A deal for Snowden?

ZouPrime said:
Obviously, the US prosecution aren't stupid and won't focus on this small "good will" act, and instead will focus on the totally preventable, voluntary and unnecessary leak of all these documents, the worst intelligence disaster in US history.
Click to expand...

No hyperbole here. Nope. None at all.
 
Joey McGee said:
Snowden is a Paultard who thinks we need the gold standard and the government is one event away from turning into a "turnkey tyranny" and that people dying in bathtubs is a bigger problem than stopping terrorist attacks. That's his justification. Paul agrees, once musing that Snowden might get taken out by a drone strike.

These things are conveniently forgotten and not mentioned by his defenders for some reason...
Click to expand...

And I am sure a lot of people think he's ugly. Another fact conveniently forgotten and not mentioned by his defenders for some reason.

What the hell does being a Paultard have to do with anything? Are we supposed to say "Oh, he's not a democrat* like me, hang the bastard, then!" I suppose it paints a particular, unsurprising picture of a certain sort of idealistic mindset but, beyond that, it is totally irrelevant.



* Or republican or whatever.
 
ZouPrime said:
This is no better than the "I was just showing that it was possible" defense of some hackers. The '90 are long gone, and this kind of easy copt-out doesn't work anymore. A unlocked door isn't an invitation to break in, it never was, and it never will.
Click to expand...

I wonder if that's the NSA's excuse when they break into systems?
 
cosmicaug said:
No hyperbole here. Nope. None at all.
Click to expand...
It is the worst intelligence disaster in US history. This is not a hyperbole at all.

Edited to add: just thought of the Manhattan program and the soviet spies. Ok, this one could be considered bigger. Snowden's second, or at least, he's the worst of the NSA.
 
Last edited:
ZouPrime said:
Yes, and they were charged under the Espionnage Act. So will Snowden.

I don't understand why you think the law applies in somes cases but not in others. The technology and circumstances change, but there's no reason why Snowden (or Manning, a similar example) should get a free pass. And please, don't tell me "but they were whistleblowers", if that's still your argument then you're missing the point (just like the article author is missing the point).
Click to expand...

I have not expressed a definite opinion about how the law should be applied to Snowden, because I don't have a definite opinion. I have been ambivalent from the start.

I do see a huge difference between Snowden and traditional spies like Aldrich Ames. Snowden did what he did and then exposed himself, for the sake of what he thinks is the public interest. Ames acted in secret, for personal gain, until he was caught and exposed by others. Those are different situations. How the law should reflect that difference I don't know.

ZouPrime said:
This is a thread called "A deal for Snowden". So yeah, people are going to talk about him here. By the way, the first person who talked about Snowden was... Snowden himself. Paradoxically, he's completely superfluous to his own leak. He could have given everything to Greenwald and never revealed himself, and it wouldn't have change anything. It's not like he's important for the credibility of his own story.

The number one reason why people speaks so much of Snowden, is because Snowden chose to make the story so much about him.
Click to expand...

I don't see it. Snowden's focus has been on the activities of the NSA. That is what is now causing so much furor inside the US gov't. The discussion is centered on the legitimacy of the programs Snowden exposed, and the egregious lack of security within the NSA. What happens to the man himself, or what anyone thinks of him, is of little importance.

Lots of politicians would like to keep the public focused on Snowden. Hence the baseless insinuation that the Russians put him up to this. They want people to fume about the evil traitor, and ignore what the gov't is doing. I don't think it will work. I'm seeing less and less media coverage of Snowden, but quite a bit about the documents he released.
 
ZouPrime said:
It is the worst intelligence disaster in US history. This is not a hyperbole at all.

Edited to add: just thought of the Manhattan program and the soviet spies. Ok, this one could be considered bigger. Snowden's second, or at least, he's the worst of the NSA.
Click to expand...

I see it as the latest in a long line of disasters in a US intelligence community run by crackpots, alcoholics and bunglers.
 
Joey McGee said:
Snowden is a Paultard who thinks we need the gold standard and the government is one event away from turning into a "turnkey tyranny" and that people dying in bathtubs is a bigger problem than stopping terrorist attacks.
Click to expand...

That's why he was such a perfect fit for US intelligence. He blended right in and everyone trusted him.

"You need my login, Ed? Sure thing... username NSAguy, password 123456..."
 
cosmicaug said:
And I am sure a lot of people think he's ugly. Another fact conveniently forgotten and not mentioned by his defenders for some reason.

What the hell does being a Paultard have to do with anything? Are we supposed to say "Oh, he's not a democrat* like me, hang the bastard, then!" I suppose it paints a particular, unsurprising picture of a certain sort of idealistic mindset but, beyond that, it is totally irrelevant.

* Or republican or whatever.
Click to expand...

It seems to be based on two mistaken assumptions:

That 'defenders of Snowden', have to like everything about the guy.

That the repeated use of 'Paultard', is in some way constitutes a persuasive argument.

It seems to highlight to me that the cupboard is rather bare in terms of answering the argument that Snowden generated a welcome debate and brought about the exposure of mismanagement and unconstitutional activities, which pretty much is the definition of whistleblowing.

He also did the NSA and government a service by highlighting how chronically poor their security is and drawing attention to the vast section of private contractors who have access to this supposedly secret information.

The Russians presumably already had this material through other sources, unless Snowden was especially clever and unprecedented.
 
