It's not a troll, but it is clearly a July 4th inspired post. You know how I figured that out? By reading the following sentence; "Today is the United States' 237th birthday" No need to look at the post date.
This clearly is not a scholarly review of history, but a set of factoids directed at those who deride the U.S. as colonial rubes because their nation has only been around for a couple of hundred years. I've previously been surprised that Germany didn't even exist until the 1800's. Italy wasn't Italy until relatively recently as well.
In terms of a national identity, combined with a continuously stable political environment, the US is indeed challenging arguably older societies on those metrics.
They might let him in in order to detain him. But no, pretty much no country would want Edward Snowden running around. Look what just happened to the Bolivian President's plane based on a rumor that Snowden might be on board. Not only are there obvious headaches associated with him, there are all the possibilities of him causing further trouble by leaking behind their borders.
You can't redefine 'Freedom of speech' according to your whims. If I give you a book of love poems I wrote, you can't take it upon yourself to reproduce it or sell it. The law protects me in this matter. And it's a good law. It protects authorship.
It's interesting that you turned the porn argument around. But you would agree that the NSA may, on the basis of information being free, reveal to the world, your apparent preoccupation with perkypenguins.com? Would you agree that the NSA's only fault is not sharing the information they get with the world?
Yup, Snowden violated a contract. A big one with severe penalties. Copyright would be another one if the congress took the completely reasonable step of extending copyright to classified government documents.
Why can't he travel? Because no country will have him (well, maybe Bolivia, we'll see). Well, wait....He's welcome in the U.S.. He won't exactly be 'welcomed' in the U.S., but, thus far, it's the only country that will remove all barriers to his arrival.
I can assure you that Cuba knows him and his status very well. He had a seat on an airplane to that very place and chose not to sit in it.
Freedom of speech (expression) is the freedom to express yourself freely. It is not the freedom for me to publish your love letters to your girlfriend. Or your porn surfing habits. Or to distribute recordings of your most recent musical performance. These are things that, in our system of government, I do not own.
Snowden's actions, however, take this a step further. Not only did he release information that wasn't his, but information that he explicitly agreed not to reveal - under penalty of law. He would have had to do this in order to gain his security clearance, which surely was a benefit to his earnings.
Okay, so now you want to make the argument that information cannot be owned. Alright, under that view, the NSA has every right to whatever it can discover about you. And, for any purpose. What's your beef now?
You may have missed it, but Snowden is not the only ex-spook-type that has concerns. The difference, is that he's the only one stupid enough to commit a flagrant crime in doing it and winding up as a pawn of international politics. The others just talked to the press.
I wonder if you realize all of the ludicrous implications of this line of reasoning? Like, oh, say, never actually being able to arrest someone (unless they volunteered, for some bizarre reason).
We could send them a copy of his birth certificate, if that would help. I don't think the problem has anything to do with his citizenship. It's not in dispute by anyone.
Of course, he's not technically in Russia. Which makes me wonder why the FBI can't just fly some agents to Not-Technically-Russia and drag Snowden's ass back the the U.S.;)
He's not being sought for anything regarding anything of his his own expression, so it's not about freedom of speech.
Specifically, he engaged "in unauthorized communication of national defense information and willful communication of classified communications intelligence information.
In addition to those charges, both brought under the Espionage Act, the government charged Snowden with theft of government property."
I don't know why he didn't just resign his position and then give an interview to a reporter to make his claims.
Ah, but no one would believe him without the leaks, right?
Well, his most troubling claim (to me) is that he could listen in on anyone's phone calls - including the president's. Yet, I'm not hearing anything from the leaks that actually supports this.
Yes, I did realize that. Which is why I provided the example of Saddam Hussein, who was never in a U.S. Embassy (at least during the relevant timeframe). I believe Noriega would've also have been handled by the FBI.
There is only one flaw in your argument. And that is that you are almost completely wrong in everything you allege.
If it makes you feel any better, I am not posting as an AC. I just don't think it's necessary (as apparently you didn't - which is in and of itself a testament to your freedom).
Unfortunately you are either deluded, or misinformed. Courts don't order surveillance. They (in some cases) approve it. Oh, I'm deluded? No, check it out. You made that claim. Support it.
Of course, you're right. "an S" would be more appropriate. But I ignored other issues like not ending the sentence at 'not Brave'. Or adding an S to 'make'.
That's a lot of mistakes to make in criticizing a post which simply said "Atlanta."
Perhaps I was only talking about one Brave. Say, Andrelton Simmons. I don't know who the hell he is, but perhaps this could satisfy your rather unnecessarily pedantic complaint.
BTW, did you mean to put an apostrophe-S after your initial 'That'?
Slashdot Mirror
Legally it was a different country? Really? To what extranational slave endorsing legal system are you referring?
I'm curious as to why you chose to respond this post in the way you did. I mean, if it was just to be pedantic, it's a big fail.
There was almost a year of war before July 4th and several years after.
July 4th, is not V-Day. It's F-U-George III Day.
It's not a troll, but it is clearly a July 4th inspired post. You know how I figured that out? By reading the following sentence;
"Today is the United States' 237th birthday" No need to look at the post date.
This clearly is not a scholarly review of history, but a set of factoids directed at those who deride the U.S. as colonial rubes because their nation has only been around for a couple of hundred years. I've previously been surprised that Germany didn't even exist until the 1800's. Italy wasn't Italy until relatively recently as well.
