Total Posts:69|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Snowden Speaks!

YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 12:14:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
From the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edward Snowden (Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras/The Guardian)

Edward Snowden, in his first public message since arriving at Moscow"s Sheremetyevo International Airport eight days ago, has issued a statement accusing President Obama of deploying "the old, bad tools of political aggression" and "using citizenship as a weapon" in order to silence him. It describes the Obama administration as "afraid of an informed, angry public demanding the constitutional government it was promised " and it should be."

The message also accuses Vice President Biden of pressuring foreign leaders to deny his extradition requests.

Here is Snowden"s statement in full, as it appears on the Wikileaks Web site:

One week ago I left Hong Kong after it became clear that my freedom and safety were under threat from my government for revealing the truth. My continued liberty has been owed to the efforts of friends new and old, family, and others who I have never met and probably never will. I trusted them with my life and they returned that trust with a faith in me for which I will always be thankful.

On Thursday, President Obama declared before the world that he would not permit any diplomatic "wheeling and dealing" over my case. Yet now it is being reported that after promising not to do so, the President ordered his Vice President to pressure the leaders of nations from which I have requested protection to deny my asylum petitions.

This kind of deception from a world leader is not justice, and neither is the extralegal penalty of exile. These are the old, bad tools of political aggression. Their purpose is to frighten, not me, but those who would come after me.

For decades the United States of America have been one of the strongest defenders of the human right to seek asylum. Sadly, this right, laid out and voted for by the U.S. in Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is now being rejected by the current government of my country. The Obama administration has now adopted the strategy of using citizenship as a weapon. Although I am convicted of nothing, it has unilaterally revoked my passport, leaving me a stateless person.

Without any judicial order, the administration now seeks to stop me exercising a basic right. A right that belongs to everybody. The right to seek asylum.

In the end the Obama administration is not afraid of whistleblowers like me, Bradley Manning or Thomas Drake. We are stateless, imprisoned, or powerless. No, the Obama administration is afraid of you. It is afraid of an informed, angry public demanding the constitutional government it was promised " and it should be.

I am unbowed in my convictions and impressed at the efforts taken by so many.

The official Twitter feed of Wikileaks announced the statement in advance, another sign of the group"s efforts to assist Snowden in finding a country that might shelter him. Sarah Harrison, a researcher with WikiLeaks, reportedly traveled with Snowden on his flight from Hong Kong to Moscow. News agencies in Russia reported Monday that she had filed an asylum request with Russian officials on behalf of Snowden.

Snowden has been in limbo since arriving at the transit area of Moscow"s airport. Russian President Vladimir Putin, speaking at a news conference earlier on Monday, suggested that Snowden could stay in Russia as long as he stopped releasing information damaging to the United States. "There is one condition," Putin said. "He has to stop his work undermining our U.S. partners, as odd as it may sound coming from me."

Snowden reportedly sent a letter to President Rafael Correa of Ecuador thanking him for examining his request for asylum there, according to Reuters.

---------------------------
Tsar of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 7:31:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is so retarded. Does he actually think he can violate his contract with the NSA and reveal government secrets and Obama will come and shake his hand for being such a hero??

I've made it clear that I support leakers as much as the next guy... but you have to be aware of AND ACCEPT the consequences.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
FrackJack
Posts: 1,392
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 7:34:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 7:31:38 AM, 000ike wrote:
This is so retarded. Does he actually think he can violate his contract with the NSA and reveal government secrets and Obama will come and shake his hand for being such a hero??

I've made it clear that I support leakers as much as the next guy... but you have to be aware of AND ACCEPT the consequences.

Does Obama want him to go to prison?
: At 8/8/2013 6:15:09 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
: The idiots are rebelling.

http://i.imgur.com...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 10:03:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 7:31:38 AM, 000ike wrote:
you have to be aware of AND ACCEPT the consequences.

No ya don't. You can cede from your state and find refuge elsewhere: that's the point of not only human rights, but the principle that the America was in fact built upon: you can cede from the United Kingdom and become the United States. It's almost hypocrisy, rather than consistency.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 10:07:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 10:03:47 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/2/2013 7:31:38 AM, 000ike wrote:
you have to be aware of AND ACCEPT the consequences.

