I hope Snowden hates airports. No matter what happens Snowden has committed himself to a life of fear. Even if Russia should provide him sanctuary or let him inhabit their airport indefinitely, he can never be sure how long sanctuary would be afforded to him. Short of living in some remote outback and living off the land, every day he will wake up wondering if today is the day he is arrested and taken to a solitary jail cell. He is a young man. He has a lifetime of fear to look forward to…some 50-60 years.
Are you gloating over what you deem his fate or do you find it unfortunate? Anyway the Russian government has offered him asylum if he doesn't disclose the rest of the information he has in his possession. Snowden disclosed the information knowing full well what the consequences would be and stated so in his interview. I find it fascinating that so many of you are more interested in Snowden than the information he provided. Its like diverting attention away from the real issues, like the press fascination with diverting attention from the information and focusing on the whistleblowers themselves: Manning=Gay and unstable, Assange=Rapist, Snowden="idiot", high school dropout.
@Quinnsong That and the inability to defend the indefensible. Its very confusing. I mean you would think they would actually give a shit but they don't. I'm sure there are governments around the world wondering what wonderful secret the US uses to have such a veged out population.
Well that is not really true; Russia doesn’t have a problem with Snowden talking or revealing secrets. They just don’t want him releasing them to the press. “Six months after the Soviet Union ceased to exist, the American defector Victor Norris Hamilton surfaced in a Russian mental hospital. He had been missing for more than 20 years. The 75-year-old former cryptologist for the National Security Agency had defected to the Soviet Union in 1963. His family was shocked to learn of his whereabouts, noting that they had last had contact with him in 1973. They were equally surprised to learn that Hamilton was committed to hospital in a Moscow suburb in 1971 where he disappeared for 20 years. Hamilton’s unfortunate ordeal is once again relevant. It provides context for the news that NSA leaker Edward Snowden has been effectively offered sanctuary by Russian President Vladimir Putin on the condition that he renounce his especially unhelpful habit of revealing American intelligence gathering secrets to the press (and instead reveal them only to the Federal Security Service).” http://www.mediaite.com/online/snow...d&utm_campaign=Feed: mediaite/ClHj (Mediaite) If Snowden knew full well the consequences of his actions, then why is he in such a desperate situation? Why is he stuck in a Russian airport desperately begging for a government, any government, to give him sanctuary? It seems to me that if he really thought through the consequences of his actions, he would not be in the boat in which he finds himself. The reason we are not more interested, is because he really hasn’t revealed anything that is surprising or hasn’t been discussed before. The Patriot Act which authorizes the actions revealed by Snowden has been controversial in the US since it was enacted years ago under the Bush II regime. It is now new news. It is not news that he NSA monitors electronic communications. That is what they do. And they are not alone, other countries do the same. In this increasingly automated world you have to be pretty dense to not know that virtually everything you do leaves an electronic trail and that trail is being used by governments and private industry. It’s called data mining and it is a very big and growing industry. Further, nothing that Snowden has revealed is against US law. In order to be a whistleblower, you have to reveal something that is against the law. And on top of that, there is a process for whistleblowers. They can blow their whistles and still be protected. If Snowden felt he had something that was against the law, there is a process available to him to toot the whistle. He didn’t avail himself of that process. So I think the picture most Americans have of Snowden is that he is a self-serving egotistical idiot. http://www.acquisition.gov/far/html/Subpart 3_9.html What is new and what is displeasing to many Americans is the information – the state secrets - that he has not revealed to the press but to the Chinese and Russian security agencies. In doing so, he has attacked and damaged the security of every American. If the man had a shred of a brain and thought through the consequences he would not be in the mess in which he finds himself.
To your first point, which is of course wrong; But then Snowden withdrew his petition; Why would Snowden reveal information knowing the full consequences? Well we can only go on what he has said And then The only reason why you think he would not take an action if it meant losing everything is because you base his choices on what you would do. The world is made up of more than that cowering and cowardly. Have you heard of the White Rose Resistance in Nazi Germany? Well they were all executed once they were found out. Why would they take such risks? Why would Manning? Why did Ellsberg? Surely you can see that for some people, not many but some, there are things more important than their personal safety and security. I know that must seem very strange to you. If its been discussed for years and it wasn't "surprising" then why did the NSA director lie to Congress about the program data mining on American citizens? If the Patriot Act authorizes the actions then why did an internal FISA report deem, in the only two statements they allowed to be de-classified in their secret report that 1. On at least one occasion the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court held that some collection carried out pursuant to the Section 702 minimization procedures used by the government was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. 2. I believe that the government's implementation of Section 702 of FISA [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] has sometimes circumvented the spirit of the law, and on at least one occasion the FISA Court has reached this same conclusion. Care to explain this? FISA itself claims they operated outside the law. Are they telling lies on themselves? "Wyden's statements led to an obvious conclusion: He had seen a secret FISA court opinion that ruled that one surveillance program was unconstitutional and violated the spirit of the law.http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/06/justice-department-electronic-frontier-foundation-fisa-court-opinion" Is it constitutional? You fail to answer whether its constitutional. Whether it breaches the (your) Bill of Rights. Which whistleblowers have been protected under the Obama administration? I mean the news has been claiming otherwise. Obama's Justice Department has charged a total of eight federal workers under the 1917 Espionage Act for leaking documents. That compares to three people charged in all the previous presidencies combined. Read this NYT article http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/12/us/politics/12leak.html?pagewanted=1&hp&_r=0 Here's a snippet It seems to me that the US is not a safe place for whistleblowers. Are you getting your information from Fox news? Both governments have denied this and there is absolutely not a smidgen of evidence that he has done this. If you think about it the allegation doesn't make any sense. Spies give information to other governments and in return they receive money and or protection what generally doesn't happen is a spy giving information to the public at large. Snowden didn't receive protection from the Chinese and he wouldn't take up the Russia's offer of asylum. If Snowden were a spy he would still be working for the NSA and clandestinely give information to some other government. Again to the outcome Snowden knew the consequences and chose to take action anyway. Its not something I expect you to understand. If the news was not news and it wasn't secret then why is Snowden a traitor? Why doesn't FISA release their own internal report where they deem their own actions outside the law? Don't you think the public has a right to see this report? Oh and Joe don't think I am calling you a coward because I'm not. I concede I don't know what I would have done if I were in a whistleblowers shoes or if I would have taken a stand against the Nazi's or kept my nose down and mind my own business, after all most people do. We all would like to think we would take the hard path of the "hero" given certain circumstances but we really don't know how we would behave until we are faced with those choices but I do think you are baffled by Snowden because you are looking at his choices from the point of view of what you believe you would do, which in this case would have been nothing.
