Ellsberg needs to shut his old fool mouth, and just stick to watching TV or anything else not connected with politics.
Looks like Iâll have to remind people of what and who Snowjob really is:
How the Professional Leftâs Blind Obama Hatred Got them Played by a Far-Right Nutjob
President Obama Slays Edward Snowdenâs âWhistleblowerâ Myth
Wow, these articles are absurd:
-
Who cares if Snowden is a right-wing nutjob? Thatâs the definition of attacking the person rather than attacking their actions or their argument. Snowden might be a really rotten awful person who I would hate but that doesnât mean that releasing the documents he released wasnât the right thing to do. In fact, I respect Snowden for actually having some principles here - most right-wing people (and other people, the be fair) who claim they believe in âfreedomâ will turn around and do anything to justify the actions of authorities.
-
The article on whistleblowers is predicated on the idea that Snowden can trust the US government to obey its policies regarding whistleblowers and not prosecute him. Despite most Americans thinking that Snowden did the right thing with information that ultimately belongs to them (I hope we agree that the information the government collects ultimately belongs to the people) the government is going ahead with prosecution. Amnesty international advises against writing letters to your own government - even in America, Canada, Germany, France, etc. - for a reason. Why would Snowden trust the government to treat him fairly?
-
Part A) Information in the hands of government is more dangerous than information in the hands of corporations (to the extent that government is not controlled by corporations, America may vary) because government has the monopoly on the use of force. But that aside, saying Snowden âliedâ about this is saying he believes it is not true, which is stupid. And even if the point is dead on, itâs still attacking Snowden for something unrelated to the issue at hand, just like (1).
Part B) The writer of the article doesnât even know what ârule of lawâ means. Rule of law means that the law, rather than the people, are in charge. That means that a person can be prosecuted for breaking the law regardless of what position they hold and no one is exempt from the law. So whether Snowden believes rule of law is a good thing is an entirely separate question from whether he believes rules of law is functioning in America.
Part C) Heâs seeking shelter in Russia because thatâs where he ended up, thatâs what you do when you are an international fugitive. If he praised Russia on their human rights then heâs a moron - just another attack on his character that is unrelated to the issue.
Just look at it!
4 Likes
I think your idea of political asylum is bizarre, frankly. Political asylum is, e.g. when someone is persecuted in country A for something that is allowed or even welcome in country B. Thus there are those who seek political asylum who are persecuted in country A because of their race, ethnicity, political opinions, etc. They seek asylum in country B because country B wonât persecute them. I would bet espionage is a crime in every nation on earth. It is certainly a crime in Russia, where Snowden has sought âasylum.â Furthermore, Snowden stole 3/4 of a million documents, most of which is he had not returned. His crime is ongoing.
1 Like
Stole this from someone somewhere:
âDonât savvy me.â New shorthand: only 14 characters. It means: Stop dismissing valid questions with the insiderâs, âand this surprises you?â
2 Likes
What did Snowden reveal? 1) that the government was running associative programs on e-mail addresses and phone numbersâat least one of which was out of the country-- to look for patterns which involved possible terrorist activity This activity involved meta-data which American law currently does not consider to be within oneâs right to privacy (Smith v Maryland). 2) that the government was recording all internet traffic and telephone communication and keeping it for 30 days. This was to preserve electronic ârealityâ for that period of time. Why do that? They certainly were not âsnooping onâ Americans. Think about it. To listen in on or read everything written or spoken in a given day would require three times the actual number of Americans working in 3 shifts. No, what they were doing was preserving this data to allow possible warrants to be obtained from the FISA court to listen to or read particular communications. Yes, I hear youâŚthe FISA court is really not the best, it needs improvement. But can you point to a single case in which an Americans has been deprived of life, liberty or property due to a misuse of the FISA process? I donât think you can. And if there is a warrantless search, any ensuing legal process would be thrown out of court via the 4th Amendment exclusionary rule.
Snowden COULD have revealed the above to the American people pretty much as above, but he did not. He went further, describing for all the worldâour enemies and our friendsâexactly how the process worked. He also stole hundreds of thousands of documents, documents which to this day he has not returned. These are not the actions of an American patriot.
Regarding any possible trial, If I were judge I would allow Snowden to present any defense he wished. That is not to say I or a jury would swallow it.
