA would be lying here since they would be caught (cue the deniers who will say they destroyed the real emails so there is nothing to find, or that the all-powerful controlling entities behind the government will sit on their stooges to ensure this won't happen - I live with a conspiracy nut and know that you cannot use facts and reason to argue with them).

      And to say that after putting (overly) strict security in place not many bad things happened so it proves the security was unnecessary is specious since it presumes what the situation would have been had the extra effort not been spent, and that the spending didn't affect the outcome. "I built a really strong retaining wall behind my house, and after those torrential rains there wasn't any mudslide, so I must have wasted my money building the wall."

      What I do know is based on what Snowden claimed versus what the NSA released, I would give it Snowden 0, government 1.

    18. Re:Actual Facts by jelIomizer · · Score: 2

      Because he's a human being with an opinion, access to the constitution, and knowledge of privacy and human rights.

      Of you only want 'authority' figures to decide such things, may I suggest moving to a country that doesn't claim to want to be 'the land of the free and the home of the brave'?

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    19. Re:Actual Facts by iluvcapra · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You can't have it both ways, you can't say Snowden is a traitor and the NSA is not, and advocate for punishing one and not the other.

      Well, you can say Snowden was entitled to blow the whistle on PRISM, and that he shouldn't be punished for that. OTOH, he's a traitor for revealing the extent of US global surveillance, or any other programs which were not illegal. It's not unconstitutional to tap Angela Merkel's cellphone.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    20. Re:Actual Facts by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      Because he's a human being with an opinion, access to the constitution, and knowledge of privacy and human rights.

      But I disagree with him, I think it's completely appropriate for our country to spy on foreign leaders; I definitely would support the NSA recording every telephone call made in Afghanistan, we're fighting a war there, that kind of ability is awesome - awesome until he told everyone it was happening, having the effect of making it useless! Nobody tells me to think this way.

      George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Jim Clapper and Keith Alexander all had opinions, access to the Constitution, and knowledge of privacy and human rights, and they came to different conclusions too, wrong ones, surely, but they were at least as qualified as Edward Snowden. Are you sure you're not just special pleading for someone, just because he happens to agree with your prior beliefs?

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    21. Re:Actual Facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you believe the US did wrong, then Snowden is a patriot. If you believe the US did no wrong, then Snowden is a traitor.

      This is a false dichotomy. Benedict Arnold is one of the biggest American patriots there ever was, and look at how he is remembered.

    22. Re:Actual Facts by jelIomizer · · Score: 1

      But I disagree with him, I think it's completely appropriate for our country to spy on foreign leaders; I definitely would support the NSA recording every telephone call made in Afghanistan

      Then you're an authoritarian asshole; not much more to say. I believe we should also take into account human rights to the best of our ability, even if those people live in another country. I don't think we have any business spying on allies, no matter whether or not other countries do it.

      George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Jim Clapper and Keith Alexander all had opinions, access to the Constitution, and knowledge of privacy and human rights

      They have knowledge, but they're anti-freedom scumbags, as this whole affair has proven.

      but they were at least as qualified as Edward Snowden.

      They've shown that that is not so.

      Are you sure you're not just special pleading for someone, just because he happens to agree with your prior beliefs?

      I'm not the one stating you need 'qualifications.' I merely listed some reasons you might think he had them, but apparently you don't buy it.

      To begin with, the part of my post you replied to basically indicated that something is not necessarily okay just because other people do it; that's basic logic. That part of my post had little to do with Snowden.

      And are you sure you're not merely a government cheerleader?

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    23. Re:Actual Facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If such a law exists, then it is unjust. Revealing the government's unconstitutional or immoral activities should not be a crime.

      Revealing the government's unconstitutional or immoral activities doesn't suddenly grant you immunity from the law for every other action you take in your lifetime.

    24. Re:Actual Facts by jelIomizer · · Score: 1

      No one said anything about every other action he takes in his lifetime; just the part about leaking information.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    25. Re:Actual Facts by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      I believe we should also take into account human rights to the best of our ability, even if those people live in another country.

      To be honest I think this position is excessively idealistic.

      And are you sure you're not merely a government cheerleader?

      I think governments can be legitimate institutions, and even when they aren't, the rights of their constituents, let alone their opinions, their votes, and their moral attachments, are at least as important as one man's moral crusade to make the world into what he thinks it should be. Who elected this guy?

      At least someone voted for Barack Obama; when he does wrong he can say with total accuracy, "this is the job you elected me to do," and the people must concede, setting aside all the demerits, "yep we did." Edward Snowden is a self-appointed international morality cop, he's completely beyond all responsibility, let alone accountability, to anyone for what he does.

      He can say he does things on behalf of "the people," but these are the kinds of empty promises governments make too, and it's not like he'd dare chance the kind of justice "the people" might give him -- he trusts us to be able to analyze a decade of the NSAs dirty laundry, but he doesn't trust that we'd see he'd have a fair trial. When it comes to actually trusting the American people to come through and deliver on their own ideals, he'd rather take his chances with Putin.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    26. Re:Actual Facts by jelIomizer · · Score: 1

      To be honest I think this position is excessively idealistic.

      The "land of the free and the home of the brave" is all about ideals and freedom. Or... it's supposed to be.

      What's stupid is trusting the government at all.

      I think governments can be legitimate institutions, and even when they aren't, the rights of their constituents, let alone their opinions, their votes, and their moral attachments, are at least as important as one man's moral crusade to make the world into what he thinks it should be.

      We live in a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy. Popularity != morality. Etc. I'm not sure what your point is. If we really want to live in "the land of the free and the home of the brave," citizens have a *duty* to leak information if the government is doing wrong. As for what's wrong, individuals decide that and take the chance. Maybe we won't agree with every leaker's opinions 100%, but we don't need to, as banning such leaks all the time is just insane.

      I would rather lose 'safety' (In this case, have people leak things that 'shouldn't' be leaked.) than stop these leaks just because some asshole elected representatives don't want hoi polloi knowing what they're doing.

      but he doesn't trust that we'd see he'd have a fair trial.

      He doesn't trust the US government. And no, just because someone voted for someone, that doesn't mean they agree with the candidate 100%. Thanks to our two party system, voting for someone just means that they're the 'lesser of two evils', and more often than not, people vote for evil scumbags.

      When it comes to actually trusting the American people to come through and deliver on their own ideals, he'd rather take his chances with Putin.

      That's actually a good idea, sadly. The American people are stuck in the mentality that they need to vote for 'the lesser of the two evils', which allows the government to distract people with 'hot topics' like abortion, gay marriage, etc., while making them ignore all the other important issues. The result is that it's very fucking difficult to actually reign in on these thugs.

      So yeah, it's a pretty good bet. At the very least, Russia isn't currently pissed off at him, so there's that.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    27. Re:Actual Facts by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      but he doesn't trust that we'd see he'd have a fair trial.

      He doesn't trust the US government. And no, just because someone voted for someone, that doesn't mean they agree with the candidate 100%.

      We're responsible for the fairness of our trials, not our government. The government isn't some foreign occupier that imposes its justice on us. YOU were the one downthread who was arguing that we're obliged to know everything the government does, because we're responsible for what it does on our behalf. Either we're responsible for what our government does, thus we must know everything it does, or we aren't responsible, so we have no duty to know. If we must know, we ar responsible, so we are responsible for the fairness of Edward Snowden's trial.

      This would make sense if Snowden had an iota of respect for the American people's wisdom and discernment, as opposed to his doctrinaire ideology, but as you intimate, he probably doesn't:

      When it comes to actually trusting the American people to come through and deliver on their own ideals, he'd rather take his chances with Putin.

      That's actually a good idea, sadly. The American people are stuck in the mentality that they need to vote for 'the lesser of the two evils', which allows the government to distract people with 'hot topics' like abortion, gay marriage, etc., while making them ignore all the other important issues.

      Exactly, he thinks we're moronic sheeple that must be lead by the nose to his morally superior position. This is why his argument is ultimately irreconcilable with his actions -- he says he made his disclosures to encourage debate and to let people know what's really happening, but he's unwilling to stand trial because he's reasonably sure that while people are upset with PRISM, they're probably just fine with the NSAs global surveillance in general, a program that he has utterly betrayed. He says he does this on our behalf, but he won't dare take the chance we won't be grateful. You cannot claim to be an idealistic American while fighting for American ideals from a Moscow safe house.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    28. Re:Actual Facts by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      Again it's like this total double-bind. If you think that there's a good chance that people won't properly debate the NSA after you've released the information, if you don't trust the American people to take it all in and take responsible steps one way or the other, there's absolutely no reason to release the information in the first place.

      Unless, of course, you're motivated by pique and a desire to embarrass powerful people and institutions, because you're a radical that just likes to break things.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    29. Re:Actual Facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > OTOH, he's a traitor for revealing the extent of US global surveillance, or any other programs which were not illegal.

      Really? Just what has revealed that was so surprising? You don't think Merkel knew she was a target? Of course she did. All that is just political maneuvering. Nothing that Snowden has revealed that was purely international spying was a surprise to any half-decent intelligence agency. It was just embarrassing for the US to have it confirmed in public instead of behind closed doors. Embarrasing the government is not a crime, not even immoral.

    30. Re:Actual Facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Where is the paper trail?

      Maybe its yet to come in the dump that Greenwald has. But it probably isn't because when he took off he wasn't focused on a theoretical political food-fight a year later. He was focused on the details of the actual crimes. His own participation was nothing special, he didn't expect to have to "show the work" when the evidence of the actual crimes ought to be enough.

      You expect the guy to have perfect forethought, hell you even called him "the master whistleblower" which based on the interview isn't even remotely how he sees himself. But you are willing to give the US government a gynormous pass on all their slack. So, the one lone guy must live up to an unreachable standard but the organization with trillions of dollars its disposal can fuck up over and over and over again.

      You really should get that love authority checked out. It may not be contagious but it sure puts a lot of people into a vegetative state.

    31. Re:Actual Facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You did. He revealed unconstitutional or immoral activities, so he should get a pass for giving away information to foreign governments about the USA's perfectly legal and moral activities.

      There's no real justification for divulging information on the NSA's activities in foreign intelligence. There's no reason to give him a pass on it, either.

    32. Re:Actual Facts by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

      You can't have it both ways, you can't say Snowden is a traitor and the NSA is not, and advocate for punishing one and not the other.

      Well, you can say Snowden was entitled to blow the whistle on PRISM, and that he shouldn't be punished for that. OTOH, he's a traitor for revealing the extent of US global surveillance, or any other programs which were not illegal. It's not unconstitutional to tap Angela Merkel's cellphone.

      Again, what about the NSA? Snowden broke the law, no question there. The NSA not only broke the law, they're still at it, every day. How can you advocate punishing Snowden while the NSA continues to break the law? At least Snowden is done with his law breaking.

    33. Re:Actual Facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > there are a lot of people who would have access to the true information and can benefit from its release, like certain senators,

      huh? really? after all that shit about the CIA claiming feinstein's staffers stole files from them and how the agencies have been stonewalling the oversight committees for years and you still think these senators are going to have easy access to documents that can ruin careers of the people who control the documents? Want to bet that no one on the oversight committee even knew about the email that the NSA did release until today?

      Look, I thought you were doing really well with your analysis of the game theory driving conspiracy theories. But your conclusions are based on reasoning that is at least as weak as any conspiracy theory.

    34. Re:Actual Facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not unconstitutional to tap Angela Merkel's cellphone.

      Really? Let's take a look:

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      I'm trying to find the part in there that says "except foreigners". Care to help me out?

    35. Re: Actual Facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AC is obvious government shill, they are everywhere in this thread. Fuck Americans are stupid

    36. Re:Actual Facts by jelIomizer · · Score: 1

      We're responsible for the fairness of our trials, not our government.

      We're responsible to the extent that we should vote for the right people (which I believe I do, as I do not vote for Republicans or Democrats), but that doesn't mean the trials will be fair. The fact is, our two party system makes government abuse easy.

      Either we're responsible for what our government does, thus we must know everything it does, or we aren't responsible, so we have no duty to know.

      We have a right to know what our government is doing, and the people voting for these idiots are responsible, but that does not mean they agree with their candidates 100%.

      This idea that either we're responsible for the fairness of our trials and information should be leaked, or that we're not responsible at all and the information shouldn't be leaked, is merely a false dichotomy.

      This would make sense if Snowden had an iota of respect for the American people's wisdom and discernment

      Considering the situation, why would anyone have an iota of respect for the ignorant general public? I don't. Whether he does or doesn't is irrelevant to the fact that there are people who care, and giving them all the details of what the government is doing wrong is, to me, welcome. Maybe some of the ignoramuses will come around, even.

      This is why his argument is ultimately irreconcilable with his actions -- he says he made his disclosures to encourage debate and to let people know what's really happening

      Another false dichotomy you're setting up. It is possible to believe that the general public is being fooled by the government or is ignorant, and still believe that there is a non-zero chance that positive change could happen if things are leaked.

      You cannot claim to be an idealistic American while fighting for American ideals from a Moscow safe house.

      In fact, you can. He's done a lot more than you government cheerleaders.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    37. Re:Actual Facts by jelIomizer · · Score: 1

      Who modded this authoritarian up?

      You did. He revealed unconstitutional or immoral activities, so he should get a pass for giving away information to foreign governments about the USA's perfectly legal and moral activities.

      That is not the same thing as saying that he should be able to break just about any law he pleases, as your straw man implied. I said that revealing the government's abuses should not be against the law. Period. The end.

      And spying on innocents is not moral, as people have human rights no matter where they're from. Screw you. You don't really believe in the ideals this nation is supposed to aspire to.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    38. Re:Actual Facts by dunkindave · · Score: 1
      A fundamental problem that conspiracy people have is they leap from what is possible to the belief of what is true without looking at what is probable. You can't prove their theory is impossible, or if you can they will dismiss the proof, and so they will use their certainty as their proof, which means it is a pointless discussion since their criteria isn't based in facts or logic.