Are the Russians allies or enemies of the US these days? The War on Terror seems to have made everyone a potential enemy, including US citizens.
 
Democracy Simulator said:
It seems to highlight to me that the cupboard is rather bare in terms of answering the argument that Snowden generated a welcome debate and brought about the exposure of mismanagement and unconstitutional activities, which pretty much is the definition of whistleblowing.
Click to expand...
I like how recognizing this is seen has "having a bare cupboard in term of answering the whistleblowing argument". Yes, Snowden managed to educate people in something they would have been aware of had they been keeping attention. Yes, domestic surveillance is a serious issue deserving a serious discussion (and btw, no, we're not having a serious discussion about it).

It doesn't mean that Snowden should automagically get exonerated for disclosing a vast amount of US state secrets that, shall we repeat it again, have absolutely nothing whatsoever with domestic surveillance, and are perfectly in line with the activites of any world-class foreign intelligence agency.

Doing something good doesn't make the bad goes away. Especially since it's very very clear how Snowden could have very easily done the same good without doing the bad. He CHOSE to disclose all this. That's HIS DOING.

He also did the NSA and government a service by highlighting how chronically poor their security is and drawing attention to the vast section of private contractors who have access to this supposedly secret information.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and the random hacker "helped the company" by hacking its system and stealing its data. The oldest excuse in the book. Still won't work this time.
The Russians presumably already had this material through other sources, unless Snowden was especially clever and unprecedented.
Click to expand...
Again, good old excuses. The Russian PRESUMABLY had everything from the start. Hey, no proof, but who cares when the goal is to present Snowden in the best light possible no matter what.
 
Last edited:
babycondor said:
Are the Russians allies or enemies of the US these days? The War on Terror seems to have made everyone a potential enemy, including US citizens.
Click to expand...

In the context of diplomacy, there are no strict "allies". All countries, friends and enemies alike, are in competition against each others over a variety of issues. This has nothing to do whatsoever with the War on Terror; this behavior predates the birth of the very concept of nation-states.

Even during WWII, Britain was spying on the US and routinely reading its diplomatic correspondence. And we're talking about the two biggest parties in a coalition that was named "The Allies".
 
cosmicaug said:
And I am sure a lot of people think he's ugly. Another fact conveniently forgotten and not mentioned by his defenders for some reason.

What the hell does being a Paultard have to do with anything? Are we supposed to say "Oh, he's not a democrat* like me, hang the bastard, then!" I suppose it paints a particular, unsurprising picture of a certain sort of idealistic mindset but, beyond that, it is totally irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Ron Paul is a kook, you have to be a kook to think he would run the country in an effective manner. It says a lot about his capacity for clear-thinking, and his capacity to have delusional, conspiracist views about America. This is born out by his paranoid beliefs and statements, apparently agents of the American government are harassing him daily threatening to kill him? The Triads almost whacked him? Paul was worried he would be hit by a drone strike... uhm... lol!

I didn't say "libertarian" or "republican" I said "Paultard" because Paul is literally retarded and only a retard would think he would be good for America with those kinds of economic policies..
 
Snowden Nominated for Nobel Peace Prize

Link

I doubt if he 'll win it, but the irony of this is surely not lost on Obama.
 
babycondor said:
Snowden Nominated for Nobel Peace Prize

Link

I doubt if he 'll win it, but the irony of this is surely not lost on Obama.
Click to expand...

No irony, just the usual countercultural politics. If somebody seems like they are against The Man in a public enough way, some legislator or dog catcher somewhere can be counted upon to nominate them. Adolf Hitler was nominated in 1939, so Snowden may take some pride in joining that august fraternity.
 
Last edited:
BenBurch said:
No irony, just the usual countercultural politics. If somebody seems like they are against The Man in a public enough way, some legislator or dog catcher somewhere can be counted upon to nominate them. Adolf Hitler was nominated in 1939, so Snowden take some pride in joining that august fraternity.
Click to expand...

You forgot to mention that the 1939 nomination of Hitler was intended as a satirical joke, and was withdrawn.
 
babycondor said:
You forgot to mention that the 1939 nomination of Hitler was intended as a satirical joke, and was withdrawn.
Click to expand...

Oh, then, Henry Kissinger. About as terrible a monster as we have seen in the USA. He even won.

And then there was Cordell Hull who denied the holocaust was happening while it still was and even deported Jewish refugees back to Germany.

Yasser Arafat also was nominated several times and actually won the prize.
 
BenBurch said:
Oh, then, Henry Kissinger. About as terrible a monster as we have seen in the USA. He even won.

And then there was Cordell Hull who denied the holocaust was happening while it still was and even deported Jewish refugees back to Germany.

Yasser Arafat also was nominated several times and actually won the prize.
Click to expand...

Cherry picking all the undeserving nominees, but ignoring deserving nominees who did not win, like Gandhi, Eleanor Roosevelt, and U Thant.

Anyway we are getting derailed here.
 
Last edited:
babycondor said:
Cherry picking all the undeserving nominees, but ignoring deserving nominees who did not win, like Gandhi, Eleanor Roosevelt, and U Thant.

Anyway we are getting derailed here.
Click to expand...

Not a derail. Just proof that a nobel peace prize nomination isn't anything at all to be proud of or not proud of. In fact the prize itself is so tainted it is an honor mostly for the money involved. But it makes good press release material.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom