Slashdot Mirror
Edward Snowden To Keynote This Weekend's Free State Project Liberty Forum (reason.com)
cold fjord writes: Nick Gillespie at Reason is heading to The Free State Project's annual Liberty Forum being held this weekend in Manchester, New Hampshire. One of the highlights and a big draw this year is the keynote address by Edward Snowden via the Internet. Nick Gillespie will be interviewing Edward Snowden. Snowden is also scheduled to answer questions from participants submitted ahead of time. There are already reported to be 2,000 Free State Project members in the state, and reports from Brian Doherty indicate they are already effecting change: "Over 1,900 Free Staters already are there and we've reported here at Reason on some of what they're already accomplished, from getting 15 of their brethren in the state House, challenging anti-ridehail laws, fighting in court for outre religious liberty, winning legal battles over taping cops, being mocked by Colbert for heroically paying off people's parking meters, hosting cool anything goes festivals for libertarians, nullifying pot juries, and inducing occasional pants-wetting absurd paranoia in local statists."
Can I ask,
How is Edward Snowden (and Julian Assange, in a similar situation) kept alive financially? I mean where is the money coming from, rent, food, etc? Are these guys doomed long term?
It's something I don't see discussed much, people talk about their freedom, but regardless of that, what lives do they have now and will they have in 5 or 15 years time?
Can either of them buy stuff on the internet even? If Snowden tried to use his Paypal (US) account would it be shut down? monitored? funds drained? I'm curious about these finer details about these 2 guys.
Sorry, mostly off topic.
Russia is the definition of a totalitarian police state.
Russia is not totalitarian, it is authoritarian. As long as Russians don't challenge the authorities, they are mostly free to go about their lives. They are also free to leave. People in the West may not like Putin, but he was democratically elected in a mostly fair process, and is genuinely popular with the Russian people.
It's hard to take the US seriously when he's freer in that horrible country than the USA.
Learn to love Alaska
It's really hard to take Snowden seriously when he resides in a country run by a Russian version of Donald Trump who assassinates people for talking trash about the him online. Russia is the definition of a totalitarian police state.
Just to be clear, you do know that President Obama ordered the assasination of an American citizen who was outside the arena of war, yes?
And you do know that the his cited legal authority was a secret law (a memo, actually) that the public couldn't access at the time, right?
And his 16-year old son, also a US citizen, and with no connection to terrorism, was killed 2 weeks later by a separate drone strike. In a country we were not at war with, in an outdoor restaurant, killing 8 others as well.
And you do know that all this happened without trial, and without the victim having a chance to defend himself against charges, right?
And you're worried about Donald Trump?
Worry about us. Worry about our children.
I wonder who is paying Snowden's bills?
AFAIK, he's paying them himself. He has a job in Russia.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
As a NH resident I wish they would all stay home.
They are home. They have as much right to live in NH as you do.
NH is a nice place, and these idiots are trying to change it to their Libertarian Utopia.
Can you be more specific? What are they doing that you object to? They want to repeal laws against pot, which Colorado, Washington, and Alaska have already done with good results. They want to stop persecution of commercial sex workers, which will improve the welfare and safety of the workers and their customers. They want smaller, more efficient, and less intrusive government. Why do you think that is a bad thing?
Take a look at stopfreekeene.com for how us locals feel about them.
Other than calling them "assholes", that website doesn't say anything specific.
Can you be more specific? What are they doing that you object to? They want to repeal laws against pot, which Colorado, Washington, and Alaska have already done with good results. They want to stop persecution of commercial sex workers, which will improve the welfare and safety of the workers and their customers. They want smaller, more efficient, and less intrusive government. Why do you think that is a bad thing?
I can be more specific.
Over at FreeKeene.com, a group of liberty minded people felt that the increase of parking meters in the local area was a waste of time and effort. They wanted to keep Keene a friendly, walk-around area.
So they started putting coins into expired meters, and putting notices on cars saying that a) they had done so and b) encouraging the driver to do the same to another vehicle, next time.
Parking ticket fines plummeted.
Parking revenue plummeted.
This got the town management into an uproar, several "Robin Hooders" (as they were called) were arrested for obstructing... something... the parking police felt "threatened" and demanded a 50-foot buffer zone, and the town management dug its heels into the ground and took the issue all the way to the supreme court...
The city wasted tens of thousands of dollars pursuing something that was patently obvious to everyone:
1) Parking meters are a waste of time,
2) You can't force things on people if they really don't want it, and
3) You shouldn't be taxing something "just because you can"
This is why some NH residents don't like the Free Staters. Revenue... something or other, I'm not quite sure.
As I recall his son had recently pledged allegiance to al Qaida's leadership and was killed in the company of another al Qaida member.
Did you recall his trial?
Are you fucking serious? Several before him tried that route. It wound up being endless harassment, ridicule, and divorce for those people... In some cases death. You are delusional just like the others who subscribe to your train of robotic thought.
Yep. He was operating as a member of the enemy in an armed conflict. No trial required.
It is indeed perfectly legitimate for the executive branch to kill citizen in certain circumstances. This is one of them. For prior art see the Civil War, WW1, WW2. You will find US citizens fighting with enemy forces in each of them. When possible they were either killed or captured, the same as anyone else fighting with the enemy.
Yes indeed, the executive branch can decide to kill people, American citizens, serving with the enemy in armed conflict.
What al-Awlaki did is completely relevant. Going to fight with the enemy makes you part of the enemy. It is simple.
The executive branch can use deadly force to enforce the law of the land, to suppress riot or rebellion, and to defend the US and its Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. The use of deadly force means you may be killed. If you don't want that, either don't go to fight with the enemy, or surrender. That's it. This is an executive function, no judicial action required. As a citizen you have no right to join the enemy to fight against the United States that grants you some sort of privilege.
You may not like this, but it is pretty clear as a legal matter.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
He doesn't. Every time I've looked into this claim I wasn't able to find support for it. There are and have been media outlets in Russia that criticise Putin without suffering any obvious state interference. Yes, most don't, but it's impossible to disentangle cause and effect there: the Russian outlets that attack Putin have often come across as generally over the top, and managed to alienate their own readers/viewers without any help from the Kremlin. Generally, constantly attacking figures that are popular isn't good for your circulation in any country, and there's nothing unique about Russia in that regard.
As a comparison, up until the Greece/migration crisis Merkel was genuinely popular in Germany and overt criticism of her in the German media was somewhat rare. Of course it's become a lot more common now. If the Russian economy continues to tank due to low oil prices and sanctions then I'd expect to see Russian politics heat up a bit.