Edward Snowden runs from the long arm of the US

I believe in an age when my countrymen will not rush to proclaim that at least there are countries which are worse and will be proud to say there's no country better.

That won't happen unless we get rid of the apologists (both Republican and Democrat), but it is an age we must all believe in and strive for.

 

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."--Benjamin Franklin

Right, a self described "(very) conservative" who takes his political stance and ability to reason from a 2000 year old mumbo jumbo book wants to tell me about credibility. I recommend you read the damn thing to get a sense of what credibility isn't like, then we'll talk.

 

Everyone, please try to keep the thread on the subject of Edward Snowden as best we can.

I think it's interesting that he's not leaving the Moscow airport, and therefore not technically entering Russia. I guess Russia has an out to not help the US bring this guy to justice.

 

Let me start by saying that I support Snowden (and also Assange/Manning). The government spying on us is basically no different than what the Stasi did in East Germany. We are protected against spying and unlawful searches, but it doesn't seem like the government cares. Guys like Snowden and Manning are showing people proof that what their government is doing is immoral and unjustified. Honestly, we need more people like Manning and Snowden. And I think more people (especially lawmakers) should read John Locke, Jefferson, the letters of James Madison, etc.

Let me end this post with a quote.

 

Hong Kong is only 3000 miles away from New York?

 

Why is Snowden even being discussed?

The government is spying on us, and suddenly all anyone cares about is the guy who told us? The media storm surrounding him is a well crafted cover to divert attention away from the fact that the government is spying on us.

Which, really shouldn't surprise anyone I guess...

But still, there is now proof positive, and everyone is obsessed with some loser who doesn't want to go to jail. I feel like perspective is lacking.

 

Because he didn't expose anything illegal or any wrongdoing. I bet half of you don't even know exactly how PRISM works. You'd rather just think that the NSA is sitting in some office eavesdropping on your phone calls. This is so far from the truth.

Besides, Manning is going away for life for leaking 'classified' material. The stuff Snowden leaked was 'top secret.'

I love how all the Snowden fans think that breaking the law is justified. Especially giving top secret info to the Chinese.

You can't rob a bank and give the money to an orphanage and get a pass for stealing it.

Like I said, justice is blind.

 

Then you shouldn't mind providing a search warrant, as required by the fourth amendment to prove that PRISM is even remotely constitutional.

 

There is hardly any functional difference in the two governments. No one bothers talking about how countries like China do things, since quite frankly it is so obvious beyond any reasonable doubt. Here in the United States of America, the so-called land of the brave, it should be expected that we would hold government up to a higher standard, that the government should literally fear the gunshot of the citizen at every angle, but clearly this isn't the case. What is the case is that while China has actually moved into experimenting with free market ideals and is in a historical pattern of classical liberalization (at a slow rate, but the pattern is clearly obvious), western countries like the U.S. continue downwards a totalitarian pattern - the pattern part being an assumption since it's just as likely now that these countries always have had a totalitarian streak.

And no, it's no endorsement of any country. America is a lesser of evil, but that's all it is - while the things that could make it great are the very things it wants to restrain.

 

I must say, this is exactly how I feel about this whole thing too.

Snowden has also claimed that the British GCHQ has been doing something similar by tapping into broadband communication cables. I just do not feel comfortable being spied on by my own government. It feels like I'm not trusted by my own representatives, people who wouldn't even have their jobs without votes like mine. And, also, some of my friends are saying that if you do nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear - no, you do, and you also might unwittingly be part of a very serious problem.

Also, thirdwind mate, great Jefferson quote. Kudos to you here for posting it.

 

The only "abuse of freedom" going on is when those like you who support such statements even attempt to chain those around one's self often under the mere basis they don't share the one's morality (if there is any such thing as "abuse of freedom"; one cannot abuse freedom by exercising their rights to it). What those like Snowden & Manning have done is they help prove why government cannot and should never be trusted.

