The so-called "pat-down searches" where passengers are sexually assaulted at random are ridiculous and need to end. The Iraqis who worked at Joint Base Balad when I was deployed there five years ago get a less invasive search than what TSA is doing to American citizens. That should tell you something.
When I was arrested for a violent crime my patdown before being sent to my cell was also far less invasive than the standard TSA "patdown", which is really a sort of sexual encounter. No genital contact was made. No scalp massage.
As for the scanners, many of the more invasive and dangerous x-ray scanners were switched out for the less dangerous and less invasive millimeter wave scanners with Automatic Target Detection software installed only quite recently. That's important to keep in mind. That's the kind of machine you encountered. I wouldn't really have a problem with them either except for the fact that they seem to false positive about 50% of the time and that leads to sexual groping if you want to fly or at least not get escorted out of the airport by a cop. I refuse to voluntarily allow myself to be sexually assaulted. So a false positive for me would mean being escorted out of the airport and maybe losing the cost of my ticket. I could even get fined up to $10,000 for refusing my ball and ass crack massage. Oh and I would get put on some kind of list as well. So until they fix the false positives they aren't very practical. They also can be fooled / defeated in a way that metal detectors cannot. Neither type of scanner can detect explosives, arguably the only true threat that makes aviation different from, say, a shopping mall entrance or crowded restaurant. Metal detectors are faster and more reliable at detecting firearms. About the only thing the fancy, overpriced scanners might detect that the metal detector won't are plastic knives and I don't think they are really worth all the trouble. No one's going to take over a plane with plastic knives at this point. Well, unless the majority of passengers are terrorists and even then the cockpit door would be locked.
You have no idea what you are talking about. The difference between getting strip searched and/or sexually assaulted in order to fly and having to walk through a metal detector and get your carry-on xrayed is huge. Before 9/11 the security precautions were non-invasive and in line with the rest of the world. They were sane and only a minor inconvenience. Post 9/11 you pretty much have to enjoy being raped if you want to fly. The sweaty, horny dude in the blue uniform lovingly messaging your scalp and balls and anus (usually without even changing his gloves since his last encounter -- hope you like other guys' ball sweat) is the difference.
In other words, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.
This isn't about swinging fists. It's about writing about it. This isn't about anything physical. It's about a form of expression. About writing. About typing letters on a keyboard. One problem with this country is most of us are too stupid to distinguish between the two. This kid would probably have been safer saying what he did in North Korea. They at least can probably distingiush between words and actions and there probably aren't as many petty, vindictive, scared, selfish little assholes trying to get everyone else jailed for saying something they don't like.
I've never lived in North Korea, but I have lived in Cuba, not known as a bastion of free speech, and I never heard of anything like this happening there. It's true that you can be jailed for publicly criticizing the government, but you wouldn't be jailed for this sort of bullshit. We're a nation of scared, violent, dumb, bootlickers. Most of you don't deserve freedom of any kind. More and more the majority of Americans have exactly the government that they deserve. It's scary to think that it is only going to get worse. A repressive police state is the new normal.
In the US we are all potential terrorists. We should all be locked up for our own safety. Time to build some more prisons I guess. If you want freedom of speech, well you could always get a job as a cop. They can say whatever they want. I wonder if 99% of the US population were incarcerated would prison conditions improve? Maybe our prison system would become more humane like in some European countries. All I know is I want out of here. If I'm' going to live in a police state without any human rights I'd rather not live in one with so much hypocracy. It's the pretense at freedom that makes me want to puke. The power of brainwashing I guess. If I'm going to live in a dystopian state I'd at least like for my fellow inmates to realize it. To know that they are not free.
You really want to live in a country where a bad joke can send you to prison? I wish we had two different countries. One for people like you and one for people like me. You have pretty much every country in the world to choose from, although people are generally nicer and more tolerant in most other countries I have lived in. For people who actually want to live in a free society there is nowhere to go. But if I had a time machine I could stay right where I am and a quasi-free society (as long as your skin wasn't too dark) would come to me. I truly could say ANYTHING I wanted because sticks and stones may break bones, but words are just noises. Not inherently different from the barking of a dog.
Well obviously if the audiobook torrent (with the same narrator) were available it wouldn't be a problem. I thought that went without saying. But that isn't always the case. I have found several cases where an audiobook I want isn't available at all (except maybe through iTunes at ridiculous prices) from my location. I would need a UK based credit card and physical address and IP address. I've tried entering a fake UK address in my billing information and using a UK based proxy. Doesn't work. I think they are able to identify the bank by the CC# itself and when they find it's not a UK bank they refuse the transaction. I've considered the idea of trying to get a prepaid card from the UK, but I haven't yet found anything that seems like it would clearly work or be affordable.
It's really frustrating when I can't legally purchase an audio book because of my physical location. I think audible.com and audible.co.uk use credit card numbers and credit card billing addresses in addition to IP addresses so the fascist publishers won't be fooled by this sort of thing unfortunately.
Regulation that protects or increases individual freedom = good. Regulation that reduces individual freedom = bad. Regulation that arbitrarily favors megacorporations over smaller corporations = bad. Having said that, only rich people can afford Teslas.
Can you give an example of a country which prohibits self-defense? It's kind of a silly position to take since most humans and indeed most animals are going to try to defend their lives no matter what the laws say. What is some government going to do to you that is worse than the outcome of not defending yourself? You may as well make it illegal to breathe.
There are really two categories of rights: negative and positive. Positive rights, as in articles 22-29, are more like demands. You are demanding that others supply you with something. Like a place to live or food or a car or a wide screen television or a computer etc. They require other people (or robots or replicators) to satisfy your needs.
Negative rights deny the existence of positive rights. They do not require other people to satisfy. Someone claims the positive right to kill you. The opposing negative right claims that the would be murderer does not have the right to kill you because it interferes with your right to be alive. Someone claims the right to force you to do something for them. The positive right to slave labor. You then claim the negative right not to be forced to work if you don't want to.
People who claim negative rights are asking to be left alone to do whatever it is they feel they must do. People who claim positive rights are demanding that someone give them something or do something for them.
The right to smoke is kind of interesting because it is a negative right, but one that can also deprive others of the far more essential right to breathe. If it is around other people it is causing those people harm. Smoking near other people, especially in an enclosed space, would be in the same category as releasing a toxic gas and interfering with the more essential right of others to breathe and continue to live. One could also claim the right to be left alone to dump toxic chemicals in a river, but again that causes harm to others who might want to swim or drink from that river without dying.
Unless a society is post-scarcity with enough universal replicators for everyone, I personally prefer to live in a society that respects only negative rights. I regard the slave labor necessary to supply the positive rights as morally wrong. I also regard negative rights that demonstrably cause harm to others to be morally wrong.
I associate negative rights with freedom and universal equality. I associate positive rights with a lack of freedom and inequality. I prefer a society where my actions are controlled by others as little as possible. I am happier living in such a society. To me the only justification for forcing me to do or not to do a thing is if the act harms other people. To me, it seems ridiculous to claim the "right" to harm others. Within practical limits of course.
Some people clearly prefer to live in a society where force is more dominant and where people are forced to work as slaves to achieve some greater good as defined by those in power, by those in control of the system. I believe there is room for both Communist or Socialist or collectivist societies and Libertarian societies where freedom from being controlled by others is the highest value. Or even some mix of the two as can be seen in most countries today.
Well all human rights are basically an invention. We are giving our own species a break, saying that we are all better off if none of us are treated in a certain way. All such rights are things that keep other people from preventing you from doing something. I believe that the right to privacy, the right from being searched and/or monitored, particularly in a systematic and constant manner deserves full natural right status.
If you were under constant audio and video surveillance 24 hours a day in every room in your house, in your car, at work, everywhere, would that make you at all uncomfortable? Perhaps you wouldn't mind, but I think the majority of people in the world would be unhappy having to live like that. This is what makes it worthy of being called a "right". It's a matter of other people just leaving you alone and not invading your privacy. It doesn't require anything of anyone else and it allows for greater happiness or less suffering for our entire species.
A rights violation does not change to something else just because the people you are monitoring were not born within the borders of your country. They are just as disturbed by it as the rest of us and deserve to be left alone and allowed to live their lives in peace without constantly feeling watched, monitored, and tracked like some kind of lab animal by a foreign and hostile government. A foreign government might even view it as an act of war. It is certainly not the way that friends would treat each other. And if we are not their friend, well, then we must be their enemy.