      Now lets look at the situation with Snowden.
      • - Are the intelligence agencies always forthcoming with damaging information? No, same as with anyone I suppose.
      • - Are there instances where they have played games - and been caught? Yes.
      • - Are there times they have played games and not been caught? Obviously this cannot be answered with absolute certainty, but probably yes.
      • - Does the fact such occurrences exist prove that they are lying now and Snowden isn't lying/fudging/spinning in order to help himself? Namely, Snowden doing the same thing, and for the same kind of reasons, you are claiming the NSA is doing? No, and this is where the flaw lies in the logic of many people. It doesn't PROVE either side is lying, but it does give suggestions of who is.

      The reasoning I propose is that the person sitting in Moscow, who would like to live a life not always looking over his shoulder, and has a deep-seated need to be seen as a patriot as opposed to a traitor, has a motive to lie and spin. This is the same logic others present as their proof why it must be the NSA that is lying. Why does it work one way and not the other? Let's look at some more facts.

      Snowden says he "repeatedly" objected to the NSA's operations, yet the NSA says all they can find is an email where he submits a question about what he saw as an implication in training material that an Executive Order can override a statute. To me that isn't an objection, it is a question. Others say "see, the NSA said they looked he never raised any objections, but now they admit they lied since here is the email they now seem to be able to find", which of course is also spin since this email isn't an objection, just a question, so again people see what they want to see. As others have said, Snowden kept and has released a lot of documents, so it doesn't make sense that if he really sent the "repeated" objections he claims, he wouldn't also have copies of those that he could also release, yet now that he is being challenged, all he does is claim he did but doesn't present anything to back up his statements. Which sounds more likely, the NSA found multiple emails but chose to only release the one that seemed innocuous, or Snowden did send multiple objections, but despite planning on sabotaging the US Intelligence industry and fleeing the country where he would have to defend himself from afar forgot to keep any copies of the documents he feels support his case?

      Also, a few other facts to consider. Snowden deliberately obtained the positions for the purpose of gaining access to the classified information, then released a large quantity of classified documents to foreign reporters which contain a lot more information than just about spying on Americans, but also about US and US allies data collections against other targets around the world. This seems to be contrary to his stated purpose. Also, all the information reveals collection activities by the US and allies, but given the access he had, he also had access to reports and presentations about the detected spying that other countries are doing against the US yet he appears to have chosen NOT to release that information. Why? Here is my theory - Snowden's goal was to harm the US Intelligence agencies, not curb what he saw as overreach by them. He wants the US, but not China, Russia, Iran, ..., to lose the ability to collect data about what others are doing, not to reform the system. Why he wants that has too many possibilities for me to guess at.

      Unfortunately the intelligence game is an asymmetric system. We didn't

    39. Re:Actual Facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hhhm, you are doing that thing where your original premise was demonstrated to be false so instead of re-evaluating your reasoning based on this new information you discard the whole thing completely and just go searching for more rationalizations to come to the same conclusion via a different path. I didn't respond to you to argue about snowden's veracity or not - my goal was simply to show the poor reasoning by which you came to your original conclusion.

      I'm really not interested in your new theoreis, I don't have the energy to research them. It's just that your original theory was based on ideas I already knew to have been proven false - namely that any senator has easy access to internal NSA documents. That's why I had those links handy, I had read them long ago.

      However, the one thing your response does show is that you aren't looking for truth, you are just interested in advocating a point of view. I suggest you consider owning that rather than trying to obfuscate it with Sheldon Cooperisms.

      And I recommend that you not waste your time responding. Since I'm not interested in advocacy I'll be closing this tab after this post and since I don't have an account I'll never find the sub-thread again.

    40. Re:Actual Facts by Lakitu · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but you're backtracking. Here's the original:

      You forgot the one where he knowingly and intentionally violated the law. His acts were, by definition, espionage.

      If such a law exists, then it is unjust. Revealing the government's unconstitutional or immoral activities should not be a crime.

      He revealed domestic spying in the form of telephone metadata, which you think should not be a crime because of its unconstitutional or immoral nature. He also revealed US government intelligence activities on foreign targets, which is both moral and constitutional. Doing one does not absolve him of the other, no matter how hard you wish to imply it.

      And spying on innocents is not moral, as people have human rights no matter where they're from. Screw you. You don't really believe in the ideals this nation is supposed to aspire to.

      Remember the Emailocaust, when the Nazis read the letters of 6 million Polish Jews? Wait, no, it was that other thing they did.

      If you want non-Americans to be protected by things like the American Bill of Rights, then they have to abide by some other rules, too. Pretty sure that the universal jurisdiction which you're arguing for in order for that to happen is much more authoritarian than anything I've ever done. It will also get you laughed out of any other country you suggest it in. Pretty hilarious that you think the solution to the world's problems is expanding American rule of law.

      You should probably just let other peoples' governments speak for themselves. I'll spoil their answer for you: they think spying is impolite at worst, not some tragic human rights violation.

    41. Re: Actual Facts by Lakitu · · Score: 1

      hey buddy, I logged in for you. I'll have the NSA let me know when you have something to say!

    42. Re:Actual Facts by Lakitu · · Score: 1

      I'll help you out. It's the same part that says no Warrants shall issue for Angela Merkel or her cellphone to be seized by the US Government. Or any other German who's not on American soil, for that matter.

      They're not protected by the Bill of Rights because they are not under American jurisdiction. Do you really think the USG should be able to get a warrant in an American court, granted by American judges, for American law enforcement to search Angela Merkel's cell phone?

    43. Re:Actual Facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of which means that Snowden should be given the benefit of the doubt

      Why? There is no doubt about Clapper et al about lying perjuring and breaking the law of the land all over without consequence. I see no point in thinking what to do about Snowden as long as we don't even mind the mess lying on our doorstep.

    44. Re:Actual Facts by Lakitu · · Score: 1

      Legitimacy matters. If the state does not follow the law and is not held accountable it is foolish to expect the governed to show respect for law. I personally don't even care that what Snowden did is illegal... Wish I did but I don't.

      I think it's perfectly reasonable not to care if everything you said above it is true. The major thing punishing him does is serve as a deterrent for people doing stupid things in the future, like how he gave foreign governments a huge amount of leverage to use against the USA and its people. But that's also served by the threat of his punishment since his predicament is so well known.

      It would be different to argue for clemency for everything he did, and wishing for some people to be punished while he got off scot-free. As long as you don't believe that, you have a pretty sturdy moral ground to stand on.

    45. Re:Actual Facts by dcollins · · Score: 1

      "Or is there anybody here naive enough to believe that other nations don't do this?"

      I believe there's quite a few nations that don't even have the technical capacity to record and search every citizen's phone, email, video, and text communications. Of course the U.S. was first in that regard.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    46. Re:Actual Facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're not protected by the Bill of Rights because they are not under American jurisdiction.

      If you're not under American jurisdiction, that means the American government has no authority over you, and therefore doesn't have the power to conduct a search on you.

      Also, your view of the Bill of Rights, while common, is wildly inaccurate. The Bill of Rights isn't a list of rights that are "given" to Americans; it's a list of restrictions on what the government can do. One of those restrictions is on conducting unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant, and that restriction does not include an exception for people outside the US.

      Surely you're not going to seriously claim that the US can have authority to operate outside of its borders while simultaneously being free of all restrictions on that authority. You can't have it both ways; anywhere the US has legitimate power, it has Constitutional limits on that power.

      Do you really think the USG should be able to get a warrant in an American court, granted by American judges, for American law enforcement to search Angela Merkel's cell phone?

      What I think is that the USG should (and according to the highest law of the land, does) have to get a warrant in an American court if they want to search someone's phone. Anyone's, anywhere. Unless we're at war with the person in question, failure to do so is illegal.

    47. Re:Actual Facts by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      If you think that there's a good chance that people won't properly debate the NSA after you've released the information, if you don't trust the American people to take it all in and take responsible steps one way or the other, there's absolutely no reason to release the information in the first place

      There is if you think leaking the information is just the beginning, and over coming decades there is a chance that the public by analyzing this information will vote and behave appropriately to improve the freedom situation.

      Meanwhile, one can still distrust NSLs, gitmos, lack of a trial, secret trial etc.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    48. Re:Actual Facts by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      > You forgot the one where he knowingly and intentionally violated the law.

      So did Rosa Parks.

      Maybe more relevant examples of such law breakers would be Ben Franklin, or Daniel Ellsberg?

    49. Re:Actual Facts by tomhath · · Score: 2

      If someone breaks into your house and is about to shoot your child, but you shoot them first, and they die, you have committed murder (or at least manslaughter).

      Wrong, in that case you haven't committed murder or manslaughter.

      NSA was clearly perpetrating a greater crime

      That's not clear to me at all. And even if it was true, expanding on your analogy - I can't shoot someone outside my house who is trying to steal my car. Whether or not Snowden should have exposed questionable practices by the NSA, he should have stopped there.

    50. Re:Actual Facts by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Why is Edward Snowden qualified to decide what's "okay"?

      He was the man on the spot that saw things were not as they should be and did something about it. That is what being a grown up is supposed to be kiddies.

    51. Re:Actual Facts by swillden · · Score: 1

      If someone breaks into your house and is about to shoot your child, but you shoot them first, and they die, you have committed murder (or at least manslaughter).

      Wrong, in that case you haven't committed murder or manslaughter.

      But only because of the principle of justification. If you read the criminal code of a state, you'll find that the statutes covering murder and manslaughter don't make any allowances for such situations, but there is a separate statute that defines justification as a general concept that overrides all of the rest of the criminal code. Often there's also a statute that specifically addresses justification in the context of use of deadly force, but that's just to clarify the corner cases, and not all criminal codes bother with it.

      NSA was clearly perpetrating a greater crime

      That's not clear to me at all.

      If you can't see that, then we probably have nothing to talk about.

      And even if it was true, expanding on your analogy - I can't shoot someone outside my house who is trying to steal my car. Whether or not Snowden should have exposed questionable practices by the NSA, he should have stopped there.

      You're presuming he had the option of picking and choosing what to reveal. He didn't. He took a mass of data and then had to decide what to do with it. He had no way of knowing that what he took wouldn't be discovered, so he had to act quickly to get out of the reach of the government. I mean, he could have just thrown himself on the government's mercy, but he was already proving that the government had been habitually violating the law, so that would have been stupid. So he didn't have time to go through the data himself before fleeing.

      In escaping, though, it would also have been very unwise for him to retain possession of the data, particularly since he didn't want to simply hand it all over to the Chinese (not being a traitor). So, he took what I think was his only sensible course: He delivered the entire body of data to a reputable journalist -- one beyond the easy reach of government influence -- and then fled.

      And, actually the Guardian has been responsible with their revelations. Although they published information about legal activities by the NSA which arguably didn't need to be published, they were careful not to reveal too much about methods and not to endanger any human assets.

      So at the end of the day stuff was revealed that didn't need to be, but it was a relatively minor cost compared to the value obtained by revealing what we needed to know. I wrote more about that tradeoff in this post.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    52. Re:Actual Facts by dave420 · · Score: 1

      So it's OK to send a possibly-innocent person to prison as long as it serves as a deterrent to other people who might think of committing things which are possibly crimes? Your logic is disgustingly lazy. He gave no "huge amount of leverage" to anyone, except the press he worked with, and they have been incredibly restrained in their actions. You are screaming to eliminate due process when you want to, because of some issue you've concocted in your own head. You suck at thinking, and even being a human.

    53. Re:Actual Facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > You forgot the one where he knowingly and intentionally violated the law.

      So did Rosa Parks.

      Maybe more relevant examples of such law breakers would be Ben Franklin, or Daniel Ellsberg?

      For this crowd?

      Aaron Swartz.

    54. Re:Actual Facts by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Or they could have just lost the emails. Not like government bureaucracy ever does that.

      That they may want to specifically keep records of everything does not mean that they are always successful.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    55. Re:Actual Facts by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Because he's a citizen and last I heard, this was SUPPOSED to be a democracy! (republic, whatever)

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    56. Re:Actual Facts by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      At least someone voted for Barack Obama; when he does wrong he can say with total accuracy, "this is the job you elected me to do," and the people must concede, setting aside all the demerits, "yep we did."

      That's a total cop-out. By that logic, we elected Bush because we wanted him to start wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That we elected someone does not give them a free pass to fuck everything up and say it's our fault.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    57. Re:Actual Facts by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      That we elected someone does not give them a free pass to fuck everything up and say it's our fault.

      It might not be our "fault," implying moral or direct culpability, but as citizens of a republic, the actions of our government are our responsibility, even if we didn't vote for the guy, even if we didn't vote at all. We have elections and we agree to be bound by the rules of them, and we confer great powers upon the people that win elections.

      Do votes hold zero consequence for voters? If an elected leader does poorly, is it always just his fault, and the voters don't have to reconsider anything?

      (I would add that, in the case of Bush, it's pretty clear the voters did want him to start wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, considering they reelected him by a healthy margin subsequent to those events, so I'm not even sure your concrete example applies. He didn't "fuck things up," he gave people pretty much what they wanted, they just wanted really fucked up things.)

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    58. Re:Actual Facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not clear to me at all. And even if it was true, expanding on your analogy - I can't shoot someone outside my house who is trying to steal my car.

      obviously stealing a car is not a greater crime than manslaughter

      and you haven't committed murder or manslaughter because of the principle of justification

      also your final sentence doesn't make any sense.

    59. Re:Actual Facts by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Electing someone on a campaign platform of doing X and then they don't do X is much more directly applicable, I suppose. Doing Y, which they neither said they would nor wouldn't do, isn't a breach of trust until it becomes a sufficiently large issue. If we elect them and don't like what we do, then we (in theory) vote them out. I'm starting to think that my initial reaction was a bit knee-jerk-y as I can't come up with a good reason other than my usual spiel about only having two choices and both of them sucking, so maybe I should just stop. I'm sure the exasperation is evident anyway.

      (I would add that, in the case of Bush, it's pretty clear the voters did want him to start wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, considering they reelected him by a healthy margin subsequent to those events, so I'm not even sure your concrete example applies. He didn't "fuck things up," he gave people pretty much what they wanted, they just wanted really fucked up things.)

      And it depends on who we define as "they"--voters, or corporate interests/organizations etc. who convinced voters/those already in power to think/act their way. But I'm falling into the "underestimating the stupidity of others" trap.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    60. Re:Actual Facts by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      We have a right to know what our government is doing, and the people voting for these idiots are responsible, but that does not mean they agree with their candidates 100%.