In terms of a national identity, combined with a continuously stable political environment, the US is indeed challenging arguably older societies on those metrics.
We still have a representative form of government. Just not the part that was representative of the representatives.
Not saying that's either good or bad, but it didn't change the form of government.
By that logic, the Roman Empire ceased to exist when they conquered Naples.
We change presidents every 4-8 years. Not governments. And the language we're changing is yours (assuming you're a Brit AC). ;)
They might let him in in order to detain him. But no, pretty much no country would want Edward Snowden running around. Look what just happened to the Bolivian President's plane based on a rumor that Snowden might be on board. Not only are there obvious headaches associated with him, there are all the possibilities of him causing further trouble by leaking behind their borders.
You can't redefine 'Freedom of speech' according to your whims. If I give you a book of love poems I wrote, you can't take it upon yourself to reproduce it or sell it. The law protects me in this matter. And it's a good law. It protects authorship.
It's interesting that you turned the porn argument around. But you would agree that the NSA may, on the basis of information being free, reveal to the world, your apparent preoccupation with perkypenguins.com? Would you agree that the NSA's only fault is not sharing the information they get with the world?
Yup, Snowden violated a contract. A big one with severe penalties. Copyright would be another one if the congress took the completely reasonable step of extending copyright to classified government documents.
Why can't he travel? Because no country will have him (well, maybe Bolivia, we'll see). Well, wait....He's welcome in the U.S.. He won't exactly be 'welcomed' in the U.S., but, thus far, it's the only country that will remove all barriers to his arrival.
I can assure you that Cuba knows him and his status very well. He had a seat on an airplane to that very place and chose not to sit in it.
Freedom of speech (expression) is the freedom to express yourself freely. It is not the freedom for me to publish your love letters to your girlfriend. Or your porn surfing habits. Or to distribute recordings of your most recent musical performance. These are things that, in our system of government, I do not own.
Snowden's actions, however, take this a step further. Not only did he release information that wasn't his, but information that he explicitly agreed not to reveal - under penalty of law. He would have had to do this in order to gain his security clearance, which surely was a benefit to his earnings.
Okay, so now you want to make the argument that information cannot be owned. Alright, under that view, the NSA has every right to whatever it can discover about you. And, for any purpose. What's your beef now?
You may have missed it, but Snowden is not the only ex-spook-type that has concerns. The difference, is that he's the only one stupid enough to commit a flagrant crime in doing it and winding up as a pawn of international politics. The others just talked to the press.
I wonder if you realize all of the ludicrous implications of this line of reasoning? Like, oh, say, never actually being able to arrest someone (unless they volunteered, for some bizarre reason).
We could send them a copy of his birth certificate, if that would help. I don't think the problem has anything to do with his citizenship. It's not in dispute by anyone.
But he was a Brit.
Under our laws, having been charged, he must stand trial.
Snowden wouldn't be going to Gitmo. Although it wouldn't be much of a consolation.
Of course, he's not technically in Russia. Which makes me wonder why the FBI can't just fly some agents to Not-Technically-Russia and drag Snowden's ass back the the U.S. ;)
He's not being sought for anything regarding anything of his his own expression, so it's not about freedom of speech.
Specifically, he engaged "in unauthorized communication of national defense information and willful communication of classified communications intelligence information.
In addition to those charges, both brought under the Espionage Act, the government charged Snowden with theft of government property."
I don't know why he didn't just resign his position and then give an interview to a reporter to make his claims.
Ah, but no one would believe him without the leaks, right?
Well, his most troubling claim (to me) is that he could listen in on anyone's phone calls - including the president's. Yet, I'm not hearing anything from the leaks that actually supports this.
He was charged on June 14th.
Yes, I did realize that. Which is why I provided the example of Saddam Hussein, who was never in a U.S. Embassy (at least during the relevant timeframe). I believe Noriega would've also have been handled by the FBI.
Really? You see FBI and Wikileaks, and Microsoft pops into your head?
Did you post this? (seeing as how you're posting as an AC and all...)
It's still a higher form of life than the propaganda sponge that believes every word the establishment commands them to think.
That's loony.
There is only one flaw in your argument. And that is that you are almost completely wrong in everything you allege.
If it makes you feel any better, I am not posting as an AC. I just don't think it's necessary (as apparently you didn't - which is in and of itself a testament to your freedom).
Unfortunately you are either deluded, or misinformed. Courts don't order surveillance. They (in some cases) approve it. Oh, I'm deluded? No, check it out. You made that claim. Support it.
Tell me about the 'secret laws'.
Tell me about how YOU have been oppressed.
"The freedom wars of the last decade?" Are you F'ng serious? Obviously you haven't seen a real war. It would turn your mind around pretty quick.
Of course, you're right. "an S" would be more appropriate. But I ignored other issues like not ending the sentence at 'not Brave'. Or adding an S to 'make'.
That's a lot of mistakes to make in criticizing a post which simply said "Atlanta."
Perhaps I was only talking about one Brave. Say, Andrelton Simmons. I don't know who the hell he is, but perhaps this could satisfy your rather unnecessarily pedantic complaint.
BTW, did you mean to put an apostrophe-S after your initial 'That'?