Oh yea, I'm not comfortable with the NSA's domestic spying either so don't construe my response as supporting it..
So presumably you would be comfortable with being spied on by the UK or Russia or China. It would be okay with you if these foreign powers are watching everything you do, are recording every communication you make. It's only a problem when it is your own government? Or is it just that you have no problem with other people being spied on as long as you personally are not under surveillance?
I'm not sure I'd call it a "right", but self-defense is allowed in just about all countries:)
I don't care what you call it, but it is precisely the kind of thing people are referring to when they talk about individual rights / natural rights / human rights. Just so you know.I don't recognize the UN's so called "universal declaration of human rights" to be of any relevance. Whoever made that list does not have the slightest clue about what natural rights or human rights really are. I guess that is what you might expect from an organization representing governments, all of whom routinely violate at least some human rights.
The right to self-defense is just a logical extension of every human being's right to exist, without permission or apology from any government or individual. It's a logical extension of the right to live. You can assert all you want that I do not have a right to exist or to defend that existence, but that does not make it so. I do not require some central authority to inform me of my rights. I am well aware of what they are. They are all variations on my right to be left alone by the thuggish governments which the UN claims to represent.
Article 22-29 are 100% bullshit because they require slaves in order to satisfy them. Since freedom from being a slave, from any form of involuntary labor, is most definitely a human right all of the so called "rights" after article 21 aren't really rights at all and they dilute the meaning of what human rights really are. Here's a clue. Just because an aspect of life is desirable does not mean you have a right to it. Human rights are all things that involve other people leaving you alone, not helping you or working for you as a slave. Slave labor is not a human right. Not even when you call it something else or cleverly disguise its nature. Every little girl may want a pony for instance, but that does not make it a human right.
All governments act the same way and treat civilians as less than human during war.
Are we at war?
Also when did the US say he seeks to execute him? Why does it have to be extreme?
It's SOP in the US for prosecutors to go after any charge they can even remotely pin on. Many people are calling Snowden a traitor. If they managed to catch him I think there's a good chance they would seek to charge him with Treason. 18 USC section 2381:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
So traitors can be executed and that means the stakes here really are life or death.
Why is the US such an enthusiastic torturer and why is the US such an enemy of human rights? Why is speaking out against a corrupt government a capital offense? Freedom of speech is an illusion. When it really matters speech will get you the electric chair.
Most of the world considers the US a thug and a villian and seeking to execute someone for speaking out against government abuse of power is proof that they are right. Only a certain kind of American would want to see this guy fry or hang. The rest of the world is cheering for him as are all Americans who believe in freedom and human rights.
What makes you think that Snowden might be a follower of Thoreau? Or MLK or Ghandi? That would be pretty pretentious of him. He saw that the US goverment was doing some bad shit that he thought people should know about. He let people know about it. He did what he thought was right. What happens to him after that doesn't change that fact. And I don't see how sacrificing himself afterward achieves anything at all. Are there not enough dead people or something? I'm not sure I see what hanging him is supposed to accomplish.
So in your view only Americans possess human rights? It's okay to slaughter foreigners since they are not specifically mentioned in the constitution? The constitution does not specifically state that only American citizens are protected from government violence or abuse. I don't believe that the Founders would have argued that only humans that happened to be born within the borders of their new republic possessed rights.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Do these sound like the sort of guys who think that only Americans have any rights and that it would be just fine for the leaders of their new republic to murder / imprison / torture or basically do whatever they feel like to anyone not born within its borders? Either all humans have a set of basic rights or none of us do. Either a government respects human rights or it doesn't. Perhaps you want to argue that Americans are more human than the rest of the homo sapiens on the planet? It may not be our government's duty to protect the rights of foreigners within their own countries, but it certainly is their duty not to actively violate their human rights. That goes against the founding principles of our country. It also just seems wrong and unnecessary.
AFAIK Snowden has not actually entered Russia. He lacks a visa or even a valid passport. He remains in transit until his next flight out.
The Russians are no longer our enemies. Are you as afraid of the UK gaining classified information about us and if not why not?