      I don't see what "agreeing" with a candidate's actions has to do with it, we're responsible wether we agree or not. We're responsible regardless of who we vote for, or even if we vote or not. If you're a citizen, you're responsible -- if you don't like the candidates, you're responsible for changing the system to produce better candidates. Nobody else is going to do it. It's counterproductive and obnoxious to always vote for some marginal third-party and loudly assert "none of this is MY fault!" Your job is bigger than just turning in a ballot.

      Did you ever consider why third parties in the US always lose? A protip: if your theory of politics insists that commanding majorities of people are persistently lazy, stupid or evil, you've got a bad theory.

      Considering the situation, why would anyone have an iota of respect for the ignorant general public?

      This sentiment seems completely at odds with his stated intentions. Again, if your theory of politics...

      Another false dichotomy you're setting up. It is possible to believe that the general public is being fooled by the government or is ignorant, and still believe that there is a non-zero chance that positive change could happen if things are leaked.

      I think this chance is significantly lessened by his refusal to stand trial, and his insistence on disclosing information that's patently intended to weaken the data collection of western powers to the benefit of his benefactor, Russia. His loyalty and intentions are definitely in question -- his actions are either fantastically principled, or he's epic trolling all of us. Most epic trolls, however, tend to lose track of exactly how serious they are and how much they're trolling. In this sense I agree with you, and Snowden is definitely not one thing or the other, though I suspect he's so deluded that even he isn't sure how much he's serious and how much he's just doing this to troll authority.

      Insofar as he's leaking classified information just to tr0ll authority, though, he definitely belongs in jail.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    61. Re:Actual Facts by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      To be honest I'm not actually sure the NSA is breaking the law, they've got FISA rulings, the Protect America Act 2007 and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, all of which basically legitimize the known aspects of PRISM -- PRISM's who schtick is basically implementation of Title 50 USC 1881a. I don't think these laws are constitutional or legitimitate, but we'd need new law or a constitutional amendment to clear the air, because a lot of lawyers (and the SCOTUS for that matter) seem to disagree with me.

      How can you advocate punishing Snowden while the NSA continues to break the law? At least Snowden is done with his law breaking.

      I would definitely advocate trying Snowden.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    62. Re:Actual Facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another good question. Why can't you shoot someone outside your house that is stealing your car?

    63. Re:Actual Facts by jelIomizer · · Score: 1

      He also revealed US government intelligence activities on foreign targets, which is both moral and constitutional.

      You're the one who thinks it's moral; I don't. I believe everyone has rights.

      Remember the Emailocaust, when the Nazis read the letters of 6 million Polish Jews?

      I'm not sure the point you're trying to make. But, much like other authoritarian nonsense, I'm sure it's nothing I will ever agree with.

      If you want non-Americans to be protected by things like the American Bill of Rights, then they have to abide by some other rules, too. Pretty sure that the universal jurisdiction which you're arguing for in order for that to happen is much more authoritarian than anything I've ever done.

      Nope. All we have to do is take care not to spy on innocent people to the best of our ability. Actual enemies are fair game, in my opinion.

      Pretty hilarious that you think the solution to the world's problems is expanding American rule of law.

      What a straw man.

      You should probably just let other peoples' governments speak for themselves. I'll spoil their answer for you: they think spying is impolite at worst, not some tragic human rights violation.

      I don't care what they think, drone.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    64. Re:Actual Facts by jelIomizer · · Score: 1

      It's counterproductive and obnoxious to always vote for some marginal third-party and loudly assert "none of this is MY fault!" Your job is bigger than just turning in a ballot.

      I do other things, as well. But I'm never going to vote for evil scumbags; that isn't even remotely an option.

      Did you ever consider why third parties in the US always lose?

      Because so many people vote for the 'lesser of two evils', and refuses to vote based on principle, since they have none. It would be difficult for them to win either way because of how our system is setup, but it would send a message, at the very least, that people are sick of the main parties' bullshit.

      A protip: if your theory of politics insists that commanding majorities of people are persistently lazy, stupid or evil, you've got a bad theory.

      Actually, that's the right theory.

      This sentiment seems completely at odds with his stated intentions.

      I'm not talking about Snowden, but of myself. If he does have respect for them, I can only wonder why. At any rate, it would be bad for him to call everyone stupid, so I can see why he wouldn't want to do that.

      I think this chance is significantly lessened by his refusal to stand trial

      Well, I don't, and I don't think that makes any sense. He gave us the information so people would be better informed and they would hopefully start talking about what we should do from here on out, and then escaped because he's not a martyr, a masochist, or a civil rights leader in a position to change everything by getting arrested. The end.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    65. Re:Actual Facts by BoberFett · · Score: 1

      Never let facts get in the way of righteous indignation.

    66. Re:Actual Facts by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

      To be honest I'm not actually sure the NSA is breaking the law, they've got FISA rulings, the Protect America Act 2007 and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, all of which basically legitimize the known aspects of PRISM -- PRISM's who schtick is basically implementation of Title 50 USC 1881a. I don't think these laws are constitutional or legitimitate, but we'd need new law or a constitutional amendment to clear the air, because a lot of lawyers (and the SCOTUS for that matter) seem to disagree with me.

      So you're trying to say... it's ok the NSA is doing what they're doing, because some unconstitutional laws were passed and have not been successfully challenged (this is an entirely different can of worms) in court as unconstitutional? Really? Please try reading this to yourself several times and think of how assbackwards this line of thinking is.

    67. Re:Actual Facts by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying it's OK, I'm just saying the assertion that the NSA is "currently breaking the law" is doubtful. They shouldn't be doing what they're doing, but if you have congress passing acts authorizing X, a president who's regulations basically affirm X, and courts that refuse to rule on X, that's sorta the definition of legal acts.

      There's a difference between "legitimate" and "legal," the NSA is doing the latter, not the former. Snowden is (claiming) to do the former, and freely admits to be in violation of the latter.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    68. Re:Actual Facts by dunkindave · · Score: 1

      I do not like the way some people attempt to argue by using a variant of hit and run, since their intent is to influence others (not the poster), by attempting to prevent the poster from responding and thereby get the last word, so here is my response:

      -> I said: "there are a lot of people who would have access to the true information and can benefit from its release, like certain senators"
      -> Your response: "your original theory was based on ideas I already knew to have been proven false - namely that any senator has easy access to internal NSA documents"
      -> Comment: I did not say just any senator would have easy access to internal NSA documents, I said "a lot of people would have access" and used an example of specific senators that would have the power to subpoena such documents after learning of them (the latter being implied which I guess you disagree with), so your argument is a strawman, attacking something I didn't say but rephrased to sound similar so as to confuse the listener.

      -> You say "you aren't looking for truth, you are just interested in advocating a point of view"
      -> First, I would claim that almost all posts on Slashdot are either by a person advocating a point a view, namely their opinion, or a post by those who simply like to argue, hence their true opinion is irrelevant. Since you take issue with a person sharing an opinion of their reading of the event by arguing, I guess I know which camp you come from. Second, I believe I am an open-minded person who tries to look at and evaluate the available information to reach a reasonable conclusion/opinion. I often change my opinion as more information becomes available. Can you say the same?

      You claim I am "trying to obfuscate it with Sheldon Cooperisms," yet my understanding of that TV show is Cooper is a person that makes broad, and often invalid, leaps of logic based on very limited, selective, and non-representative examples. That is how I see your response, namely pointing at one issue that was faced by the oversight committee (both examples you gave relate to the same series of events), and using it as a basis to justify an all-inclusive generalization about all NSA accountability by all parties. So which of us is showing "poor reasoning?"

      And then there are these lines: "I'm really not interested in your new theoreis (sic)" and "I recommend that you not waste your time responding. Since I'm not interested in advocacy I'll be closing this tab after this post" which adds some certainty to my opinion of your motive. Somehow I think you will see it, but will not respond, at least while admitting it is you, since I am sure you can understand the hypocrisy that would demonstrate.

    69. Re:Actual Facts by dunkindave · · Score: 1

      Actually I prefer what my wife once yelled during a "discussion" when I pointed out why what she was saying wasn't possible,

      "Don't bring facts into this argument!"

      (Yes, I paid for it)

    70. Re:Actual Facts by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

      Oh, so, just because unchallenged, unconstitutional laws were passed, it's "legal" for the NSA to violate the constitution? Come on man, I know you're, or at least hope, you're just trying to play devils advocate here, but no matter which way you twist this, at the core, the NSA's activities are illegal. Just because we can't get a court to rule that the laws passed are unconstitutional doesn't mean it's right or even legal. We can't challenge it, they've made it difficult to do so.

      I can't come up with a clever analogy, but this is exactly why some laws passed are struck down as unconstitutional. Just because a law was passed doesn't make it right, or even legitimate, and definitely not legal.

      These laws empowering the NSA to do what they're doing would never stand a chance in a fair courtroom where the government wasn't allow to hide things under the guise of 'National Security', anyone with half a brain can see that.

    71. Re:Actual Facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He isn't. That's why has handed the information to the electorate who is entrusted with making all the decisions about what is okay by proxy of elected politicians, the same electorate that was illegally bereft of their constitutional rights and which was not informed about it.

    72. Re:Actual Facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is unconstitutional to tap Angela Merkel's cellphone without a warrant.

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      Is Angela Merkel a dog? She may be putting on a lapdog act for Obama, but that's not forfeiting her rights.

      Apart from which, the U.S. is breaking international law. Is the U.S. above the law? Why? Are they Übermenschen? The rest of the world is scum without rights? Is this a race thing? Lots of U.S. citizens have German ancestors. Is it an entitlement thing? Lots of U.S. citizens ancestors immigrated after the States have already been established.

      I see no basis apart from a rather pathetic superiority complex.

    73. Re:Actual Facts by Lakitu · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure the point you're trying to make. But, much like other authoritarian nonsense, I'm sure it's nothing I will ever agree with.

      The point is that having your mail read isn't a human rights violation, and it never will be. Especially when it's read by foreign instutitions in foreign territory.

      Nope. All we have to do is take care not to spy on innocent people to the best of our ability. Actual enemies are fair game, in my opinion.

      Many of the programs that Snowden outed to foreign governments intend only to spy on actual enemies who are actually foreign.

      What a straw man.

      I don't care what they think, drone.

      You call it a straw man, and then declare it again yourself immediately after? If you think foreign governments should be obligated to the US Constitution, and don't care if they and their people don't want that, then you basically think the rest of the world should be America, junior. Ignoring representative governments and thinking that you have the authority to speak for what their people want is the most authoritarian shit posted anywhere in these comments.

    74. Re:Actual Facts by Lakitu · · Score: 1

      He's not possibly innocent. He did some stuff that was blatantly criminal; he did some other stuff that was criminal but did so under the guise of whistleblowing. You can't ignore the first just because he might have done some good in his life.

      He gave a huge amount of leverage to foreign governments who conduct the same types of espionage and spying against his own country by revealing the extend and mechanisms which his own country conducts its spying operations. Both political leverage, to be used diplomatically, and operational leverage, which can be used to counter legitimate American spy programs or to copy them and use them against America or other targets, like their own people.

      You are screaming to eliminate due process when you want to,

      Talk about lazy thinking! Where did I ever do anything like this? Get the fuck over yourself.

    75. Re:Actual Facts by jelIomizer · · Score: 1

      The point is that having your mail read isn't a human rights violation

      Then you're wrong. Having your constitutional and fundamental rights violated by government thugs is a human rights violation, and you show exactly how much you care about freedom by attempting to downplay the issue of hundreds of millions of people having that happen to them.

      Many of the programs that Snowden outed to foreign governments intend only to spy on actual enemies who are actually foreign.

      Many of them were also being used to spy on perfectly innocent people.

      You call it a straw man, and then declare it again yourself immediately after?

      The rest of the world is not 'obligated' to the US constitution or part of America just because we decide to recognize that they have certain inalienable rights even though they're foreigners, you fool.

      Ignoring representative governments and thinking that you have the authority to speak for what their people want is the most authoritarian shit posted anywhere in these comments.

      Spewing forth straw men and coming to ridiculous conclusions isn't helping your authoritarian garbage look more appealing.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    76. Re:Actual Facts by Lakitu · · Score: 1

      Then you're wrong. Having your constitutional and fundamental rights violated by government thugs is a human rights violation, and you show exactly how much you care about freedom by attempting to downplay the issue of hundreds of millions of people having that happen to them.

      You seem to be deliberately trying to confuse two separate issues due to a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of constitutional and human rights.

      Many of them were also being used to spy on perfectly innocent people.

      It's irrelevant. What crime did a Soviet general commit to deserve being spied upon at the height of the Cold War? I mean, besides threatening to kill 90% of the people in the United States.

      The rest of the world is not 'obligated' to the US constitution or part of America just because we decide to recognize that they have certain inalienable rights even though they're foreigners, you fool.

      Their "rights" are obviously fucking alienable if we can declare war on them. You have serious fundamental misunderstandings about what constitutional rights are and how they apply. They are not "human rights", and if you think they are, then you need to provide some kind of definition for human rights which includes US constitutional rights. Nowhere in the universal declaration of human rights, the most widely-known and agreed upon definitions of human rights, is privacy mentioned. If you compare that document to the US Constitution and Bill of Rights then you'll see some fairly large discrepancies so your attempts to conflate the two terms are not only misleading but deliberately deceitful. Repeating it over and over and over again doesn't make it any more true, especially if, when pressed for some kind of clarification, you start calling people names and trying to discredit them or whatever the fuck you're trying to do by calling me authoritarian. You're wrong, and at this point, you need to back up your opinions with some kind of rational behavior in order to show it, or else the invective you spew out will only contribute to you and whatever cause you are trying to support being more and more discredited and worthless.

      Including actual problems, such as domestic spying like the metadata records of the NSA. So kindly shut the fuck up about it until you can communicate a reasonable point.