Mind you, morality is able to flourish on its own through free market solutions - but it will never flourish under totalitarian chains as those like you want regardless of your supposed "benevolent" intentions (after all, the road to hell is paved with good intentions).

Meant to quote the two of you below, but it's never too late, is it?

People simply don't like facing the possibility that their security is nothing more than an illusion that sacrificed what could otherwise be a reality, the free market, and that those claiming to protect them are often times their ugliest of enemies (but who can blame them? Humans are simply programmed to want comfort, which a security blanket provides as much an illusion as it always is). Which is the sad thing, that people in America could actually support such atrocities or ignore them altogether.

Exactly.

"Suspicion is a virtue as long as its object is the public good, and as long as it stays within proper bounds. … Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that precious jewel." - Patrick Henry

"Truth certainly would do well enough, if she were once left to shift for herself. She seldom has received and, I fear, never will receive much assistance from the power of great men, to whom she is but rarely known and more rarely welcome. She is not taught by laws, nor has she any need of force to procure her entrance into the minds of men. Errors, indeed, prevail by the assistance of foreign and borrowed succours. But if Truth makes not her way into the understanding by her own light, she will be but the weaker for any borrowed force violence can add to her." - John Locke

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." - Thomas Jefferson

 

I think Manning, Snowden and Assange should get a Nobel peace prize, for opening the eyes of the world to the hypocrisy of the self-appointed world policeman, and thus furthering the peaceful cause on Earth. I wish Snowden a safe journey and a world without war.

 

as of 13:00 CET
Apparently he's still in "International Airspace" seeing that he doesn't have a Russian visa so is still in the International Transit Zone.

A nice touch from the Chinese and Russians, one blaming incomplete extradition paperwork and the other saying "Technically we don't have him" and the Cubans and Ecuadorans hanging out the banners to welcome him with open arms. A massive 2 fingers from 3 different continents to the planet's police just days after the G8 when Putin shook Obama's hand in front of the world's press. Oh how they must have chuckled over a vodka and fried rice.

Out of just about every other country, the only PM that leapt to Obama's defence was the arse-licking David Cameron and even his token gesture was to warn airlines not to take Snowden to Britain. Funny how GCHQ were doing exactly the same with identical equipment, hmmm.....

It really does go to show how much contempt successive US govts have persevered to keep themselves in by the rest of the world.

And still they have managed to win by deflecting all this attention to one solitary man instead of a conspiracy managed and perpetrated by tens of thousands of American people to illegally spy on civilians all over the world.

 

and at 15:00 CET, it seems now he wasn't even on that Russian Aeroflot. He must be still be cross-legged!

 

I don't know if its constitutional, that's up to the courts to decide, but it's still 100% legal under US law.


The Protect America Act of 2007 made it possible for targets to be electronically surveilled without a warrant if they were "reasonably believed" to be foreign. Go read it yourself.

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/laws/pl11055.pdf

A year later you have the 2008 FISA Amendments Act, which immunized companies from legal harm for handing information over to the government.

Read that too:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-110hr6304enr/pdf/BILLS-110hr6304enr.pdf

These two laws combine to allow the NSA to sweep metadata and use computer algorithms to locate foreign communications, not domestic communications. Also, they are still not allowed to monitor call content, just the who-called-who-and-when.

Like I said its easy for all of you to get swept up in some kind of bloodlust over this and make gross generalizations, but I would honestly urge you to do the research for yourself.

Finally, I will repeat this one more time:

Edward Snowden committed espionage, and the law makes no exception for the reasons. It doesn't care.

 

That's the magic word. Everybody outside America has been spied on. And the Brits have been spying on everyone outside Britain. hmmm.....

And anyway, who gives the US this right to spy on me or collect everything I've ever done online? If I google 'where to buy baked beans' they know about it. Whatever way you look at it is wrong. Even fishermen have laws against trawling, sea sweeping in the hope they catch something half decent.

I agree though about Snowden handing over hard drives to the Chinese and Russians - if he did!