Governments are way too obsessed with secrecy and the vast majority of it is unnecessary and unjustified. Yes, there is the occassional bit of weapons research that we may want to keep close to our chests, but most other secrets are not of much value and are merely embarrassing. If you don't want to look like an asshole it might be better not to act like one in the first place instead of relying on secrecy laws to protect you from the consequences of your moronic actions. Neither Russia nor China are our enemies. Perhaps it's about time we started treating them the way we would like to be treated ourselves. Reading their mail does not make us more secure. It just makes us look like jerks when we inevitably get caught with our hands in the cookie jar.
if you're not in the US, how is it illegal for NSA to spy on you? what law is that breaking? hint - none.
I know this may be hard for you to believe but this country was founded on the principle of human rights (or natural rights) as written about by John Locke. The idea was to found a minimal government which was not supposed to be in the business of trampling on such rights that Locke asserted all human beings possessed just by being homo sapiens. Perhaps you would like to argue that the Chinese are not human or not as human as Americans?
Probably you are thinking that rights are really privileges that our government was kind enough to allow us to have when and as they see fit. Privileges can be revoked however and the US government has been doing a lot of that in the past decade.
First they came for the Chinese, but I wasn't Chinese...
You have a right to be protected, but not to defend yourself
To be fair, on paper at least, anyone within the borders of the US is supposed to have the right to defend themselves by whatever means they have available. It depends a lot on the state you are in as to how and in what circumstances. I cannot think of a more basic human right than the right to defend yourself from violence. As for missile systems or nuclear weapons they would be illegal to own in the first place and you would certainly be responsible for any collateral damage or murder that may result from defending yourself with them.
Last time I checked we were not at war with China. So, no, there is not justification for violating the human rights of any Chinese citizens. China is not a threat to our security. Maybe those NSA bozos should find something else to do with their time. Something more constructive than reading text messages. What a waste of tax dollars. We should just get rid of the NSA entirely and spend that money on a lunar or martian base.
All I'm saying is that if you're practicing civil disobedience and trying to stay out of jail, you're doing it wrong.
Which is why the idea of "civil disobedience", at least your definition of it, is idiotic. The false dichotomy that you must either obey all laws no matter how ridiculous or intentionally go to jail or commit suicide or whatever is just as idiotic. There is nothing wrong with just ignoring stupid laws and there is nothing wrong with choosing exile over jail or execution as the consequence of your actions.
I'm happy that he released those documents, but there is no question that he did break the law.
What law?
He is being charged with espionage, which is a legitimate charge given his actions.
Huh? Wasn't the government just saying that everything Snowden said was a lie? If he is making false claims that is not espionage. At worst it might be defamation, but it isn't espionage.
He should be arrested. He should go to trial, and if the American people believe strongly that what he did was right, we should protest and petition for his pardon.
The American people may not trust their government to act in a just manner given their past history. Justice may be better served by Snowden's exile. That alone seems like more than enough punishment for his so called crime of letting the American people know the truth about what our own government is doing to us. Also I wouldn't just petition for a pre-trial pardon, but also for some sort of medal for his courage and sacrifice in the name of protecting US citizens from harm.
The fact that he wants to evade capture and avoid the consequences of his actions is no commentary on America.
He isn't avoiding the consequences of his actions. The consequences of his heroic actions appear to be exile from the country in which he was born. No good deed goes unpunished.
Yes, he should be treated like Manning, thats the punishment for doing what he did.
Apparently not. Looks like Snowden's only punishment is going to be permanent exile, which I don't really consider much of a punishment since many countries are much nicer places to live. Looks to me like Snowden will be living a long and happy life.
Hopefully future whistle blowers will learn from this example and not be so afraid to speak out against US government evil and corruption for fear of being tortured and then murdered in Gitmo.
Yeah. When that news story broke I was thinking that by saying that they couldn't then go after him for any sort of espionage. It's only if what he says is true that he is exposing state secrets. If the things he is saying are untrue I guess they can sue him for libel, but they can't claim he is exposing their secrets. They clearly are not afraid of contradicting themselves. I guess they see themselves as so powerful that they have no need for logic.