      Just because the US Constitution and Bill of Rights are derived from natural law theories and that we believe that they are not given, but that people are born with them, does not mean that everyone has them. This can clearly be seen by the treatment of any person -- citizen or not -- entering or re-entering the territory of the United States, where they must produce valid identification in the form of a passport and where their personal belongings can be searched or seized without a warrant. In fact, so many examples exist that it's almost preposterous that you think non-citizens in foreign territory are protected by the US Constitution at all. How is it possible that Congress can declare war on them, if they are afforded constitutional rights? How is it that the government negotiates treaties with other sovereign states? How can the government restrict my travel, or bar me from doing business with certain foreign entities?

      These aren't even difficult questions to come up with, nor are they difficult to answer, nor are they some kind of rare circumstances that exist only as outliers. You can't just pretend that other governments do not exist, or that they are somehow illegitimate, let alone that you can speak for the people they represent better than the governments they have created and live under. It's ridiculous that you would even think to do that.

      If you don't want to take my word for it, take the court's word for it, from ZADVYDAS v. DAVIS et al. from 2001 in which the court ruled that immigrants (even illegal immigrants) must be afforded due process as long as they were within United States territor

    77. Re:Actual Facts by jelIomizer · · Score: 1

      You seem to be deliberately trying to confuse two separate issues due to a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of constitutional and human rights.

      You seem to think that your opinion about a subjective matter is objectively correct.

      It's irrelevant.

      In fact, it's not.

      So kindly shut the fuck up about it until you can communicate a reasonable point.

      I have. Here is a long series of steps that lays out how what I want could be accomplished:
      1) Don't spy on innocent people unless you have a damn good reason to think they're not innocent, and in the case of citizens, have a warrant.

      The end. It's just a question of whether or not to take certain actions.

      Your long-winded drivel was unnecessary.

      It's ridiculous that you would even think to do that.

      You have quite the imagination, to argue with someone who doesn't exist. But may I please ask you to keep it to yourself, rather than responding to me as if I'm the one you're arguing with?

      Calling me authoritarian just makes you look like a 12 year old. You're dead fucking wrong on this.

      Calling me a 12 year old just makes you look like a 12 year old. You're dead fucking wrong on this, authoritarian asshole.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    78. Re:Actual Facts by Lakitu · · Score: 1

      You have quite the imagination, to argue with someone who doesn't exist. But may I please ask you to keep it to yourself, rather than responding to me as if I'm the one you're arguing with?

      It's something you said! Here it is again, for your benefit:

      You should probably just let other peoples' governments speak for themselves. I'll spoil their answer for you: they think spying is impolite at worst, not some tragic human rights violation.

      I don't care what they think, drone.

      Your long-winded drivel was unnecessary.

      I'll let James Madison know you think that about him.

      Anyway.

      I have. Here is a long series of steps that lays out how what I want could be accomplished:
      1) Don't spy on innocent people unless you have a damn good reason to think they're not innocent, and in the case of citizens, have a warrant.

      Right. Except these are a matter of policy, not some fundamental human right. If you disagree with the policy, but cannot disagree with its constitutionality or the moral basis for it, then you're wrong and Snowden committed crimes which are likely to negatively affect you in the future in addition to whatever whistleblowing he has done.

      If you base your arguments on the constitutionality of the actions, and then later find out that it was, in fact, constitutional, your argument is worthless. Thanks for playing, though.

    79. Re:Actual Facts by jelIomizer · · Score: 1

      It's something you said! Here it is again, for your benefit:

      No, it isn't. I said that I do not care how lightly they think of spying, not anything about their governments not existing or any other such nonsense.

      Right. Except these are a matter of policy, not some fundamental human right.

      They are to me. And it can be both at once.

      then you're wrong and Snowden committed crimes which are likely to negatively affect you in the future in addition to whatever whistleblowing he has done.

      How do you determine whether or not I think it's negative, or likely?

      As for "crimes," I don't think law equates to morality, so whether he's technically a 'criminal' is uninteresting to me. But to me, they shouldn't be.

      If you base your arguments on the constitutionality of the actions, and then later find out that it was, in fact, constitutional, your argument is worthless.

      I never said that all of the NSA's activities are unconstitutional; that's not all that interests me. The domestic spying is definitely unconstitutional. I believe much of their other spying is immoral.

      Fundamental rights are separate in my mind from the constitution.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    80. Re:Actual Facts by Lakitu · · Score: 1

      No, it isn't. I said that I do not care how lightly they think of spying, not anything about their governments not existing or any other such nonsense.

      You don't care what their government thinks. Their government represents them. You wish to impose your views on them -- or, more accurately, you wish to speak for them in place of themselves or their government.

      The fact is, despite how many times you say otherwise, that being spied upon -- especially by foreign entities -- is almost universally considered a criminal offense at most. You really have to come up with some kind of definition for what human rights are that encompass whatever privacy rights you think you're advocating for in order to advocate them. I've asked you to do that, and you said you have, by reiterating what you've already said: that it just is. That's not going to cut it on any level.

      It would be one thing to talk about a totalitarian government not just spying on its own people, but recording every action and social connection, like what the East German or previous Russian governments were known to do, since this kind of persecution is so easily coupled with the suppression of dissidents or any kind of opposition. But that's not what is occurring.

      In an international world where foreign governments can go to war with each other, states (and their people) must naturally regard foreign interests with varying degrees of suspicion. But it's never zero suspicion. This means that states (and their people) are essentially compelled into conducting spy and espionage actions, if only to determine the nature of hostile spy and espionage actions conducted against them by foreign entities. Anything else would be neglectful and dangerous. Of course, it can be taken too far, but to say that any amount of foreign intelligence gathering is strictly immoral is pretty absurd.

      They are to me. And it can be both at once.

      Until you can provide some sort of definition of human rights which encompasses whatever privacy rights you're advocating, they really aren't.

      How do you determine whether or not I think it's negative, or likely?

      You've already told me. If you think your human rights are being violated by your communications being read by anyone except the intended recipient, then you're negatively impacted by Snowden's revelations about American foreign intelligence actions because these actions will now be studied, broken down, and copied. Perhaps against you, perhaps against other targets, perhaps against a more authoritarian government's own people. According to you, those are negative. According to reality, they are somewhere between likely and inevitable.

      As for "crimes," I don't think law equates to morality, so whether he's technically a 'criminal' is uninteresting to me. But to me, they shouldn't be.
      I never said that all of the NSA's activities are unconstitutional; that's not all that interests me. The domestic spying is definitely unconstitutional. I believe much of their other spying is immoral.

      You have a pretty shaky foundation for your belief in it being immoral. If Snowden revealed that other governments were conducting espionage through his own immoral behavior, how would you feel about it? What about if Snowden were a European and revealed domestic spying programs by the NSA which he only learned about through conducting espionage against the USA?

      If your answers to those resemble anything like "the ends justify the means" then I'm not sure how strongly you believe foreign intelligence efforts are immoral in the first place.

    81. Re:Actual Facts by jelIomizer · · Score: 1

      You wish to impose your views on them -- or, more accurately, you wish to speak for them in place of themselves or their government.

      You want that to be true.

      In reality, I'm saying that even if they disagree with me that spying is a serious violation of people's rights, it will not affect my opinion. Imposing my views on them would be like holding a gun to their head. I suggest no such thing, and instead suggest that my own government not take certain actions. So I'm not speaking for anyone but myself, unlike you seem to be doing.

      Of course, it can be taken too far, but to say that any amount of foreign intelligence gathering is strictly immoral is pretty absurd.

      It's also not my position. I just said that spying on enemies as fine, as long as there's some evidence that they're enemies.

      Until you can provide some sort of definition of human rights which encompasses whatever privacy rights you're advocating, they really aren't.

      I don't need to present to you a precise definition for a matter that's utterly subjective.

      If you think your human rights are being violated by your communications being read by anyone except the intended recipient, then you're negatively impacted by Snowden's revelations about American foreign intelligence actions because these actions will now be studied, broken down, and copied.

      Ah, that's what you meant.

      You have not proven that I will be negatively impacted. I expect scientific proof, and nothing less. Not just statements from people who are adept at spewing forth propaganda, or yourself.

      But even if it did lead to more spying on us, I don't want my own government to be part of that, and the first step is to stop your own government, so I think it's more than worth it.

      What about if Snowden were a European and revealed domestic spying programs by the NSA which he only learned about through conducting espionage against the USA?

      If he murdered innocent people to get the information and then released it, the murder would be the immoral part. We can't have a world where people's rights are respected when people violate other people's rights in an effort to stop others from violating people's rights, so the ends don't justify the means. However, if one did get such information, even through immoral means, then releasing it once those acts have already been done is fine. But that still wouldn't justify what happened.

      With that said, I do not believe Snowden did anything immoral.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  11. Re:But he did do it for his own gain by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Establishing the source establishes the credibility of the documents, and is necessary to prove that the information was obtained from someone with the necessary clearance and access. Going public is putting yourself at mortal risk, if not from the government whose secrets you are exposing, then from the random "patriots" who believe in that government. When working with information of this sort, keeping yourself anonymous is of benefit to your life expectancy, and thus is generally the preferred route. Suggesting that going public means he's doing it for his own gain is to ignore the fact that the drawbacks of identifying oneself as the source FAR outweigh the gains to be had.

  12. theres the constitution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    kind of old fashioned.

    "[but with everything thats been going on in the world, we could use a little bit more old fashioned.]"

    (Avengers)

  13. Re:But he did do it for his own gain by Twelfth+Harmonic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    and lost his home in the process
    and became a tool for international politics
    and doesn't have a country he belongs to
    Ed basically sarificed himself so that we become more than mere data clusters.
    I hope some of you are reading this; the biggest responsibility in this terrible breach of human rights is on the ones who sold their expertise and soul to Uncle Sam for a bigger lawn. Your grandkids will grow up with the Big Brother.

  14. Don't bet on it. by mmell · · Score: 1
    He may have played out his hand (and I deem this likely) - but you never know. He already managed to surprise the US intelligence community once.

    His appearance on NBC Nightly News may have done more to damage US intelligence gathering than his other "revelations". It certainly was a gold mine for Russian propoganda producers.

    1. Re:Don't bet on it. by s.petry · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I doubt that he's played out his hand since he seems to know very well how to play the game. Even if he did though, the US Government has made a lot of US Soldiers and Veterans very very angry withe the newest leaks on the VA. Sure, there are a few scumbags in 3 letter agencies that would kill Snowden to turn a quick buck, but a whole lot of people with military training should be watching his back if he comes back to the US.

      Very interesting times we are living in, because currently the US is a powder keg waiting for a spark. Everyone knows that the system is corrupt to the core, but few are sure what to do with the situation and many hope for a peaceful solution.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    2. Re:Don't bet on it. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Fantasies of revolution aside, it's best to remember that the documents were all delivered to two groups of journalists months ago.

    3. Re:Don't bet on it. by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      Are they fantasies? you've got plenty of gun toting NRA supporting "its my constitutional right" citizens out there that need the gun on their hip just in case that eventuality comes along. those dorks think its a possibility

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    4. Re:Don't bet on it. by excelsior_gr · · Score: 1

      Leaks on the VA? Can you please provide a link? Outside the US we are not familiar with this.

    5. Re:Don't bet on it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seconded. Only thing I heard about, but I don't think it had anything to do with Snowden, is that veterans of the USS Liberty were being harassed by some veteran's association, on behalf of AIPAC.

    6. Re:Don't bet on it. by Stuarticus · · Score: 1

      How quickly do you think that attitude would dissipate if they actually had to do anything other than wander around acting tough?

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
    7. Re:Don't bet on it. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I'd think that that government would want to protect him as well, since if he were murdered or not given a fair trial his allies would release more damaging information on the US. Stuff that they have decided to hold back for now would come out.

      Assange has his insurance.zip file, and Snowden probably has something similar.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:Don't bet on it. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Oh yes the "give me a military weapon without the responsibility of serving in the military" bunch. Going to take over a country are they?

    9. Re:Don't bet on it. by Ash+Vince · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Everyone knows that the system is corrupt to the core, but few are sure what to do with the situation and many hope for a peaceful solution.

      One of the most important things to consider is that historically very few violent or armed revolutions and coup d'etat have resulted in a better government than the one they were overthrowing. Things that have generally brought improvement are slow drifts in line with public mood over time.

      The problem with violent change, especially when instigated by people who have history of serving in a professional army is that they often have huge difficulties when it comes to coping with disagreement. People not doing what they are told in a military context often has huge repercussions (and so it often needs to) but the general public not doing what they are told is often their democratic right in a free society.

      People with an army background seem to be very good at becoming dictators. The sort of flexible, politician types that have no backbone are exactly the sort of people you need when it comes to dealing with a free populace. Part of being free, is being able to believe things like "socialism is better than capitalism" even though the vast majority of the population and the government strongly disagrees.

      The best sort of change the US could undergo would be driven by a mass movement of a highly educated, non-violent population who realised they were being oppressed and refused to stand for it simply by not playing along with a bullshit system designed to keep them down. Of course, that is not likely to happen any time soon.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    10. Re:Don't bet on it. by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Here is one link, and should get you started.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    11. Re:Don't bet on it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm..the VA "leaks" weren't part of the referenced material. If you think "lots of people with military training" would be watching his back, you are SADLY mistaken. And that "powder keg" comment is pretty laughable.

    12. Re:Don't bet on it. by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Considering the whole reason that he released this stuff was to inform the public, it seems a bit at odds with that purpose to be holding some back as a deterrent. Pragmatism over idealism if so.

      And at a certain point, I would think they would just make the decision to whack him and consequences be damned (hence the fleeing to another country).

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    13. Re:Don't bet on it. by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Let us know how you feel when they get the 2nd Amendment repealed and it turns out they were actually right. Who's laughing now, funny man.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    14. Re:Don't bet on it. by s.petry · · Score: 1

      One of the most important things to consider is that historically very few violent or armed revolutions and coup d'etat have resulted in a better government than the one they were overthrowing.

      The US was founded by armed revolt, as were many "democratic" countries we currently see in the world (like India). I see the point, but believe it distracts and distorts the issues at hand. It also happens to be false, because the only way to remove entrenched power when it becomes corrupt is by revolt. In fact you hint at the same thing in your closing sentence.

      People with an army background seem to be very good at becoming dictators. The sort of flexible, politician types that have no backbone are exactly the sort of people you need when it comes to dealing with a free populace.

      As a US Army Veteran who also has 30 years of education and study in Philosophy (as well as countless other subjects) I disagree, and see this as further distraction and distortion. It also happens to be patently false. Washington was a Military commander who did an exceptional job serving as the President after the war. He had no inclination towards dictatorship, and in fact reports not wanting to be the President but felt it was his duty. In fact many of our Presidents also had military careers without such dictatorial tendencies. Many seemed to have more concern for the democratic process in the Republic than those that did not serve in the Military. Compare for example Eisenhower with Obama, who has issued many more executive orders than all other Presidents combined.

      In other words, "Military" has no bearing on whether or not someone would make a great dictator. The bearing in that regard is political and personal ambitions combined with a regard, or lack thereof for citizens under their Governmental umbrella. As a generalization, people trained in combat, especially those exposed to combat, are usually the first to denounce the use of violence as a means because they have seen what this really is.

      To the second half of your statement, this is also historically incorrect. See the Presidents example I gave above if you are confused.

      The best sort of change the US could undergo would be driven by a mass movement of a highly educated, non-violent population who realised they were being oppressed and refused to stand for it simply by not playing along with a bullshit system designed to keep them down.

      I happen to agree with the first half of this, but don't believe Veterans and Soldiers are automatically excluded from the conversation as you indicate. Many "Army" people are highly educated, perhaps you should get to know some before making insinuations that they are all mindless thugs out beating people up that don't agree with them.

      Of course, that is not likely to happen any time soon.

      The reasons for this are hinted at in my rebuttal of your first paragraph. Entrenched power is not going to just walk away and give up all of their gains. That has never ever happened in history, not even once! Removing the entrenched power is going to be a messy process. You can't remove 1 Senator for example and magically fix the problem. We have corrupt judges, heads of agencies, heads of cabinets, and how many of their underlings are also corrupt? Sure, most of the low level people are good, but as we move up the chain the corruption will get extremely thick.

      For example, do you believe that the head of the VA stepping down today will fix anything at all with the VA? The obvious answer is hell no! It was reported over 7 years ago that these problems existed, and the only thing that happened was further cover up. Removing a rotting branch from the tree won't fix the tree.

      To that end, it's rational not to claim that the ground is spoiled and needs to be salted. In other words, the foundation of our Republic is very well done. We don't have to have a complete revolt and new constitution to "fix" the USA. We simply need to get all of the festering shit out of the pipes and clean up a whole lot.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    15. Re:Don't bet on it. by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      very few violent or armed revolutions and coup d'etat have resulted in a better government than the one they were overthrowing

      But we won't get fooled again!

    16. Re:Don't bet on it. by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      if the military decide to stage a coup, the "gun toting NRA supporting "its my constitutional right" citizens" wouldn't stand a chance if they decided fight them. 100 years ago, maybe, but now? not a chance. The NSA et al probably have enough info on them already. But i think most people have civilised themselves enough for that not to happen.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    17. Re: Don't bet on it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a social activist of a number of years, I have many times heard the call about the need for folks to make change, especially by "waking up." What I have never hear is a specific act that someone should take towards this end. Once everyone is educated (a tell-tale sign o someone with Marxist leanings), then what? Should we all stop paying taxes? What, then, when the IRS (or, more likely, the local police or FBI) show up to haul us away to jail? Do we bank on a fair trial when it is not even legal for a lawyer to tell a jury about aquittal as a right on ethical or moral grounds?
      Does this non-violence lead us to massive prison food strikes? Will that win us real change? Nobody* WANTS a violent revolt/revolution, but the more thought one gives to the subject of actual wrenching of power from the hands of corruption, the more it seems we should all prepare for such a conflict.
      The ONLY hope I see in non-violence at this point is connecting with the #MoveToAmmend (#MTA) folks all over the US and push for a constitutional ban on organized money in poliics (this means the Kochs, but also the unions). At that point MAYBE we can vote out corruption on some levels, but to clear it all out will be a long, up-hill battle possibly decades down the road.

    18. Re:Don't bet on it. by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      But i think most people have civilised themselves enough for that not to happen.

      You call living under government oppression because rebellion would be too likely to get you killed "civilized"? Ouch.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    19. Re: Don't bet on it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      India was created by an Act of Parliament in London. There was no violent revolution that self declared independence. Afterwards Churchhill sent a telegram to Gandhi wishing the new state good tidings and prosperity. It was a completely different situation to that of the creation of the US.

    20. Re:Don't bet on it. by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Disclaimer: I'm not saying that I agree with the GP, but there are a few things here that I think are wrong.

      The US was founded by armed revolt, as were many "democratic" countries we currently see in the world (like India).

      The US is one of the very few which succeeded, although looking around today that's a debatable point. India isn't the most corruption-free place on the planet (though it's better than it was), and it's difficult to see how life is better for a member of a religious minority in Pakistan or pretty much anyone in Myanmar than it was under British rule, undemocratic though it was.

      In fact you hint at the same thing in your closing sentence.

      The closing sentence is pretty much what happened in Britain in the period of the Victorian era to the mid-war period.

      Washington was a Military commander who did an exceptional job serving as the President after the war.

      This actually supports the GP's point. Washington was a terrible military strategist who lost the majority of the battles that he commanded both during the Revolution and the French-Indian wars. He never lost a retreat, though.

      In a deep sense, he was only good at military command because he was a born politician. You had to be good at managing people, when your army has no legal force requiring them to stay.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    21. Re: Don't bet on it. by s.petry · · Score: 1

      This says you are wrong, because it took a lot of violent uprising in India to get Britain to allow independence. Your implication that London just handed things over is incorrect.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    22. Re:Don't bet on it. by s.petry · · Score: 1

      The US is one of the very few which succeeded

      Show me a free country that did not become free by violence, many of which were revolutions. France, USA, India are all examples. Many changes in the UK as you point out were the result of revolting citizens killing "Nobles", and this list could easily go on and on. In other words, as I stated previously, the only way to remove entrenched power is by violence. There have been no "Nobles" that gave up all their land and powers to the peasants because they were just nice guys.

      I agree that not every revolution ends up as the best thing for citizens, but at the same time revolution is the only way to force change.

      If you wish to disagree with that point feel free, but you need to provide historical evidence to show that revolt can happen without violence.

      This actually supports the GP's point. Washington was a terrible military strategist who lost the majority of the battles that he commanded both during the Revolution and the French-Indian wars.

      The point was not that Washington was a "good" or "bad" commander, but that the person I responded to said that "Army guys make great dictators". I demonstrated starting with Washington that that claim was absolutely false. I also included a great military commander (Eisenhower) in my logical proof.

      In other words, you are arguing the wrong points the wrong way. Correlation != Causation and all that. If the only way to force change is by violence, the best people to do this are military, then it would be logical that most people leading after a revolt are military people. Whether or not that person is looking for dictatorship is not relevant to their military abilities (read what I stated previously on that).

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    23. Re:Don't bet on it. by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Show me a free country that did not become free by violence, many of which were revolutions.

      There's a definitional problem here, as to what constitutes "free" and what constitutes "violence", and how close the two are causally connected. Australia, Canada, and New Zealand all had conflict between colonists and indigenous people, and all started off as far-less-free nations and they are today, but none of those countries gained freedom or independence by violence. It would also be extremely difficult to argue that the Irish Free State (now Republic of Ireland) became "free by violence" in any meaningful sense.

      For the vast majority of free countries in the world, freedom was a gradual process. This is, incidentally, also true of the United States; see how long it took for women to get the right to vote, or for the last vestiges of slavery to be repealed. There is typically no single conflict where before it the country was "unfree", and after (or in the fallout from) the conflict "freedom" was gained. It's rarely that simple.

      The sexual revolution wasn't violent. Most of the revolutions of 1989 that overthrew Communist regimes weren't violent. And I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that when the Fourth Amendment is (partially) restored, it won't be by violence. There may be widespread protests, and some of them may become a bit violent, but you won't be able to honestly say that freedom came from violence.

      The point was not that Washington was a "good" or "bad" commander, but that the person I responded to said that "Army guys make great dictators".

      Fair point. I did misread what you said. Nonetheless, I do think that Washington was at heart a "flexible politician type", albeit one with a backbone.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    24. Re:Don't bet on it. by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Canada and Australia, while not truly British colonies still are subjective to Britain. It's called a "Realm" of Britain today and not a Colony, and sure it's more autonomous than when under British rule, but still by their own Constitutions yield to British rule in many areas. You may find this of interest and a starting point.

      For the vast majority of free countries in the world, freedom was a gradual process.

      Gradual has nothing to do with whether or not violence was required to remove entrenched power and move on their own accord. India as stated previously is a prime example of a Country which is no longer a British "Realm" or "Colony" and it took many years of violent revolt to get this to occur. Social reform in the UK took numerous violent revolts to accomplish, How about Ireland, and more recently Iceland.

      Do you need me to mention Ukraine, Egypt, South Africa, Libya, in fact most African countries are still trying to remove entrenched corrupt power, we could say similar with much of South America.

      Your gradual statement holds a shred of truth, but it does not mean that things change peacefully. It just means it may take a long string of violence to accomplish the goal..

      I have no idea why you bring the sexual revolution into the conversation. Though called a "revolution" it's not! No offense intended, but this would be like discussing DPRK when trying to discuss what a Republic is.

      As I said, if you want to claim it's possible to remove entrenched corruption peacefully show me historical proof that it can be done. Mafias don't just give up, even when people know they are operating. Why would corruption with money paying mafias give up? They don't.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    25. Re:Don't bet on it. by jemmyw · · Score: 1

      Canada and Australia, while not truly British colonies still are subjective to Britain

      Sort of but not really. These countries have chosen to retain their links with Britain, but all three (you missed New Zealand) would be able to remove those links by democratic process. And some of them have had referendums on the subject. As has been happening slowly over time, example NZ recently introduced it's own high court and so abolished the law that allowed cases to be taken to the high court in the UK.

      And the UK, is a free country, therefore it's "subject" countries are also free. Again example, this year Scotland will vote on independence, and although the UK government is being underhand in its dealing with the subject in a PR sense, if the result was for independence I doubt they won't get it.

    26. Re:Don't bet on it. by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Canada and Australia, while not truly British colonies still are subjective to Britain.

      They are not. As of 1982 and 1986 respectively (look up the Canada Act and Australia Act if you're curious), neither Canada nor Australia are in any way subject to Britain. There is nothing that Britain can do that will affect Australia any more than any other country with similar trade relationships.

      What the link that you posted alludes to is that the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Jamaica, Barbados, and so on all happen to have the same person as their monarch. Canada is no more subject to Britain than it is subject to Belize.

      By the way, a little-known fact: When Papua New Guinea became (peacefully!) independent from Australia in 1975, it democratically voted to become a monarchy. I'm pretty sure that it's the only country in living memory to have done so.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    27. Re:Don't bet on it. by s.petry · · Score: 1

      I did not say subject to, I said subjective. I realize the term is not the best, but I clarified the point in the same paragraph and provided a link to a reference. The Royal family has direct representation into the governments. Those representatives act on the British Royal families behalf, not the behalf of the Canadian or Australian citizens. That is not the only example of how these countries are tied to Britain, but an easy one to find.

      And lets not forget what was already pointed out. There were hundreds of years of violence that resulted in the Brits giving up direct control of colonies. The power structure didn't just say "Fuck it, we don't want your money or resources any longer so rule yourselves." I'd agree that Britain and their former colonies is more complicated than that. Also quite interesting to study. The point remains though, that it was not completely peaceful.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    28. Re:Don't bet on it. by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Sort of but not really.

      Same thing I stated, but in different words, and you minimized a bit too much. It is not just a choice, there are certainly entry points into their governments that are British held, which is why I provided the link to the UK Monarchy (who has their own representation in these countries, not just ambassadors). This is not the same thing as Britain "controlling" them, but having legal influence and holding key offices has that effect to a degree.

      I don't disagree about Scotland, but look at Ireland as a next step. Even though Ireland is on paper autonomous from Britain, there are many ties in politics and business back to Britain. Most aspects of their Governments are indeed their own, but Britain still has a lot of influence.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    29. Re:Don't bet on it. by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      I did not say subject to, I said subjective. I realize the term is not the best, [...]

      I still don't know what you mean by that, so probably not. :-)

      The Royal family has direct representation into the governments. Those representatives act on the British Royal families behalf, not the behalf of the Canadian or Australian citizens.

      No. The representative in Australia (which I will use as my example, since I'm Australian) does not act on any family's behalf, or of anyone who is acting in their capacity as being British. He (it currently is a "he") acts on behalf of the head of state of Australia, no more and no less. That the person in question also happens to be the head of state of a bunch of other countries and lives in another country is not relevant.

      It's a bizarre arrangement if you've not been brought up with it (and, of course, Australia has a notable republican movement advocating that it change because it is a bit bizarre). But there is nothing that says that two independent nations can't share a head of state.

      That is not the only example of how these countries are tied to Britain, but an easy one to find.

      Once again, by that measure, Australia is "tied to" The Bahamas in precisely the same way.

      And lets not forget what was already pointed out. There were hundreds of years of violence that resulted in the Brits giving up direct control of colonies.

      And, as I pointed out, in the vast majority of cases it wasn't violence by colonists demanding independence. Most of the decolonisation that happened on the current monarch's tenure was completely mutual, democratic, and peaceful (at least the separation part was peaceful) and resulted in a mixed bag of nations as far as "freedom" goes (India isn't too bad, Burma/Myanmar is). The few separations that weren't peaceful resulted in nations which nobody could reasonably call "free", Rhodesia being the most obvious example.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    30. Re:Don't bet on it. by s.petry · · Score: 1

      I thought of a better to word my statement after typing out the long one, at least I hope I did, and it's much simpler.

      While certain former colonies of Britain (Canada/Australia) are mostly autonomous, Britain retains legal influence in those Governments. The extent of influence is varied, but does exist.

      And, as I pointed out, in the vast majority of cases it wasn't violence by colonists demanding independence.