No ya don't. You can cede from your state and find refuge elsewhere: that's the point of not only human rights, but the principle that the America was in fact built upon: you can cede from the United Kingdom and become the United States. It's almost hypocrisy, rather than consistency.

Lol! You can't just commit a crime and be like "I'm out!"
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 11:00:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 10:07:42 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/2/2013 10:03:47 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/2/2013 7:31:38 AM, 000ike wrote:
you have to be aware of AND ACCEPT the consequences.

No ya don't. You can cede from your state and find refuge elsewhere: that's the point of not only human rights, but the principle that the America was in fact built upon: you can cede from the United Kingdom and become the United States. It's almost hypocrisy, rather than consistency.

Lol! You can't just commit a crime and be like "I'm out!"

Obviously, he doesn't view it as a crime.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 11:03:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 11:00:34 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/2/2013 10:07:42 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/2/2013 10:03:47 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/2/2013 7:31:38 AM, 000ike wrote:
you have to be aware of AND ACCEPT the consequences.

No ya don't. You can cede from your state and find refuge elsewhere: that's the point of not only human rights, but the principle that the America was in fact built upon: you can cede from the United Kingdom and become the United States. It's almost hypocrisy, rather than consistency.

Lol! You can't just commit a crime and be like "I'm out!"

Obviously, he doesn't view it as a crime.

Since when was crime open to people's opinions? The law is the law...is the law.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 11:04:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 11:03:13 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/2/2013 11:00:34 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/2/2013 10:07:42 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/2/2013 10:03:47 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/2/2013 7:31:38 AM, 000ike wrote:
you have to be aware of AND ACCEPT the consequences.

No ya don't. You can cede from your state and find refuge elsewhere: that's the point of not only human rights, but the principle that the America was in fact built upon: you can cede from the United Kingdom and become the United States. It's almost hypocrisy, rather than consistency.

Lol! You can't just commit a crime and be like "I'm out!"

Obviously, he doesn't view it as a crime.

Since when was crime open to people's opinions? The law is the law...is the law.

Since when was it not? People can challenge the legality of laws, e.g., every single Supreme Court case ever.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 11:05:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 11:00:34 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/2/2013 10:07:42 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/2/2013 10:03:47 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/2/2013 7:31:38 AM, 000ike wrote:
you have to be aware of AND ACCEPT the consequences.

No ya don't. You can cede from your state and find refuge elsewhere: that's the point of not only human rights, but the principle that the America was in fact built upon: you can cede from the United Kingdom and become the United States. It's almost hypocrisy, rather than consistency.

Lol! You can't just commit a crime and be like "I'm out!"

Obviously, he doesn't view it as a crime.

I don't either. But he justified Snowden's evasion of US law on principles that would apply to all kinds, regardless of their crime.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 11:06:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 11:05:37 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/2/2013 11:00:34 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/2/2013 10:07:42 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/2/2013 10:03:47 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/2/2013 7:31:38 AM, 000ike wrote:
you have to be aware of AND ACCEPT the consequences.

No ya don't. You can cede from your state and find refuge elsewhere: that's the point of not only human rights, but the principle that the America was in fact built upon: you can cede from the United Kingdom and become the United States. It's almost hypocrisy, rather than consistency.

Lol! You can't just commit a crime and be like "I'm out!"

Obviously, he doesn't view it as a crime.

I don't either. But he justified Snowden's evasion of US law on principles that would apply to all kinds, regardless of their crime.

*I view it as a crime in the sense that it is a crime of course, lol. But I don't think what he did was immoral or unjustified.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 11:08:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 11:05:37 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/2/2013 11:00:34 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/2/2013 10:07:42 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/2/2013 10:03:47 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/2/2013 7:31:38 AM, 000ike wrote:
you have to be aware of AND ACCEPT the consequences.

No ya don't. You can cede from your state and find refuge elsewhere: that's the point of not only human rights, but the principle that the America was in fact built upon: you can cede from the United Kingdom and become the United States. It's almost hypocrisy, rather than consistency.

Lol! You can't just commit a crime and be like "I'm out!"

Obviously, he doesn't view it as a crime.