Slashdot Mirror
The so-called "pat-down searches" where passengers are sexually assaulted at random are ridiculous and need to end. The Iraqis who worked at Joint Base Balad when I was deployed there five years ago get a less invasive search than what TSA is doing to American citizens. That should tell you something.
When I was arrested for a violent crime my patdown before being sent to my cell was also far less invasive than the standard TSA "patdown", which is really a sort of sexual encounter. No genital contact was made. No scalp massage.
As for the scanners, many of the more invasive and dangerous x-ray scanners were switched out for the less dangerous and less invasive millimeter wave scanners with Automatic Target Detection software installed only quite recently. That's important to keep in mind. That's the kind of machine you encountered. I wouldn't really have a problem with them either except for the fact that they seem to false positive about 50% of the time and that leads to sexual groping if you want to fly or at least not get escorted out of the airport by a cop. I refuse to voluntarily allow myself to be sexually assaulted. So a false positive for me would mean being escorted out of the airport and maybe losing the cost of my ticket. I could even get fined up to $10,000 for refusing my ball and ass crack massage. Oh and I would get put on some kind of list as well. So until they fix the false positives they aren't very practical. They also can be fooled / defeated in a way that metal detectors cannot. Neither type of scanner can detect explosives, arguably the only true threat that makes aviation different from, say, a shopping mall entrance or crowded restaurant. Metal detectors are faster and more reliable at detecting firearms. About the only thing the fancy, overpriced scanners might detect that the metal detector won't are plastic knives and I don't think they are really worth all the trouble. No one's going to take over a plane with plastic knives at this point. Well, unless the majority of passengers are terrorists and even then the cockpit door would be locked.
You have no idea what you are talking about. The difference between getting strip searched and/or sexually assaulted in order to fly and having to walk through a metal detector and get your carry-on xrayed is huge. Before 9/11 the security precautions were non-invasive and in line with the rest of the world. They were sane and only a minor inconvenience. Post 9/11 you pretty much have to enjoy being raped if you want to fly. The sweaty, horny dude in the blue uniform lovingly messaging your scalp and balls and anus (usually without even changing his gloves since his last encounter -- hope you like other guys' ball sweat) is the difference.
In other words, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.
This isn't about swinging fists. It's about writing about it. This isn't about anything physical. It's about a form of expression. About writing. About typing letters on a keyboard. One problem with this country is most of us are too stupid to distinguish between the two. This kid would probably have been safer saying what he did in North Korea. They at least can probably distingiush between words and actions and there probably aren't as many petty, vindictive, scared, selfish little assholes trying to get everyone else jailed for saying something they don't like.
I've never lived in North Korea, but I have lived in Cuba, not known as a bastion of free speech, and I never heard of anything like this happening there. It's true that you can be jailed for publicly criticizing the government, but you wouldn't be jailed for this sort of bullshit. We're a nation of scared, violent, dumb, bootlickers. Most of you don't deserve freedom of any kind. More and more the majority of Americans have exactly the government that they deserve. It's scary to think that it is only going to get worse. A repressive police state is the new normal.
In the US we are all potential terrorists. We should all be locked up for our own safety. Time to build some more prisons I guess. If you want freedom of speech, well you could always get a job as a cop. They can say whatever they want. I wonder if 99% of the US population were incarcerated would prison conditions improve? Maybe our prison system would become more humane like in some European countries. All I know is I want out of here. If I'm' going to live in a police state without any human rights I'd rather not live in one with so much hypocracy. It's the pretense at freedom that makes me want to puke. The power of brainwashing I guess. If I'm going to live in a dystopian state I'd at least like for my fellow inmates to realize it. To know that they are not free.
You really want to live in a country where a bad joke can send you to prison? I wish we had two different countries. One for people like you and one for people like me. You have pretty much every country in the world to choose from, although people are generally nicer and more tolerant in most other countries I have lived in. For people who actually want to live in a free society there is nowhere to go. But if I had a time machine I could stay right where I am and a quasi-free society (as long as your skin wasn't too dark) would come to me. I truly could say ANYTHING I wanted because sticks and stones may break bones, but words are just noises. Not inherently different from the barking of a dog.
I think we should either ban alcohol or legalize all scheduled drugs. They should at least be consistent.
