Hopefully, Admiral Ackbar’s within shouting distance.
I don’t trust our .gov when it comes to Ed - I hope he doesn’t either.
I caught an older episode of Bill Maher over this past weekend & one of the guests represented our .gov with “high level access” about Snowden. He claimed that he was a traitor who divulged secrets to the Russians, information that hasn’t been published & if the American public knew what he shared they would feel the same way about Ed that he did. He made it sound like it was Snowden’s plan all along & this “trade” was to further hurt America & secure his amnesty in Russia.
All while completely ignoring the fact that the only reason he was stuck there in the first place was by the direct intent of our .gov! He didn’t / doesn’t want to be there, but the US made sure it happened.
I trust these fskr’s less and less with every overture they make suggesting Snowden will get anything at all resembling a “fair trial” if he should return. Hogwash. We destroy the Americans who take their oath seriously to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign & domestic while instead promoting those who abuse it to make themselves & their masters rich & powerful at the expense of the very principles they swore to protect.
I seem to recall lots of new accounts on here condemning Snowden as a traitor. I wonder if any of them are still active?
(In an ideal world… Snowden deserves reward, not persecution)
ETA: Just to be clear, I think he’s a hero and if he hadn’t done the amazing things he’s done, he could clearly have been a genius writer, based on that tweet. Not implying he had ANY profit motive at any stage, just riffing on the ol’ meme…
Holder is really hitting the smarmy doublespeak pretty hard here.
You can’t have it both ways: the whole thing with ‘whistleblower’ is that they go outside the approved channels because whatever they are blowing the whistle on has captured both the organization and the organization’s internal governance mechanisms.
If you acknowledge that the whistleblower did a valuable service; consistency demands that you admit that they did what they had to do in terms of getting the information out(you can quibble with specific details of their strategy; but “Why didn’t you just ask your boss to investigate his own malfeasance?” is just asinine).
If you claim that the methods were bad and wrong and wicked and whatnot you are either just clinging to ritualistic legalism of the ‘the rules are the rules because they are the rules’ school; or you are claiming that the ‘legitimate’ channels would actually have worked.
In this case, it’s a matter of fact that ‘going through channels’ was tried, and a number of people were more or less ruined for doing so. It wasn’t a meaningful option. Either you get a bit of sunshine by other means, or you get nothing.
Holder’s position is trying to have it both ways, admitting that the whistle-blowing was valuable; but simultaneously implying that the system was somehow non-broken enough that less impolite methods would have been possible.
It would be easier to take the official outrage against Snowden seriously if it had been applied equally to the General Petraus release of classified material to his girlfriend. The double standard is so obviously unfair and arbitrary. Our treatment of whistleblowers is horrible and unjust, and is clearly used to try to prevent official embarrassment instead of to protect necessary secrets. Classified material is leaked all of the time to try to promote some political purpose, and those leakers are never charged.
it could be both
Their treatment is consistent with long held tradition of seeing justice done differently when the rich and powerful are caught publicly breaking the law.
Stay clear, Eddie-boy; you can’t ever come home again.
Perhaps President Warren will pardon him…
somehow i doubt it
That’s why he has a lawyer and would have a signed deal from the government before he came back that was legally enforceable.
Fixed that for you.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.