I don't either. But he justified Snowden's evasion of US law on principles that would apply to all kinds, regardless of their crime.

Fair enough. Laws don't exist beyond the ability of an authority to implement them. If the US government cannot exact their retribution, and the person who committed the act does not view it as a crime, there is no reason to believe that it isn't a crime in their POV.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 11:09:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 11:08:16 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/2/2013 11:05:37 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/2/2013 11:00:34 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/2/2013 10:07:42 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/2/2013 10:03:47 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/2/2013 7:31:38 AM, 000ike wrote:
you have to be aware of AND ACCEPT the consequences.

No ya don't. You can cede from your state and find refuge elsewhere: that's the point of not only human rights, but the principle that the America was in fact built upon: you can cede from the United Kingdom and become the United States. It's almost hypocrisy, rather than consistency.

Lol! You can't just commit a crime and be like "I'm out!"

Obviously, he doesn't view it as a crime.

I don't either. But he justified Snowden's evasion of US law on principles that would apply to all kinds, regardless of their crime.

Fair enough. Laws don't exist beyond the ability of an authority to implement them. If the US government cannot exact their retribution, and the person who committed the act does not view it as a crime, there is no reason to believe that it isn't a crime in their POV.

Ignore the underlined part.

Basically, if laws against a crime cannot be enforced, then the crime ceases to be a crime.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 11:09:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 11:04:53 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/2/2013 11:03:13 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/2/2013 11:00:34 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/2/2013 10:07:42 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/2/2013 10:03:47 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/2/2013 7:31:38 AM, 000ike wrote:
you have to be aware of AND ACCEPT the consequences.

No ya don't. You can cede from your state and find refuge elsewhere: that's the point of not only human rights, but the principle that the America was in fact built upon: you can cede from the United Kingdom and become the United States. It's almost hypocrisy, rather than consistency.

Lol! You can't just commit a crime and be like "I'm out!"

Obviously, he doesn't view it as a crime.

Since when was crime open to people's opinions? The law is the law...is the law.

Since when was it not? People can challenge the legality of laws, e.g., every single Supreme Court case ever.

The law changes when SUPREME COURT JUSTICES or LAW-MAKERS change it...not when an NSA worker decides he doesn't like it. What he did was illegal, end of story. And it's absolutely ridiculous to expect the US government to not chase after him.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 11:12:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 11:09:23 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/2/2013 11:08:16 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/2/2013 11:05:37 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/2/2013 11:00:34 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/2/2013 10:07:42 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/2/2013 10:03:47 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/2/2013 7:31:38 AM, 000ike wrote:
you have to be aware of AND ACCEPT the consequences.

No ya don't. You can cede from your state and find refuge elsewhere: that's the point of not only human rights, but the principle that the America was in fact built upon: you can cede from the United Kingdom and become the United States. It's almost hypocrisy, rather than consistency.

Lol! You can't just commit a crime and be like "I'm out!"

Obviously, he doesn't view it as a crime.

I don't either. But he justified Snowden's evasion of US law on principles that would apply to all kinds, regardless of their crime.

Fair enough. Laws don't exist beyond the ability of an authority to implement them. If the US government cannot exact their retribution, and the person who committed the act does not view it as a crime, there is no reason to believe that it isn't a crime in their POV.

Ignore the underlined part.

Basically, if laws against a crime cannot be enforced, then the crime ceases to be a crime.

It is POSSIBLE this infraction could be met with the appropriate penalties. That is the point.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 11:14:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
So basically, I think Snowden ought not to face consequences because there ought not be laws which would punish him for this, if that makes sense.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 11:19:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 11:09:59 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/2/2013 11:04:53 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/2/2013 11:03:13 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/2/2013 11:00:34 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/2/2013 10:07:42 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/2/2013 10:03:47 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/2/2013 7:31:38 AM, 000ike wrote:
you have to be aware of AND ACCEPT the consequences.

No ya don't. You can cede from your state and find refuge elsewhere: that's the point of not only human rights, but the principle that the America was in fact built upon: you can cede from the United Kingdom and become the United States. It's almost hypocrisy, rather than consistency.

Lol! You can't just commit a crime and be like "I'm out!"