Well obviously if the audiobook torrent (with the same narrator) were available it wouldn't be a problem. I thought that went without saying. But that isn't always the case. I have found several cases where an audiobook I want isn't available at all (except maybe through iTunes at ridiculous prices) from my location. I would need a UK based credit card and physical address and IP address. I've tried entering a fake UK address in my billing information and using a UK based proxy. Doesn't work. I think they are able to identify the bank by the CC# itself and when they find it's not a UK bank they refuse the transaction. I've considered the idea of trying to get a prepaid card from the UK, but I haven't yet found anything that seems like it would clearly work or be affordable.
It's really frustrating when I can't legally purchase an audio book because of my physical location. I think audible.com and audible.co.uk use credit card numbers and credit card billing addresses in addition to IP addresses so the fascist publishers won't be fooled by this sort of thing unfortunately.
Regulation that protects or increases individual freedom = good. Regulation that reduces individual freedom = bad. Regulation that arbitrarily favors megacorporations over smaller corporations = bad. Having said that, only rich people can afford Teslas.
Can you give an example of a country which prohibits self-defense? It's kind of a silly position to take since most humans and indeed most animals are going to try to defend their lives no matter what the laws say. What is some government going to do to you that is worse than the outcome of not defending yourself? You may as well make it illegal to breathe.
There are really two categories of rights: negative and positive. Positive rights, as in articles 22-29, are more like demands. You are demanding that others supply you with something. Like a place to live or food or a car or a wide screen television or a computer etc. They require other people (or robots or replicators) to satisfy your needs.
Negative rights deny the existence of positive rights. They do not require other people to satisfy. Someone claims the positive right to kill you. The opposing negative right claims that the would be murderer does not have the right to kill you because it interferes with your right to be alive. Someone claims the right to force you to do something for them. The positive right to slave labor. You then claim the negative right not to be forced to work if you don't want to.
People who claim negative rights are asking to be left alone to do whatever it is they feel they must do. People who claim positive rights are demanding that someone give them something or do something for them.
The right to smoke is kind of interesting because it is a negative right, but one that can also deprive others of the far more essential right to breathe. If it is around other people it is causing those people harm. Smoking near other people, especially in an enclosed space, would be in the same category as releasing a toxic gas and interfering with the more essential right of others to breathe and continue to live. One could also claim the right to be left alone to dump toxic chemicals in a river, but again that causes harm to others who might want to swim or drink from that river without dying.
Unless a society is post-scarcity with enough universal replicators for everyone, I personally prefer to live in a society that respects only negative rights. I regard the slave labor necessary to supply the positive rights as morally wrong. I also regard negative rights that demonstrably cause harm to others to be morally wrong.
I associate negative rights with freedom and universal equality. I associate positive rights with a lack of freedom and inequality. I prefer a society where my actions are controlled by others as little as possible. I am happier living in such a society. To me the only justification for forcing me to do or not to do a thing is if the act harms other people. To me, it seems ridiculous to claim the "right" to harm others. Within practical limits of course.
Some people clearly prefer to live in a society where force is more dominant and where people are forced to work as slaves to achieve some greater good as defined by those in power, by those in control of the system. I believe there is room for both Communist or Socialist or collectivist societies and Libertarian societies where freedom from being controlled by others is the highest value. Or even some mix of the two as can be seen in most countries today.
Well all human rights are basically an invention. We are giving our own species a break, saying that we are all better off if none of us are treated in a certain way. All such rights are things that keep other people from preventing you from doing something. I believe that the right to privacy, the right from being searched and/or monitored, particularly in a systematic and constant manner deserves full natural right status.
If you were under constant audio and video surveillance 24 hours a day in every room in your house, in your car, at work, everywhere, would that make you at all uncomfortable? Perhaps you wouldn't mind, but I think the majority of people in the world would be unhappy having to live like that. This is what makes it worthy of being called a "right". It's a matter of other people just leaving you alone and not invading your privacy. It doesn't require anything of anyone else and it allows for greater happiness or less suffering for our entire species.
A rights violation does not change to something else just because the people you are monitoring were not born within the borders of your country. They are just as disturbed by it as the rest of us and deserve to be left alone and allowed to live their lives in peace without constantly feeling watched, monitored, and tracked like some kind of lab animal by a foreign and hostile government. A foreign government might even view it as an act of war. It is certainly not the way that friends would treat each other. And if we are not their friend, well, then we must be their enemy.