1 Like
Yep. Point is, the material was not revealed. Different facts make different cases.
1 Like
Warrantless searches? 4th Amendment exclusionary rule.
1 Like
If espionage is a crime everywhere, that would include the whole of the NSA, right? So youâre skipping over the plainly relevant case: political asylum for people who are whistleblowers against government corruption is an established principle, particularly from countries where it looks like the legal system persecutes people who do so.
That they couldnât have looked at all of it is not even close to an argument that they werenât looking at anything they shouldnât have been. Nor does the fact that information obtained without a warrant canât be used in court make its use benign, and itâs absurd to pretend so. This data collection is illegal, or if the US has managed to obtain a series of rulings in secret courts to make it otherwise, at the very least is plainly an example of corruption.
And yet for some reason it seems like youâre perfectly willing to take any excuse not to condemn such espionage against the public, while not allowing any lenience toward a much smaller act of sort-of-espionage on their behalf, letting them know what their own representative government has been doing. Itâs a double standard; your censure âacquits the raven, but pursues the doveâ.
But look, before going into details of things like that, Humbabella left you some very good basic questions at the end of this post. I encourage you to actually answer them.
3 Likes
Right. The FISA court is weak, and should be improved. There is also the 4th Amendment exclusionary rule, a rule that evidence obtained without a warrant is to be thrown out of court.
Actually, you are incorrect here. The documents clearly show that they are getting the entirety of the e-mail, metadata and all. Theyâre just pretending that they only use the metadata and saying that regulations prohibit them from using more without a court order. It isnât that they donât collect it, have it in their system, or canât access it at a keystroke. You seem to ask us to just trust the NSA when they give their word, we promise, not to ever look at that data or use it. Bullshit.
Funny how no one can quote a secret court or details of its actions. That must mean that there is nothing to see, right?
Quit being an NSA shill and actually read the documents.
5 Likes
He gave his journalist girlfriend secret notebooks he kept of classified activities (notebooks that he should have turned over but hadnât) and in an unmonitored way. Iâd say the material was revealed. If he was anyone else, heâd be in jail for at least a decade for it, especially since he did it just to get laid.
1 Like
Iâm not really here to defend Petraeus. I would like to see both Petraeus and Snowden in jail.
1 Like
Well, youâre in the minority since most of the rest of us (and more than half the country as polled) thinks Snowden did a public service.
1 Like
I wonder if you agree or disagree with any of these things I asked about? Iâm hoping that there is some way in which we can do something other than talking past each other.
So you agree he should be able to present any defense he wishes. This is not the same as saying that you think a trial in which he is not allowed to present the reasons he did it would be unfair. Do you think such a trial would be unfair?
Obviously they are not listening to everything said and reading everything written. Iâm pretty sure what weâve learned since is that they were largely snooping on women they had crushes on.
3 Likes
Iâm just going to leave this here. Keep saying that Snowden revealed nothing illegal if youâd like though.
1 Like
I donât think half the country knows the facts. Thatâs why I want to have a
trial, with the facts laid out before a jury.
And the various things said by Snowden, his lawyers, Glenn Greenwald and others that show that those âfactsâ will never be made available to the public or allowed in trial are allâŚlies?
So, we should just trust the NSA when they say theyâre telling the truth, no matter that theyâve literally straight up lied to congress in a verifiable way when asked questions around domestic spying?
Give me a reason why we should.
4 Likes
That a person is or is not a whistle-blower is a conclusion of fact and law. I would certainly support allow him to present what he believed to be facts to support that we was a whistle-blower, and I would support his citing relevant law regarding whistle-blowing.
No, for Snowden to decide himself he wonât or canât get a fair trial is narcissism on the same scale as what I believe led him to commit espionage in the first place.
You have asserted that Manning and Ellsberg did not receive fair trials. I have no reason to believe this other than your saying so. If Snowden had stolen a crust of bread in Saudi Arabia and facing justice there would mean he would have his hand cut off, I would support offering him asylum.
1 Like
Seems unfair for you to read only my first point, then criticize me for not knowing my second pointâthat wholesale recording amounting to petabytes daily was taking place. I was enjoying myself in these several discussions, thinking to myself that these people know how to conduct a reasonable discussion, until you accused me of being an âNSA shill.â Ad hominem attacks are a pretty sure sign a commenter has run out of steam.
1 Like