Obviously, he doesn't view it as a crime.

Since when was crime open to people's opinions? The law is the law...is the law.

Since when was it not? People can challenge the legality of laws, e.g., every single Supreme Court case ever.

The law changes when SUPREME COURT JUSTICES or LAW-MAKERS change it...not when an NSA worker decides he doesn't like it. What he did was illegal, end of story.

If I don't think that something is illegal, and the authority has no grasp on me, then it is not illegal. Mutual legality would only exists if you were to accept some sort of social contract, which is an absurd thought.

And it's absolutely ridiculous to expect the US government to not chase after him.

Of course they are going to chase after him. However, them chasing after him is stupid and reminiscent of an Orwellian State.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 11:25:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 11:14:26 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
So basically, I think Snowden ought not to face consequences because there ought not be laws which would punish him for this, if that makes sense.

That makes sense. But he did violate a serious set of US laws in committing these acts. He knows the law, I'm sure he had to sign documents about it about a billion times at the NSA. He should accept the consequences instead of being a coward.

He had a right to leak the info, sure. But now he has to stand and face the consequence which is that he broke the law.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 11:38:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Of course they are going to chase after him. However, them chasing after him is stupid and reminiscent of an Orwellian State."

If we permit the government to not enforce the laws we have there's no stopping them from enforcing the laws we don't. Degenerating into a lawless society is not the way to solve this.
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 11:43:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 10:03:47 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/2/2013 7:31:38 AM, 000ike wrote:
you have to be aware of AND ACCEPT the consequences.

No ya don't. You can cede from your state and find refuge elsewhere:

If and only if one is a legitimate refugee then may one apply for refugee status/seek political asylum. Snowden is not a refugee. He is a traitor, and ought to be treated as such.

that's the point of not only human rights, but the principle that the America was in fact built upon

This isn't a human rights issue. It's a question of treason and espionage.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 11:45:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 7:31:38 AM, 000ike wrote:
Does he actually think he can violate his contract with the NSA and reveal government secrets and Obama will come and shake his hand for being such a hero??

I think that he thinks he is entitled to treatment similar to what you're describing, yes. That's one of the many aspects which are so remarkable about this situation...
Tsar of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 11:46:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 11:43:09 AM, YYW wrote:
At 7/2/2013 10:03:47 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/2/2013 7:31:38 AM, 000ike wrote:
you have to be aware of AND ACCEPT the consequences.

No ya don't. You can cede from your state and find refuge elsewhere:

If and only if one is a legitimate refugee then may one apply for refugee status/seek political asylum. Snowden is not a refugee. He is a traitor, and ought to be treated as such.

that's the point of not only human rights, but the principle that the America was in fact built upon

This isn't a human rights issue. It's a question of treason and espionage.

I wouldn't go that far. I just think this is an issue of competing interests, both with some merit and justification, and we should not dismiss one side without understanding the circumstances surrounding it.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 11:54:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 11:46:00 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/2/2013 11:43:09 AM, YYW wrote:
At 7/2/2013 10:03:47 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/2/2013 7:31:38 AM, 000ike wrote:
you have to be aware of AND ACCEPT the consequences.

No ya don't. You can cede from your state and find refuge elsewhere:

If and only if one is a legitimate refugee then may one apply for refugee status/seek political asylum. Snowden is not a refugee. He is a traitor, and ought to be treated as such.

that's the point of not only human rights, but the principle that the America was in fact built upon

This isn't a human rights issue. It's a question of treason and espionage.

I wouldn't go that far. I just think this is an issue of competing interests, both with some merit and justification, and we should not dismiss one side without understanding the circumstances surrounding it.

You're right in that it is an issue of competing interests: the US government's interest in preserving state secrets and the integrity of the American intelligence community and Snowden's interest in being the "heralded whistle-blowing martyr to his cause."

If Snowden wanted to actually try to change things, there is an internal process whereby he could have voiced his concerns -for example, he could -and should- have taken his concerns to the inspector general of the NSA. But, he didn't do that. Rather, he compromised state secrets and undermined the integrity of the US intelligence community and instigated (as a result) an international diplomatic crisis.