Oh yea, I'm not comfortable with the NSA's domestic spying either so don't construe my response as supporting it..
So presumably you would be comfortable with being spied on by the UK or Russia or China. It would be okay with you if these foreign powers are watching everything you do, are recording every communication you make. It's only a problem when it is your own government? Or is it just that you have no problem with other people being spied on as long as you personally are not under surveillance?
I'm not sure I'd call it a "right", but self-defense is allowed in just about all countries :)
I don't care what you call it, but it is precisely the kind of thing people are referring to when they talk about individual rights / natural rights / human rights. Just so you know.I don't recognize the UN's so called "universal declaration of human rights" to be of any relevance. Whoever made that list does not have the slightest clue about what natural rights or human rights really are. I guess that is what you might expect from an organization representing governments, all of whom routinely violate at least some human rights.
The right to self-defense is just a logical extension of every human being's right to exist, without permission or apology from any government or individual. It's a logical extension of the right to live. You can assert all you want that I do not have a right to exist or to defend that existence, but that does not make it so. I do not require some central authority to inform me of my rights. I am well aware of what they are. They are all variations on my right to be left alone by the thuggish governments which the UN claims to represent.
Article 22-29 are 100% bullshit because they require slaves in order to satisfy them. Since freedom from being a slave, from any form of involuntary labor, is most definitely a human right all of the so called "rights" after article 21 aren't really rights at all and they dilute the meaning of what human rights really are. Here's a clue. Just because an aspect of life is desirable does not mean you have a right to it. Human rights are all things that involve other people leaving you alone, not helping you or working for you as a slave. Slave labor is not a human right. Not even when you call it something else or cleverly disguise its nature. Every little girl may want a pony for instance, but that does not make it a human right.
All governments act the same way and treat civilians as less than human during war.
Are we at war?
Also when did the US say he seeks to execute him? Why does it have to be extreme?
It's SOP in the US for prosecutors to go after any charge they can even remotely pin on. Many people are calling Snowden a traitor. If they managed to catch him I think there's a good chance they would seek to charge him with Treason. 18 USC section 2381:
So traitors can be executed and that means the stakes here really are life or death.
Why is the US such an enthusiastic torturer and why is the US such an enemy of human rights? Why is speaking out against a corrupt government a capital offense? Freedom of speech is an illusion. When it really matters speech will get you the electric chair.
Most of the world considers the US a thug and a villian and seeking to execute someone for speaking out against government abuse of power is proof that they are right. Only a certain kind of American would want to see this guy fry or hang. The rest of the world is cheering for him as are all Americans who believe in freedom and human rights.
What makes you think that Snowden might be a follower of Thoreau? Or MLK or Ghandi? That would be pretty pretentious of him. He saw that the US goverment was doing some bad shit that he thought people should know about. He let people know about it. He did what he thought was right. What happens to him after that doesn't change that fact. And I don't see how sacrificing himself afterward achieves anything at all. Are there not enough dead people or something? I'm not sure I see what hanging him is supposed to accomplish.
So in your view only Americans possess human rights? It's okay to slaughter foreigners since they are not specifically mentioned in the constitution? The constitution does not specifically state that only American citizens are protected from government violence or abuse. I don't believe that the Founders would have argued that only humans that happened to be born within the borders of their new republic possessed rights.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Do these sound like the sort of guys who think that only Americans have any rights and that it would be just fine for the leaders of their new republic to murder / imprison / torture or basically do whatever they feel like to anyone not born within its borders? Either all humans have a set of basic rights or none of us do. Either a government respects human rights or it doesn't. Perhaps you want to argue that Americans are more human than the rest of the homo sapiens on the planet? It may not be our government's duty to protect the rights of foreigners within their own countries, but it certainly is their duty not to actively violate their human rights. That goes against the founding principles of our country. It also just seems wrong and unnecessary.
AFAIK Snowden has not actually entered Russia. He lacks a visa or even a valid passport. He remains in transit until his next flight out.