      In the case of a few British colonies, I'll agree to an extent. As stated with Britain things get pretty complex because it was costing them more money to rule certain areas than they could recoup. There was certainly many causes for this, and some of it was due to losses of territory due violent uprising. We could also name piracy, loss of trade routes, and overall hostility (not necessarily violent) toward Britain. In other words, violence was surely a factor in all of the British colonies gaining autonomy though some were surely indirectly related (not themselves violent uprisings).

      As a world wide phenomena outside of Britain's colony collapse, there are absolutely zero changes to power that were not violent directly.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    31. Re:Don't bet on it. by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      While certain former colonies of Britain (Canada/Australia) are mostly autonomous, Britain retains legal influence in those Governments.

      That's still not true. Britain has no more influence in the Australian government than Canada does.

      We share a head of state. That is the extent of it.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    32. Re:Don't bet on it. by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Are you really trying to claim that the Queen has no influence in Australia, or Canada? While I agree that day to day operations are not going to be influenced, as the head of state for each of those two countries you are a fool if you believe it's not an influential position. Technically "The Queen" has the same role in British Government as she does in Australia and Canada. It's not direct, I'll give you that. She's not a parliament member, I'll give you that (and by Australian and Canadian Law can not be). But her role (and the next British Monarch's role) is surely influential.

      The members of the board for Goldman Sachs do not do day to day business with the peon customers either, but to claim they are not influential is buffoonery. And while I agree that this would elevate the Queen over her legal position in Canada and Australia, ask yourself how much influence a board members good friends have when dealing with Goldman Sachs and their own businesses. The answer is "substantial", and that does not change if the dealings are done subtly.

      To back my original claim about violence to remove corrupt power, take a look at this map. Notice that all of the countries that are truly free of British power are all "former" colonies brought about by violent revolution. Australia, Canada, Ireland, Scotland, etc.. all still pay the royal family every year.

      From a different Wiki article (emphasis mine): Australians do not pay any money to the Queen, either for personal income or to support the royal residences outside Australia. Only when the Queen is in Australia, or acting abroad as Queen of Australia, does the Australian government support her in the performance of her duties. This rule applies equally to other members of the Royal Family. Usually the Queen's Australian governments pay only for the costs associated with the governor-general and governors in their exercising of the powers of the Crown on behalf of the Queen, including travel, security, residences, offices and ceremonial occasions. . For a no power no influence person, you there in Australia are getting the royal shaft! (pun intended).

      Please don't use "but the royal family gives away a million from their many more million pound salaries" as an excuse (I have actually heard people claim that the Queen's 36 million pound salary was justified because her and her family did charity work [and that salary does not include other revenue]). I tried to find out how much money the Australian government paid for the Royal family in 2013, and all I could find was politicians claiming that they were getting a bargain in the deal. You know, because the Royal family generates so much tourism for Australia and Australia has nothing else to offer. They see no choice obviously but to pay for housing, servants, lands, maintenance, utilities, travel expenses, security, and cough up a few bucks for their pockets just to have them visit every so often.

      And sure, some of the money is recouped in sending tours through their estates. It sounds like a lot and may not be as much as the impression gives. It may not be the insane amount the Brits are paying them, but still cost you something.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    33. Re:Don't bet on it. by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Are you really trying to claim that the Queen has no influence in Australia, or Canada?

      No. As I have tried to say several times, I am claiming that Britain has no influence in Australia or Canada (or, at least, no more influence than any other similarly-placed country).

      Where I think you are confused is that just because Britain, Australia, and Canada share a head of state who lives most of the time in only one of these countries, it does not follow that that country has influence over any other countries where she is also head of state.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    34. Re:Don't bet on it. by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Please explain given my Goldman Sachs example how that can possibly be true. Obviously I could come up with a few million more examples just as easy, covering any form of governance or commerce.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    35. Re:Don't bet on it. by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Suppose that a member of the board of Goldman Sachs also happened to be the on the board of Morgan Stanley. You reasonably could ask the question of whether Goldman Sachs the company has disproportionate influence over Morgan Stanley the company (compared with, say, other companies. The truth is probably that it's more like a cosy mutual relationship, and the degree of influence is probably more determined by the relative market power of the companies rather than which city the board member lives in.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    36. Re:Don't bet on it. by s.petry · · Score: 1

      You are agreeing with me then, but seem to be arguing that an impossible to measure "degree of influence" changes the equation somehow. You are supposing a minimal degree, but there is no possible way to prove that. In fairness, it could not be proven at the other extreme either. (Minimal control != no control), any more than (Heavily controlled == Full control). Change those two equations and replace 'influence' and 'influenced' correspondingly if you prefer, the meaning does not change nor do the equations.

      I never argued that it was full control, I stated simply that it is controlled (as in influenced). Further, I stated that the influence is legal and built into the Constitutions of the "Realms of Britain".

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    37. Re:Don't bet on it. by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      If you're saying that Britain and Australia have a cosier relationship than with non-Commonwealth countries, that is probably true.

      However, it's still the case that Britain has no legal influence over Australia. Australia is not a realm of Britain. They are both realms and/or territories of the Queen.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    38. Re:Don't bet on it. by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Ha ha, you are funny. You agreed that the head of state position has influence and tried to minimize the influence. Now you are back to claiming it's not influential.

      My equations are not wrong in my last post, and you can break down the problem in either math or symbolic logic any way you like. You will always get the same result. Deny all you like, reality is in the mathematical expression.

      I should thank you though, because in this little debate I have not only proved my thoughts but increased my knowledge of British Monarchical influence, power, and money quite considerably.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    39. Re:Don't bet on it. by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      And thank you for the discussion.

      Just to be clear, I'm going to say it one more time in a slightly different way: "The Queen of Britain" is not the same entity as "Britain". Understand that, and you understand the point I was trying to make.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    40. Re:Don't bet on it. by s.petry · · Score: 1

      I do understand your point, and appreciate the courteous dialogue and summary.

      I do hope you understand my point as well, which is that a person does not have to be a "leader" to be influential. Further, I don't believe it's the citizens fault when their Governments make questionable decisions. It is our duty to incite change when those decisions are wrong, but this is extremely difficult to do when these decisions are hidden from the public.

      Lord knows as a US citizen I would have a very hard time with coping with cognitive dissonance if I blamed myself for our Politicians wrong doing.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    41. Re:Don't bet on it. by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Lord knows as a US citizen I would have a very hard time with coping with cognitive dissonance if I blamed myself for our Politicians wrong doing.

      Heh, if you want to talk about separating yourself from politician wrongdoing, I share an office with two people from Iran and one from Pakistan. The Iranians in particular seem to spend a lot of time apologising (though to be fair, that's mostly t'aarof).

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  15. If he is such a believer of constitution... by nomad63 · · Score: 0

    I have only heard the soundbites from his interview so far but looks like and he makes himself sound like he is a big proponent and believer of the US constitution. If that is the case, why doesn't he or, rather didn't he, let the constitution he believes in so much, decide his fate by staying in the US and facing the judicial system ?

    Yes it is hard to fight with government but if you are right, you have a good possibility of clearing your name and becoming a true hero, not a sideline screamer like he is right now. For all I have heard about him and from him so far, he gives the impression of a self-aggrandizing, pompous-ass politician, more than anything else. And if he happens to step in to this country again, I am sure he will be charged with treason and rightfully so. He will have no way of clearing his name legally, short of US public electing an extremely socialist president and administration.

    --

    __________
    The more I know people, the more I love animals
    1. Re:If he is such a believer of constitution... by jelIomizer · · Score: 3, Funny

      He might want the government to follow the constitution, but that doesn't mean he's a masochist or a martyr.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:If he is such a believer of constitution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because when the government has proven it has subverted the constitution, that clearly means they will suddenly decide to play by the rules when called out on it, right? Or...you could stop being a dope and realize that the government is out of control and above the law. Rather than act in the best interest of the people it is supposed to govern, it has instead been acting in its own interest and pushing through with a powergrab even harder now that it doesn't even need to hide it.

      Stop listening to their lies and stop believing they are going to protect you.

    3. Re:If he is such a believer of constitution... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If that is the case, why doesn't he or, rather didn't he, let the constitution he believes in so much, decide his fate by staying in the US and facing the judicial system ?

      I think you're begging the question. His whole point was that the government which would like to prosecute him does not follow the Constitution. Case in point, prisoners in Gitmo, or the CIA's torture victims.

    4. Re:If he is such a believer of constitution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because these kinds of cases get heard in special kangaroo courts where you don't get a fair trial by jury and the documents are all inadmissible even though they have been published in the NY Times.

    5. Re:If he is such a believer of constitution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because he believes in the constitution, but not in the government's willingness to uphold it.

    6. Re:If he is such a believer of constitution... by iluvcapra · · Score: 2, Interesting

      He might want the government to follow the constitution, but that doesn't mean he's a masochist or a martyr.

      Even if the court is a kangaroo court, civil disobedience requires standing trial -- you expose the illegitimacy of the system by showing people the system is rigged. Thoreau stood trial, Martin Luther King did, cripes even Hitler stood trial a the critical point in his career, it demonstrates that you do not consider yourself above the reach of a system that can affect all of us: Snowden accepts the possibility of Gitmo because, in principle, all of us could be sent to Gitmo and taking a Get-out-of-Gitmo-Free card would be unfair.

      That's if he believed in reform, but I don't think he does.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    7. Re:If he is such a believer of constitution... by jelIomizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Snowden released the information, and now it's up to us to fix the problems. You mention MLK and such, but the situation simply isn't comparable, and even if it was, there is no need for every 'hero' to act in the same way.

      And why is there so much focus on Snowden himself? It seems like the government is trying to distract people from their horrendous activities.

      Snowden accepts the possibility of Gitmo because, in principle, all of us could be sent to Gitmo and taking a Get-out-of-Gitmo-Free card would be unfair.

      I don't think it's unfair for people who don't want to be abused by their government to move elsewhere.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    8. Re:If he is such a believer of constitution... by iluvcapra · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And why is there so much focus on Snowden himself?

      Well he broke a lot of laws, and he revealed a lot of government activity that wasn't horrendous, along with the horrendous stuff. Just about everything him and Greenwald disclose now are things that are completely legal for the US to do.

      I don't think it's unfair for people who don't want to be abused by their government to move elsewhere.

      That blames the victim -- the government doesn't have to change, the people should just "love it or leave it." I think you're basically coming at it from his perspective though, he clearly despises nation-states and institutions of any kind, and thinks everyone should be as "principled" as him and free agent themselves to "free" countries like Russia (the herpaderp from him on this issue is particularly extraordinary ).

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    9. Re:If he is such a believer of constitution... by jelIomizer · · Score: 2

      Well he broke a lot of laws, and he revealed a lot of government activity that wasn't horrendous, along with the horrendous stuff. Just about everything him and Greenwald disclose now are things that are completely legal for the US to do.

      Legal != moral. I, for one, want to know what my dear little government thugs are doing, legal or not. If these things are legal, perhaps that needs to be changed. Releasing information like this puts the issues into the spotlight.

      That blames the victim -- the government doesn't have to change, the people should just "love it or leave it."

      Straw man. Leaving or not leaving is a personal decision. You can either leave to avoid the abuse, or stay and work to change it (or stay and do nothing, as some do).

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    10. Re:If he is such a believer of constitution... by iluvcapra · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Legal != moral. I, for one, want to know what my dear little government thugs are doing, legal or not. If these things are legal, perhaps that needs to be changed. Releasing information like this puts the issues into the spotlight.

      The net result of this whole affair is the US and its immediate allies lose all of their intelligence programs, while Russia gets to keep doing whatever it wants.

      I might buy the idea that somehow we're all morally implicated in what our country does, but to be honest, I don't actually think a lot of what the NSA does abroad is immoral, either. I don't think you really care either, since these are "thugs" you clearly feel no responsibility for, you probably just get a little righteous indignation high out of seeing the government embarrassed, kinda like Snowden.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    11. Re:If he is such a believer of constitution... by jelIomizer · · Score: 2

      The net result of this whole affair is the US and its immediate allies lose all of their intelligence programs

      Perhaps they should have thought that through before doing all this nonsense?

      I don't think you really care either, since these are "thugs" you clearly feel no responsibility for, you probably just get a little righteous indignation high out of seeing the government embarrassed, kinda like Snowden.

      Well, you might want to stop theorizing about how I think unless you're a mind reader.

      I vote against these scumbags at every opportunity and vote for people who will set the situation right. It's just that idiots make up the majority, and they have not yet come around.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    12. Re:If he is such a believer of constitution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ... civil disobedience requires standing trial

      No it doesn't. It just requires being disobedient. Now if you want to argue that martyrdom like that is more effective, feel free, but don't pretend that there's a rule book for standing up to government abuse.

      Besides, I'm pretty sure that if Snowden met every requirement you could create for 'reform', you'd still find a way to discount him.

    13. Re:If he is such a believer of constitution... by jma05 · · Score: 1

      Snowden did not engage in civil disobedience in the vein of Gandhi/MLK/Thoreau. But that's fine. Civil disobedience is just one type of civil resistance. Civil disobedience only works against petty laws with limited punishment.

      In this case, the legal consequences were dire. Can you name any act of civil disobedience (submitting oneself willingly to punishment as an act of disobedience) that carried the maximum possible punishment of death or life in prison? Gandhi, MLK and Thoreau broke laws where the punishment was just a few days/weeks/months. I am sure Snowden would gladly accept such a punishment if that was the choice, since the current alternative is to spend his whole life, in fear, in a foreign country.

      What he did was different. He broke a law with dire repercussions in his attempt to expose constitutional violations. What you are suggesting is closer to telling the members of the White Rose Movement to willingly expose themselves to the law. Yes, I know: Godwin. A better US example would be demanding the FBI burglars to submit themselves to law. I happen to think the burglars did the right thing by not submitting themselves to the law then. Do you? How do you see Snowden as different from them?

      Unlike the burglars, Snowden could not keep himself anonymous after the leak, since the NSA, unlike the case with the FBI burglary (since the burglars were completely unrelated to the FBI), would have quickly identified him. They sent someone to his house, almost immediately after the leak. So he had to run and go public. And if he ran to the only places that can resist US extradition, without going public as he did, he would have been easily labelled a spy. Going public made that charge not stick with most people. I believe that Snowden, once having chosen to expose the constitutional violations, had no real choices other than the ones he exercised.