18 USC sec 2381 defines treason as:

When someone who "[owes] 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."

By exposing state secrets to enemies of the United States, as Snowden did, he indirectly aided them at the United States' expense. He should also face espionage charges, but that is a separate -though related- issue.
Tsar of DDO
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 12:37:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 11:38:20 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
"Of course they are going to chase after him. However, them chasing after him is stupid and reminiscent of an Orwellian State."

If we permit the government to not enforce the laws we have there's no stopping them from enforcing the laws we don't. Degenerating into a lawless society is not the way to solve this.

You're forgetting that I'm an anarchist.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 12:38:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 11:54:42 AM, YYW wrote:
At 7/2/2013 11:46:00 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/2/2013 11:43:09 AM, YYW wrote:
At 7/2/2013 10:03:47 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/2/2013 7:31:38 AM, 000ike wrote:
you have to be aware of AND ACCEPT the consequences.

No ya don't. You can cede from your state and find refuge elsewhere:

If and only if one is a legitimate refugee then may one apply for refugee status/seek political asylum. Snowden is not a refugee. He is a traitor, and ought to be treated as such.

that's the point of not only human rights, but the principle that the America was in fact built upon

This isn't a human rights issue. It's a question of treason and espionage.

I wouldn't go that far. I just think this is an issue of competing interests, both with some merit and justification, and we should not dismiss one side without understanding the circumstances surrounding it.

You're right in that it is an issue of competing interests: the US government's interest in preserving state secrets and the integrity of the American intelligence community and Snowden's interest in being the "heralded whistle-blowing martyr to his cause."

If Snowden wanted to actually try to change things, there is an internal process whereby he could have voiced his concerns -for example, he could -and should- have taken his concerns to the inspector general of the NSA. But, he didn't do that. Rather, he compromised state secrets and undermined the integrity of the US intelligence community and instigated (as a result) an international diplomatic crisis.

18 USC sec 2381 defines treason as:

When someone who "[owes] 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."

By exposing state secrets to enemies of the United States, as Snowden did, he indirectly aided them at the United States' expense. He should also face espionage charges, but that is a separate -though related- issue.

There's your problem. Those words can be interpreted however narrowly or broadly you want, combined with about a million definitions of the terms.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 12:40:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 12:38:31 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/2/2013 11:54:42 AM, YYW wrote:
At 7/2/2013 11:46:00 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/2/2013 11:43:09 AM, YYW wrote:
At 7/2/2013 10:03:47 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/2/2013 7:31:38 AM, 000ike wrote:
you have to be aware of AND ACCEPT the consequences.

No ya don't. You can cede from your state and find refuge elsewhere:

If and only if one is a legitimate refugee then may one apply for refugee status/seek political asylum. Snowden is not a refugee. He is a traitor, and ought to be treated as such.

that's the point of not only human rights, but the principle that the America was in fact built upon

This isn't a human rights issue. It's a question of treason and espionage.

I wouldn't go that far. I just think this is an issue of competing interests, both with some merit and justification, and we should not dismiss one side without understanding the circumstances surrounding it.

You're right in that it is an issue of competing interests: the US government's interest in preserving state secrets and the integrity of the American intelligence community and Snowden's interest in being the "heralded whistle-blowing martyr to his cause."

If Snowden wanted to actually try to change things, there is an internal process whereby he could have voiced his concerns -for example, he could -and should- have taken his concerns to the inspector general of the NSA. But, he didn't do that. Rather, he compromised state secrets and undermined the integrity of the US intelligence community and instigated (as a result) an international diplomatic crisis.

18 USC sec 2381 defines treason as:

When someone who "[owes] 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."

By exposing state secrets to enemies of the United States, as Snowden did, he indirectly aided them at the United States' expense. He should also face espionage charges, but that is a separate -though related- issue.

There's your problem. Those words can be interpreted however narrowly or broadly you want, combined with about a million definitions of the terms.