 

If this is true, it will be interesting to see where it goes:

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2013/06/court-agrees-to-release-2011-ruling-calling-nsas-spying-unconstitutional-and-illegal-over-dojs-objections-2668584.html

At this point, I'd say it is not at all clear that the NSA acted legally with PRISM. It's just as easy to jump to the conclusion they did, [MENTION=44992]JJ_Maxx[/MENTION], as what you're accusing others of doing. I have a feeling we're going to find out more about all of this in the coming months and at that time we'll have a better understanding.

 

Ergo, it's too much thought for you to handle so you just want to delegate it entirely to a court? Come now.

Reasons always matter, since they alone can and will build context behind every action. I was going to add more with my recent edit, but Pheonix below touched upon the espionage part well enough.

(Why do you bother identifying yourself as "very conservative" though? Clearly you do not support limiting government, or is it because you understand that conservatism is historically about the preservation of the state system first & foremost?)

 

So, since a corrupt system made it legal, that makes it okay?

(I'm sorry about this, even I think it sounds cheesy but I can't stop myself...)

Reading books was illegal in Fahrenheit 451, using words that weren't on the list was illegal in 1984. In South Korea, it is illegal to be a conscientious objector to military service. In Taliban controlled Afganistan they claim it's illegal for a woman to show her face.

What makes our country any better than those? Whats the difference between them and the US that suddenly makes the laws here infallible? If anyone honestly believes that any government has the best interests of it's people at heart, they're deluded and thoroughly propagandized. This country is no exception.

As for the legality of it, from a purely legal viewpoint, it may be technically legal, but the way it was accomplished was incredibly round about and secretive, unnecessarily so. There was no reason that a bill couldn't have been put through congress giving the government the right, explicitly, to monitor meta-data.

Also, there what I got out of reading the Protect America Act was that electronic surveillance was not allowed...

Now, If I'm mistaken and misinterpreting this, please tell me...

But even so, my point stands that just because something is legal, doesn't mean it should be. And any law that gives the government the right to spy on it's own citizens under a broad definition like those presented here seems incredibly invasive and contrary to the supposed freedom that it's claimed we in this country enjoy.

However, once again I digress... This shouldn't surprise anyone, since most people just assume that it's happening anyway and have for a long time. It's par for the course.

And whatever the government does with Snowden, I don't feel particularly sorry for him... he brought it on himself, but he should not be the focus of so much attention. Almost immediately after the leak, his character was being attacked in an effort to discredit him, even though the information he leaked was certainly accurate. He is just the center of a distraction campaign.

 

Anybody who knows anything about data modelling knows that metadata is critical data. Invasion of privacy does not become accceptable just because what's being collected is metadata. Do you have any idea how fundamental metadata was in the data integration patents I developed for the government? Of course you don't. If you did, you wouldn't be arguing "it's just metadata".
And I simply cannot imagine the Founding Fathers being okay with this sort of invasion of privacy. I simply cannot visualize them saying "okay, the 4th Amendment can be ignored here", because, if they were to say that, then they might as well just not have the 4th at all.

 

NSA's action have serious Constitutional problems, and that trumps statutory law. The other question is whether they even operated within the statute in the first place.

 

It's NOT about the program. The program is legal, and it can be challenged and brought to the Supreme Court if necessary.

But can we get back to the fact that this US citizen took four laptops full of top-secret intelligence material to China? Again, you all want to argue 'ends justifies the means' system of justice, which makes justice partial and non-objective.

"Your honor, I murdered that guy, but he really deserved it, so let me go."

It's preposterous, and as I said, whistleblower status doesn't apply to people with high-level intelligence clearance, according to the law.

But hey, nobody wants to hear about laws or facts, we would rather create our own cookie-cutter, black and white, good vs. evil narrative and sleep good at night.

I say he broke the law, you say the law is invalid, therefore we will never reach any consensus. If you have no respect for the law, created and passed by your own elected representatives, then what you have is anarchy and mob rule, and that is not a place I wish to live.