    14. Re:If he is such a believer of constitution... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      The net result of this whole affair is the US and its immediate allies lose all of their intelligence programs, while Russia gets to keep doing whatever it wants.

      Ah so the essense is that the US should not be a free country where the government sticks to the morally justified law bacause of Russia?

      oooookay.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    15. Re:If he is such a believer of constitution... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      That goalpost shift sounds like a rather stupid definition to me since it means just being doomed lemmings when there are not enough people in power to care about fixing a corrupt system. I think you'd be better off discussing things seriously and honestly instead of making up such odd things to try to fill a gap in an argument.

    16. Re:If he is such a believer of constitution... by BoberFett · · Score: 1

      Yes it is hard to fight with government but if you are right, you have a good possibility of clearing your name

      Funny. You're a funny guy.

    17. Re:If he is such a believer of constitution... by Sciath · · Score: 1

      I hate to say... but that's a pretty naïve view of post-9/11 America. Nothing takes precedence over national security. And who determines what "national security" is? The very elevated people who abandoned the Constitution in the name of national security. In other words, one has to "prove" something the game controllers don't want proven. And in a nation whose population is also preoccupied with their own safety and are willing to put complete trust in their government, what chance does someone like Snowden have? Even Daniel Ellsberg recently publicly stated that Snowden did the right thing. And from a practically point if view I'd have to agree. When Kerry can go on public TV (a number of times) and adjudicate Snowden as a "traitor and coward" and the hawks in government can essentially so the same, when the forces of government have come together to orchestrate a PR campaign poisoning public opinion, what kind of fair and public trial could there possibly be? Even Ellsberg asserted there would be tons of information relevant to a trial that would never be heard because they are classified state secrets. Snowden did what any person of conscience would've done these days when faced with such insurmountable opposition in an era of secrecy superseding if not the letter if the law then the spirit of the law (Constitutional law anyway).

      --
      "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
  16. Government's Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Distracting people with character attacks and slander towards Snowden is the only thing the gubmint can do now, BUT

    The Lies and Crimes of the people in power are far worse, and the citizenry must not forget the real issue. The real issue is that gov't officials keep giving themselves more power than they are lawfully allowed to have under the framework of our country. The basic framework of separation of powers is what keeps things barely balanced enough to work right.

  17. Re:But he did do it for his own gain by sjames · · Score: 4, Informative

    Anonymous whistleblowers tend to have no credibility whatsoever. That's why he didn't hide his identity.

  18. Total surveillance by mariox19 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Setting up the infrastructure for a total surveillance state is simply beyond the pale. What Snowden has done is what any true American should have done. The machine that government is setting up must be stopped dead in its tracks while there is still time, or there will be no stopping it. And there will be no United States of America after that, only a spot on the map infringing a trademark. Snowden is a true patriot.

    If King George had had the NSA, you'd all be speaking proper English.

    --

    quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.

    1. Re:Total surveillance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey guys, I got a great idea! Let's make a new government that is run by the people, for the people, and of the people. That way, no one would ever even think about operating in secrets from the people, cuz that would be unauthorized by definition. Yeah, and we could make a constitution ...with a bill of rights that guarantees ...and democracy ...and, oh man, this is totally going to work!

    2. Re: Total surveillance by mariox19 · · Score: 1

      "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."

      --

      quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.

    3. Re: Total surveillance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eternal vigilance.... ? :>

    4. Re:Total surveillance by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 1

      Setting up the infrastructure for a total surveillance state is simply beyond the pale. What Snowden has done is what any true American should have done. The machine that government is setting up must be stopped dead in its tracks while there is still time, or there will be no stopping it. And there will be no United States of America after that, only a spot on the map infringing a trademark. Snowden is a true patriot.

      Yes, the security infrastructure justifies their actions to themselves like this:


      if we do too little and an incident happens, we get blamed for it

      If we do too much, and we can keep it secret, no one's the wiser

      if we do whatever we can get away with, we may be able to keep an incident from happening

      If we do too much and an incident happens anyway, we may be able to still keep our jobs if it doesn't look like we did too little



      So it's pretty obvious what they are going to do. And what it means is, THEY NEED BETTER OVERSIGHT. They shouldn't be left to decide this for themselves.

      A Church Comittee -like inquiry every few decades once sufficient leaks occur is not a very good mechanism for oversight, but it appears to be the only one we have.

  19. suspicious circumstances by epine · · Score: 1

    Snowden is going to be the first person in human history to have a suspicious death at the age of one-hundred and five.

    There's a big difference between what these agencies do under cover of darkness, and what they do under the glare of a public spotlight. Solzhenitsyn returned to Russia after two decades in exile, whereupon he continued to criticise his homeland for another fourteen years, before dying of heart failure under suspicious circumstances at age eighty-nine.

    There's a good reason they get mighty twisted about having their darkness aired: no more summary judgement, no more page 13 obituaries of A-list adversaries.

    Hurricane Lolita:

    I once read of an interview given by Roman Polanski in which he described listening to a lurid radio account of his offense even as he was fleeing to the airport. He suddenly realized the trouble he was in, he said, when he came to appreciate that he had done something for which a lot of people would furiously envy him.

    No, Snowden's exile is something different: a life not envied, not one little bit. That much his button-down steampunk adversaries can manage under the broad light of day.

  20. Interesting thread regarding that email.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.techdirt.com/articl...

    "This e-mail says EVERYTHING. It's an admission by the NSA that their program is illegal, they knew it was illegal, and they went ahead with it anyway."

  21. If he is such a believer of constitution... by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Re 'decide his fate by staying in the US and facing the judicial system ? "
    At best he would have found some political interest in his case.
    He would have faced a sealed court as just a 'contractor' as the gov aspect of his NSA and CIA work would have been carefully hidden.
    A 'contractor' may face all the same legal charges as a gov worker but enjoy few of the gov worker only whistleblowers legal protections.
    He would have had all the legal protections of a contractor before a sealed court with a very expensive short list of cleared lawyers.
    His legal team would not have the clearance to see, question or ask for more evidence that would support his case.
    His legal team would not have the clearance to present more facts to any interested cleared political supporter.
    After a short, rigged hidden trial the very public spin would begin.
    The left of the US main stream media would understand he was a low level private contractor and not worth reporting on.
    The right of the US main stream media would understand he was a low level contractor with far left union ideals and not worth reporting on.
    For anyone else the hint that he was a limited hangout would make sure they lost interested in the few public fragments of the case.
    Knowing what happens to even the most politically powerfully supported US gov whistleblowers within the US legal system the only wise option was to get the information to the press and then be free of the material.
    You can more read about other past US whistleblowers and their US court experiences here: http://cryptome.org/2013-info/...
    The other good aspect is that great law reform teams can now work with the public information in public courts and slowly bring more media attention to the loss of US rights and freedoms over the past decades.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  22. First, he's a Patriot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Absolutely. Well said!

  23. Good luck to the man... by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The politicos want his head on a pike... God help help him because I don't see anyone of consequence standing up for the man.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Good luck to the man... by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

      The politicos want his head on a pike... God help help him because I don't see anyone of consequence standing up for the man.

      I find it interesting that a large number of people are crying for Snowden to be brought to justice, yet the squeaking about the NSA's law breaking is barely audible.

      We got plenty of NSA goons breaking the law every day, and they're all right here in the US, easy to snag and prosecute. Where is the outcry for justice?

      Everyone is so focused on Snowden, they're looking completely in the wrong direction. FORGET SNOWDEN, take a good damn hard look at what he's shown us, or this man has suffered for nothing, his law breaking was a complete waste. It doesn't even matter what you think of Snowden's actions. They're done, and we need to look at what he's shown us, and look very hard, keep the bright light on the NSA, Snowden is and always was irrelevant, only the information he's made public matters.

      Americans don't want justice it appears, they just want someone to blame with a face and name, which the NSA seems to lack at the moment. Put some faces and names to the lawbreakers in the NSA, goddamn people what is the matter with you?

  24. Feinstein says NSA has no paper trail by SternisheFan · · Score: 1
    Dianne Feinstein is refuting Snowden's claim that he made any attempts to alert higher ups. The NSA claims it can only come up with one email from Snowden. Perhaps the NSA's data collection isn't up to snuff after all?

    http://www.sfgate.com/nation/a...

    1. Re:Feinstein says NSA has no paper trail by AHuxley · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes the email seems to exist :)
      http://time.com/137530/nsa-to-...
      http://www.theguardian.com/wor...
      "He goes on to cite a list provided in the training that ranks presidential executive orders alongside federal statutes in the hierarchy of orders governing NSA behaviour.
      “I'm not entirely certain, but this does not seem correct, as it seems to imply Executive Orders have the same precedence as law"
      With an unnamed individual sending back "“correct that EO's cannot override a statute” but that they have the “force and effect of law”."
      Would seem to show a legal question in one email was 'found' and is now been presented with spin to the wider media.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Feinstein says NSA has no paper trail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Feinstein is a cunt. (This is coming from a liberal Californian.)

    3. Re:Feinstein says NSA has no paper trail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think your take has some spin too. It sounds to me like he asked a question about how some material was phrased, not that he challenged the premise of the legality of executive orders. Both he and the person who answered understood that legally passed statutes take precedence over executive orders, and the responder readily admits that, and I have never heard anyone from the government claim otherwise (though I have heard them try to get creative to justify WHY something doesn't conflict). Just because the question was about how a legal requirement was phrased in training material doesn't mean he was challenging the legality of anything. How is this to be construed as Snowden raising objections to the NSA's collection activities? Nowhere in his email did he tie his question about how material was phrased to any concern about the legality of actions the NSA was doing. Perhaps there are other emails that followed that did raise such questions, but as of right now it is a case of Snowden saying he objected and the government saying they can't find any such case, just one email essentially about syntax.

      BTW - the way you quoted the part about "force and effect of law" makes me unsure if you are trying to imply anything by it. In this case, the answer is correct, unless contradicted by a law, and that includes the constitution, an executive order in executive agencies is to be treated as the equivalent to a law in terms of force and effect. It is this aspect of conflicting with a law that is the crux of the question about whether some of the NSA's actions were unconstitutional since the NSA is an executive agency.

      I personally think the NSA did cross the legal line in certain areas, though I do not think it justifies Snowden doing a mass data dump of top secret documents then handing it to a group of foreigners, especially since it appears to have had any information supportive of the US's case removed leaving the result one-sided and biased, and the government in the no-win situation where to properly defend themselves they would have to release similarly sensitive information that would further harm the US. Snowden did have other options to achieve his stated goal and yet this is the one he chose, so it is fair to question his motives, both then and now, and personally I don't think his story fully adds up (and I am sure the government is trying to spin their side the best they can too).

  25. Come to think of it, if the US government by spiritplumber · · Score: 2

    Come to think of it, if the US government wants to talk to Snowden or Assange so bad, can't they just do so by teleconference?

    --
    Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
    1. Re:Come to think of it, if the US government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because thats not the way it works, never has and a likely never will.

      You don't get to change the rules on the fly to suit you.

      And lets be clear, the US government has no charges against Assange, note do they 'want to talk to him' for any specific reason. Just because some random senator and loud mouth people on TV make a big deal about it doesn't mean anything would actually come of it. It is a safe assumption that he's not really welcome in the USA however. He's hiding in the embassy of a random country using him as a pawn because he couldn't keep his dick in his pants and fucked a hooker, bareback, while she was fucking sleeping. Get a fucking clue, he's not a hero, he's a worthless attention whoring douchebag.

      Snowden on the other hand is an American Citizen that broke multiple laws, his arrest will happen the instant they get the opportunity to do so. He didn't JUST blow the whistle on illegal activities, he chose himself to decide what LEGAL activities the world should know about as well, which is flatly against the rules. He has no more right than I do to make the decision to publicize much of what he did.

    2. Re:Come to think of it, if the US government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They dont need to. They get all the details via listening in on his hosts communications.

  26. Re:Patriotism by spiritplumber · · Score: 1

    He's been very busy practicing it, so maybe he's out of breath for that.

    --
    Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
  27. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  28. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  29. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  30. Thank you Edward Snowden by LessThanObvious · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Snowden, You stood up and did what was right even at the cost of your own freedom and safety. You'll probably die in jail or or with a CIA goon's icepick in your kidney, but thanks for what you've done. We've become a nation of pussies who won't stand up for much and barely know what our rights are let alone display any courage to lift a finger to protect them. The loss of liberty is worse than the threat of terror. I hope to god we realize that as a nation and stop pissing on the rights our nations founders would have died to protect. I only wish anyone with any political clout or media presence would actually go on record, get loud and take a stand and acknowledge that Snowden is a whistle-blower not traitor and that it is not OK for us all to sit passively in silence while our hard won civil liberties are washed away.

    1. Re:Thank you Edward Snowden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of what he did was not right, it was flat out wrong. Just like weev isn't a hero because people suddenly realized he was a douche when he started ranting about how people like Timothy McVeigh were fucking heroes. Snowden isn't a hero because you've yet to realize how much of a selfish douche he is.

      One accidental right doesn't make up for a massive number of wrongs.

      And lets go ahead and clear the fog you seem to have over your head. If Snowden was going to be assassinated, he would have been long ago so we'd stop hearing about him. You think the CIA can't kill him in Russia? Please.

      He could have been a hero, he chose not to be.

      -- BitZtream

  31. Jury duty sucks by Powercntrl · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I continue in my belief that Civics should be taught every year from 8th grade through 12th grade.

    I'd take this a step further and require that juries be picked only from 12th graders and retirees. That way, no one can complain about missing work. You may think it's a bad idea to use teens and the elderly, but I think they may actually do a better job than a bunch of people who don't want to be there in the first place.

    --

    ---
    DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
    1. Re:Jury duty sucks by cdwiegand · · Score: 2

      This idea has merit... too bad it'll probably never happen.

      I definitely think civics should be taught as a required pass/fail course in high school. I also think Logic and Home Ec (yes, you SHOULD know how to cook, balance a checkbook and do laundry) should be required to graduate.