It means if he is a US citizen (which Snowden is) or in cooperation with the United States. It's not an interpretive problem, and while it isn't unnecessarily broad or vague, it is as broad as it is for a purpose.
Tsar of DDO
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 12:41:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 12:40:02 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/2/2013 12:38:31 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/2/2013 11:54:42 AM, YYW wrote:
At 7/2/2013 11:46:00 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/2/2013 11:43:09 AM, YYW wrote:
At 7/2/2013 10:03:47 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/2/2013 7:31:38 AM, 000ike wrote:
you have to be aware of AND ACCEPT the consequences.

No ya don't. You can cede from your state and find refuge elsewhere:

If and only if one is a legitimate refugee then may one apply for refugee status/seek political asylum. Snowden is not a refugee. He is a traitor, and ought to be treated as such.

that's the point of not only human rights, but the principle that the America was in fact built upon

This isn't a human rights issue. It's a question of treason and espionage.

I wouldn't go that far. I just think this is an issue of competing interests, both with some merit and justification, and we should not dismiss one side without understanding the circumstances surrounding it.

You're right in that it is an issue of competing interests: the US government's interest in preserving state secrets and the integrity of the American intelligence community and Snowden's interest in being the "heralded whistle-blowing martyr to his cause."

If Snowden wanted to actually try to change things, there is an internal process whereby he could have voiced his concerns -for example, he could -and should- have taken his concerns to the inspector general of the NSA. But, he didn't do that. Rather, he compromised state secrets and undermined the integrity of the US intelligence community and instigated (as a result) an international diplomatic crisis.

18 USC sec 2381 defines treason as:

When someone who "[owes] 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."

By exposing state secrets to enemies of the United States, as Snowden did, he indirectly aided them at the United States' expense. He should also face espionage charges, but that is a separate -though related- issue.

There's your problem. Those words can be interpreted however narrowly or broadly you want, combined with about a million definitions of the terms.

It means if he is a US citizen (which Snowden is) or in cooperation with the United States. It's not an interpretive problem, and while it isn't unnecessarily broad or vague, it is as broad as it is for a purpose.

Since when does having citizenship imply loyalty to the government? Perhaps, it could be argued, that it implies loyalty to the country, but the country =/= the government.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 12:44:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And don't give me that democratic mantra about the government being the people.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 12:50:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 12:41:16 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/2/2013 12:40:02 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/2/2013 12:38:31 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/2/2013 11:54:42 AM, YYW wrote:
At 7/2/2013 11:46:00 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/2/2013 11:43:09 AM, YYW wrote:
At 7/2/2013 10:03:47 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/2/2013 7:31:38 AM, 000ike wrote:
you have to be aware of AND ACCEPT the consequences.

No ya don't. You can cede from your state and find refuge elsewhere:

If and only if one is a legitimate refugee then may one apply for refugee status/seek political asylum. Snowden is not a refugee. He is a traitor, and ought to be treated as such.

that's the point of not only human rights, but the principle that the America was in fact built upon

This isn't a human rights issue. It's a question of treason and espionage.

I wouldn't go that far. I just think this is an issue of competing interests, both with some merit and justification, and we should not dismiss one side without understanding the circumstances surrounding it.

You're right in that it is an issue of competing interests: the US government's interest in preserving state secrets and the integrity of the American intelligence community and Snowden's interest in being the "heralded whistle-blowing martyr to his cause."

If Snowden wanted to actually try to change things, there is an internal process whereby he could have voiced his concerns -for example, he could -and should- have taken his concerns to the inspector general of the NSA. But, he didn't do that. Rather, he compromised state secrets and undermined the integrity of the US intelligence community and instigated (as a result) an international diplomatic crisis.

18 USC sec 2381 defines treason as:

When someone who "[owes] 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."

By exposing state secrets to enemies of the United States, as Snowden did, he indirectly aided them at the United States' expense. He should also face espionage charges, but that is a separate -though related- issue.

There's your problem. Those words can be interpreted however narrowly or broadly you want, combined with about a million definitions of the terms.

It means if he is a US citizen (which Snowden is) or in cooperation with the United States. It's not an interpretive problem, and while it isn't unnecessarily broad or vague, it is as broad as it is for a purpose.

Since when does having citizenship imply loyalty to the government? Perhaps, it could be argued, that it implies loyalty to the country, but the country =/= the government.

That's how the courts have interpreted the meaning of that clause since its existence.
Tsar of DDO