The Russians are no longer our enemies. Are you as afraid of the UK gaining classified information about us and if not why not?
Governments are way too obsessed with secrecy and the vast majority of it is unnecessary and unjustified. Yes, there is the occassional bit of weapons research that we may want to keep close to our chests, but most other secrets are not of much value and are merely embarrassing. If you don't want to look like an asshole it might be better not to act like one in the first place instead of relying on secrecy laws to protect you from the consequences of your moronic actions. Neither Russia nor China are our enemies. Perhaps it's about time we started treating them the way we would like to be treated ourselves. Reading their mail does not make us more secure. It just makes us look like jerks when we inevitably get caught with our hands in the cookie jar.
if you're not in the US, how is it illegal for NSA to spy on you? what law is that breaking? hint - none.
I know this may be hard for you to believe but this country was founded on the principle of human rights (or natural rights) as written about by John Locke. The idea was to found a minimal government which was not supposed to be in the business of trampling on such rights that Locke asserted all human beings possessed just by being homo sapiens. Perhaps you would like to argue that the Chinese are not human or not as human as Americans?
Probably you are thinking that rights are really privileges that our government was kind enough to allow us to have when and as they see fit. Privileges can be revoked however and the US government has been doing a lot of that in the past decade.
First they came for the Chinese, but I wasn't Chinese...
You have a right to be protected, but not to defend yourself
To be fair, on paper at least, anyone within the borders of the US is supposed to have the right to defend themselves by whatever means they have available. It depends a lot on the state you are in as to how and in what circumstances. I cannot think of a more basic human right than the right to defend yourself from violence. As for missile systems or nuclear weapons they would be illegal to own in the first place and you would certainly be responsible for any collateral damage or murder that may result from defending yourself with them.
All crows are black
Pied Crows
Last time I checked we were not at war with China. So, no, there is not justification for violating the human rights of any Chinese citizens. China is not a threat to our security. Maybe those NSA bozos should find something else to do with their time. Something more constructive than reading text messages. What a waste of tax dollars. We should just get rid of the NSA entirely and spend that money on a lunar or martian base.
All I'm saying is that if you're practicing civil disobedience and trying to stay out of jail, you're doing it wrong.
Which is why the idea of "civil disobedience", at least your definition of it, is idiotic. The false dichotomy that you must either obey all laws no matter how ridiculous or intentionally go to jail or commit suicide or whatever is just as idiotic. There is nothing wrong with just ignoring stupid laws and there is nothing wrong with choosing exile over jail or execution as the consequence of your actions.
I'm happy that he released those documents, but there is no question that he did break the law.
What law?
He is being charged with espionage, which is a legitimate charge given his actions.
Huh? Wasn't the government just saying that everything Snowden said was a lie? If he is making false claims that is not espionage. At worst it might be defamation, but it isn't espionage.
He should be arrested. He should go to trial, and if the American people believe strongly that what he did was right, we should protest and petition for his pardon.
The American people may not trust their government to act in a just manner given their past history. Justice may be better served by Snowden's exile. That alone seems like more than enough punishment for his so called crime of letting the American people know the truth about what our own government is doing to us. Also I wouldn't just petition for a pre-trial pardon, but also for some sort of medal for his courage and sacrifice in the name of protecting US citizens from harm.
The fact that he wants to evade capture and avoid the consequences of his actions is no commentary on America.
He isn't avoiding the consequences of his actions. The consequences of his heroic actions appear to be exile from the country in which he was born. No good deed goes unpunished.
Yes, he should be treated like Manning, thats the punishment for doing what he did.
Apparently not. Looks like Snowden's only punishment is going to be permanent exile, which I don't really consider much of a punishment since many countries are much nicer places to live. Looks to me like Snowden will be living a long and happy life.
Hopefully future whistle blowers will learn from this example and not be so afraid to speak out against US government evil and corruption for fear of being tortured and then murdered in Gitmo.
Yeah. When that news story broke I was thinking that by saying that they couldn't then go after him for any sort of espionage. It's only if what he says is true that he is exposing state secrets. If the things he is saying are untrue I guess they can sue him for libel, but they can't claim he is exposing their secrets. They clearly are not afraid of contradicting themselves. I guess they see themselves as so powerful that they have no need for logic.