      --
      . Define sqrt(x) as something really evil like (x / rand()), and bury it deep. Watch your coworkers go nuts.
  32. Snowden is a hero. by Organic+Brain+Damage · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Mr. Snowden exposed, in an undeniable manner, a grave threat to the freedom of each and every US citizen. He deserves a Presidential pardon or some kind of get out of jail free card on this act, because he did break the law, but the law in this case is shielding people who are secretly undermining our fundamental freedoms through massive unwarranted spying on US citizens.

    Is Snowden a criminal? Yes. Is he a hero to those of us who wish to continue to live in the land of the freer than average? Yes.
    Here's what our government has been doing since 9/11/2001 gave the anti-freedom brigade carte blanche:

    1. As Mr. Snowden rubs our face in it: massive and sweeping unwarranted surveillance and collection of data and meta data of our phone and internet communications,
    2. Secret courts.
    3. Extra-judicial assassinations of both foreign nationals and in rare cases, US citizens. 4. Drone strikes on people in many countries outside of our declared war zones (Iraq and Afghanistan).
    5. Declaring war on a country that has not invaded us or attacked us or any of our allies (Iraq).
    6. Detaining criminals without due process, no sentence, no release date.
    7. Torture on a massive scale. Abu Ghraib is just where we got caught on film. We've funded the torture of thousands of individuals. We as taxpayers are complicit and accruing a pretty massive karmic debt.
    8. CIA black sites where our government can and does operate outside any bounds of law or moral constraint.
    Since 9/11, we have been sliding into a nasty democracy of evil and unconstrained government behavior. We need to start rolling this stuff back. Strike down the patriot act and adopt a pre-9/11 stance towards freedom, due process, privacy and the constitution. It'd be a bargain to suffer a dozen 9/11 attacks, compared to what we're becoming because of our craven fear.

    Live free or die.

    1. Re:Snowden is a hero. by alexo · · Score: 1

      Detaining alleged criminals without due process, no sentence, no release date.

      FTFY.

    2. Re:Snowden is a hero. by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      I agree with your comment -- but I'd just like to refine a point;
      We were not attacked by Afghanistan either. In Afghanistan, Bin Ladin "allegedly" trained some al Qaeda. He did live there for a time. But we've got no proof of either allegation. If we do "trust" that the individuals listed as the hijackers were the hijackers, then we've got people from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan who were trained more in Southern Florida than anywhere else. They might have been trained elsewhere first. But you see where I'm going here -- it's wasn't a "government" attacking us -- and if you hold anyone accountable -- it's a long chain before you get to Afghanistan.

      A "cynical person" (I'm guilty), might suggest we invaded Afghanistan so UNOCAL could have a natural gas pipeline. We get more influence in Pakistan and keep India from being TOO MUCH in bed with Russia by supplying Natural Gas. Plus, I'm guessing some people made a lot of money.

      I also notice that all the Oil Companies Saddam kicked out are back in Iraq -- we left after the negotiated production sharing agreements were made -- apparently that's what was needed to be sure they had enough Democracy and Security before we stood down. A cynical person might think this was all a sham and the "war on terror" was front for "making big bucks for friends".

      I'd also extend this cynicism to NSA -- and we cannot prove they won't abuse this power to manipulate the public and elected officials, so WHY give them this power? I don't trust anyone with this power and I think I'm being rational. Don't give powers you don't want used and abused -- like allowing drone strikes without declaring war -- it's just a high tech form of assassination and terror by another name.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
  33. Obama Elevated Snowden To TOP Enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For many years the Obama Regime has made US Citizens the TOP Enemy of Obama.

    Now. Obama has elevated Edward Snowden as TOP Enemy.

    For Snowden, the Obama Regime is pestering Putin with offers of Gold, Prostitutes and Goats, in exchange for Snowden,

    Were Snowden to return to USA, even on a chartered Jet by USA, once the Jet touches down in USA, Special Forces under
    direct order from Obama will murder Snowden and throw his body on the airport runway.

    Kerry will de-plane and run to the bullet riddled body, hold up the disremembered head of Snowden to ABC, CBS and NBC
    camera crews and declare ... "Mission Accomplished, Fuckers"

    Kerry's words harken back to his Vietnam days in a patrol boot on the Mekong Delta where is took delight in killing viet kong
    children.

    A sad day for democracy in the USA.

  34. Snowden is basically correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For every US government (usually but not exclusive to right-wing) official who cries out "Traitor", the truth gets hidden that the US government really did break the US constitution (perhaps not just this one, there are stories that there were telegraph offices that went through army posts that had pony express to the White House). But more recently there was a very troubling story published by the New Yorker (and it may still be online) about Thomas Drake (inventor of a haystack-to-needle data search tool), who worked for the NSA and in the process of designing thin thread incorporated checks and balances for it to remain constitutional. First the NSA went with another project (Trailblazer) that failed, then they turned around, stabbed him in the back, removed the checks and balances and when he tried to keep things on the up and up (respecting the constitution and his oath), he was thrown under the bus by the NSA, his home was bugged, his family threatened, he was threatened with 1000 years in prison, and basically accused of being unAmerican. Short answer: being on the inside and trying to do the right thing will get you poo-pooed. If you try hard, you will be given the smackdown. The people in power aren't interested in the constitution. They aren't interested in doing the right thing. They don't even care about the 'enemy'. They care about the power that they have, and they like it unchecked, unbridled, and if throwing boy scouts like Snowden, Drake, Manning or Asange under the bus get them more power, they will throw.

  35. Ironic by Davidlogann2 · · Score: 1

    This reminds of prison break. The public can see the trial but the government has a secret trial of their own in which the decisions are one-sided. I feel bad for the guy he was working for the public interest that even cost him his ability to travel plus he is under a trial with obvious results of him being shipped to some Guantanamo, Gitmo or whatever.

  36. If Mr. Snowden is not right by ajyand · · Score: 1

    How can Mr. Snowden be not right when we are not yet ready put each and every action of our government (including security agencies) to a "democratic test"?

  37. Not the first interview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First American *TV* Interview.

  38. This you do not understand ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... I hope some of you are reading this; the biggest responsibility in this terrible breach of human rights is on the ones who sold their expertise and soul to Uncle Sam for a bigger lawn. Your grandkids will grow up with the Big Brother ...

    The fact is most of those are helping Uncle Sam breaching human rights of the masses do not plan to have kids

    They are doing this precisely to punish OTHER PEOPLE'S KIDS who have to grow up with THE BIG BROTHER

    Captcha: depress

  39. going to americas enemies not act of patriot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    His sanitizing chinese secrets from his releases is not the act of a 'patriot' instead simply shows which side he really is on.

  40. Another one not paying attention by dbIII · · Score: 1

    He may have played out his hand (and I deem this likely) - but you never know

    We do know. He dumped the documents with journalists quite a few months ago then fled the country.

    1. Re: Another one not paying attention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was little covered, bu there is a master list with personal dox on all police, TLA agents, judges, politicians, tops CEOs, bankers, and other fat cat capitalists, which has home addresses, phone numbers, spouses, some social security numbers, etc.
      And it will all be made public if Snowden is whacked or if certain people cannot make contact with him after so many hours. There was even a special briefing for cingress as to this fact, and they got pissed. If Snowden wasn't a patriot, we would already be fighting the revolution.

  41. Re:But he did do it for his own gain by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 1

    If he had done it anonymously, all the journalists who accepted the documents would be under extreme pressure to reveal who it was, likely to the point some of them would be jailed and prosecuted. Snowden saved them that trouble, so we could all focus on the documents and not on punishing the messengers.

  42. Benjamin Franklin? Daniel Ellsberg? by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    Is Snowden in the same class as these patriots?

    > Like Edward Snowden, Benjamin Franklin Was Called a Traitor For Informing the People About the Actions of its Government
    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/10/like-edward-snowden-benjamin-franklin-was-called-a-traitor-for-informing-the-people-about-the-actions-of-its-government.html

    > Pentagon Papers Leaker Daniel Ellsberg Praises Snowden, Manning
    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/03/208602113/pentagon-papers-leaker-daniel-ellsberg-praises-snowden-manning

  43. Wow - what a convoluted self serving example by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Nobody is going to lose a war from what Snowden leaked so please stop acting like a walking penis.

  44. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  45. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  46. Patriot or Traitor? by Cardoor · · Score: 1

    that was the headline on CNBC i saw yesterday, and it got me ticked off. id just like to point out that as is so often the case, the media is trying to steer the dialogue and mentality with a false-choice. The two words are not appropriate in my mind. He *is* a traitor, but to a lying deceptive system. But he is also a HERO for it. as far as patriot - that depends on what you believe the fundamental nature of our system is at it's core - right or wrong. Frankly, that to me is just semantics and jingoism. im more concerned with whether he acted in the interests of LIBERTY, which in this day and age, seem to have less and less to do with patriotism (and often appear at the other side of the table).

  47. Re:But he did do it for his own gain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >> so how was it his own gain

    He gained the moral high ground, which is invaluable.

  48. reality check by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...what makes "us" believe that we had a right to privacy? When traveling abroad? or traveling within the US? When making a google search?

    Where is it in the constitution that phone calls can't be monitored...or internet searches and Skype communications can not be monitored?

    Snowden stole "intellectual property" or IP. This is a crime, in fact, in most countries along with the US. Regardless of "his motives"....he committed a crime.
    He can go to court...and argue his case to a jury of his peers....which is "a right".

  49. Rethorical question by alexo · · Score: 1

    Snowden also indicated that he would be willing to accept a "short period" behind bars.

    How much time behind bars do those that break the "supreme law of the land" get?

  50. Fuck beta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck beta. Can't even read this on mobile

  51. Why pretend things happened differently? by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Convicted and then given clemency by a close friend. Simple wasn't it? Why pretend otherwise? Why pretend I'm not keeping up? Your motivation is a bit more interesting here than something everyone knows but you deny.

    1. Re:Why pretend things happened differently? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      So, you're still pretending that it wasn't Richard Armitage that disclosed her name, and that the matter on which Libby was convicted had words in it that weren't shown to the public? What is your point? That you know things that nobody else, including hundreds of reporters who wrote about the case, knew? Please.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  52. Wrong by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Strawman. Obviously everything said can be applied to everybody around the world; however, the bill of rights does NOT give you rights. You have alienable rights as a human being... does that remind you of something?? oh, the mission statement of the founders...

    They also state clearly that you have rights NOT listed in the document; their omission in no way concluding you do not have those rights. Nearly every amendment is phrased clearly as a limitation upon government infringing upon your rights; which you always have, and by imposing those enumerated government limits shall not be infringed upon. The courts and the people guide the direction and if the reps function, they eventually make the more permanent limitations; such as the civil rights movement's amendment.

    The document does not define that government's limitations ONLY exist within it's borders. That is the false reasoning being used today when Obama kills Americans in another country; I'm stretching a little but it's still relevant. They use the wartime crap as an exception because obviously, you can't give Nazi their rights and follow the process with any chance to survive war with them. We are not at war with the planet so that excuse can't be used (but they are.) War almost by definition is the lack of laws, rules, civility so despite us having limits on it; those are not because we are civil or the game has rules; it's a practical matter for survival, actual and political. (Politics and war doesn't have much logic to it; it's a human thing.)

    1. Re:Wrong by Lakitu · · Score: 1

      Replying to this and an AC reply together, since they deal with the same issues. Also fixed a bad but obvious typo.

      Also, your view of the Bill of Rights, while common, is wildly inaccurate. The Bill of Rights isn't a list of rights that are "given" to Americans; it's a list of restrictions on what the government can do. One of those restrictions is on conducting unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant, and that restriction does not include an exception for people outside the US.

      the bill of rights does NOT give you rights. You have inalienable rights as a human being... does that remind you of something??

      They also state clearly that you have rights NOT listed in the document; their omission in no way concluding you do not have those rights. Nearly every amendment is phrased clearly as a limitation upon government infringing upon your rights; which you always have, and by imposing those enumerated government limits shall not be infringed upon. The courts and the people guide the direction and if the reps function, they eventually make the more permanent limitations; such as the civil rights movement's amendment.

      I don't disagree with any of this, and didn't mean to make it sound like I do. The bill of rights isn't where our rights come from, but it is where the government's rights come from in the sense that it helps define what the government can and cannot do. Our rights, such as that as being protected from unwarranted searches and seizures, are inalienable and cannot be removed. This illustrates what the government can do, however: it can search and seize when warranted. This has been further enumerated by legislation and case law which we're all mostly familiar with, like needing a warrant issued by the court system in order for private property to be searched or seized.

      The argument works like this, then: if the government can issue warrants to show that they can search and seize property, as described in the bill of rights, why can they not issue warrants to search or seize German property? Obviously the bill of rights doesn't describe American land and other things under American jurisdiction quite the same as land and things which are not American or under American jurisdiction.

      The document does not define that government's limitations ONLY exist within it's borders.

      Right. This is easily shown by the example that an American citizen traveling abroad doesn't suddenly lose his, say, First Amendment rights. They are inalienable. They are not, however, the same. For one thing, foreign jurisdiction must be recognized in some way, often through the use of government-to-government treaties -- foreign laws in foreign lands must be respected, even by American citizens, even when they might contradict the US Constitution. To do otherwise immediately negates any recognition of sovereignty of foreign governments or people, removing them of their self-determination. This also happens in particularly extreme cases, of course, but it's not the norm.

      What I think is that the USG should (and according to the highest law of the land, does) have to get a warrant in an American court if they want to search someone's phone. Anyone's, anywhere. Unless we're at war with the person in question, failure to do so is illegal.

      Another example which shows the weakness in your reasoning is the use of customs controls to limit entry into United States' territory. If it's almost universally unconstitutional to be forced to provide identification to the US Government simply for traveling, why, then, do passports exist? How can the US government require identification for American citizens to re-enter their own territory, to regain access to their own property?

      The following two quotes (one from each reply) should really hammer home the point:

      We are not at war with the planet so that excus

  53. Goalpost shift detected by dbIII · · Score: 1

    My comment was about what happened after he was convicted.
    Clemency is why he didn't do time.

    Your pretended misunderstanding of this is depressing with what appears to be boilerplate questioning and insinuations that have nothing at all to do with what I wrote (eg. "That you know things that nobody else" - you've wandered into tinfoil hat territory sunshine and I find that incredibly insulting.)