I think you had better reread what I posted before claiming it is wrong, including the supporting material. Feel free to apologize. So according to you Snowden is exactly where he wants to be doing exactly what he wants to do? Man is he a drama queen! So this whole thing about petitioning every country in the world for sanctuary is all for show? Then why should we pay attention. If I want drama I can watch the Housewives of XXXX TV series. Other than the NSA director’s statement, the rest of this doesn’t make any sense. Yes it is constitutional. If the government wants to snoop, they need probable cause and a court order. That is not new and it is perfectly constitutional. I don’t know what your point is here. The US has a whistleblower program that is available to people like Snowden and he didn’t even attempt to use the program. And just because you feel something is against the law, it doesn’t mean that it is. We are not entitled to our own versions of the law. Well if he didn’t do it as you claim, let him come back to the US and prove it. But it defies credulity to think he has not exchanged the secrets he is carrying for privileges (e.g. avoid being arrested and deported). So according to your view of this mess, you want us to believe Snowden is exactly where he wants to be doing exactly what he is doing because he thought all of this through. So why should I pay attention to another drama queen?
@Joepistole No apology offered as you don't know what the Russian's are thinking, or are offering, other than what is stated and what is stated is that the Russians offered asylum. If you were really up on the subject you would know that Glenn Greenwald has ALL of Snowden's information. All of it! And Greenwald claims he is going to release the rest of the information, so the Russians in actuality have no control over the information since its already in the hands of the press. Its not "according to me" its what Snowden himself has stated. No one likes discomfort, no one likes uncertainty, no one likes insecurity so I don't believe Snowden is comfortable nor did he expect any of this to be comfortable. The situation continues to unfold but Snowden himself has said that if the security agencies wants someone they will get to them, so he knows this. Also seeking political asylum is a long difficult process whereby he knows there would be refusals and political considerations by countries contemplating giving or not giving asylum. He knowingly risked his security and safety for a higher purpose so I'm not quite sure how that makes him a "drama queen". A drama queen is someone who likes to make a drama out of a situation by acting in an emotional way and since there are no reports of Snowden crying or hand-wringing for the camera I don't see how this applies to him. What makes you think petitioning countries is for show? If I were Snowden I would do the same, petition as many countries as possible AND I can honestly say if I were a whistleblower the first thing I would do is leave the country. You ask why you should pay attention but I get the feeling you are not paying any attention, for if you were you wouldn't be more interested in the "drama" surrounding Snowden you would be interested in what your own government is doing. But I get it, most Americans prefer the Kardashians to watching C-span. It didn't make any sense because in addition to not reading my previous posts, you also failed to read the link I added but I will add the link again along with the first few paragraphs: Joe: I don’t know what you point is here. The US has a whistleblower program that is available to people like Snowden and he didn’t even attempt to use the program. And just because you feel something is against the law, it doesn’t mean that it is. We are not entitled to our own versions of the law. No you don't see the point because you didn't read the link. The Obama administration is taking a hammer to whistleblowers, but what would you have expected if Snowden had disclosed the information to a government program? He would have been given a gag order like Sibel Edmonds (I can't do all the work for you so I suggest you google her). His whole point was to release the information to the public, he knew there would be no internal reform just by complaining about it. Snowden like Manning revealed the information the only way they could which was directly to the press, as high profile as possible. What about Susan Lindauer? Do you think she would have suggested to Snowden to go tell his tale to the government's "whistle blower program"? She's come out and said what many are now saying which is that being a federal government "whistleblower" is being criminalized. Do you know why you know the information offered by Manning and Snowden and not Edmonds and Lindauer? Think about it. Again if you had read my previous posts you would know that I stated that just because something is made legal doesn't mean its constitutional. I asked you in my post whether you thought the program was constitutional. So when FISA's internal report said the program worked outside the law and stepped on the fourth and fifth amendment were they lying? When Senator Wyden says this report he has seen with his own eyes shows the program to be "unconstitutional" is he confused? Maybe senators don't know the constitution. When Ellsberg calls it an assault on the Bill of Rights is he stupid or crazy or just misinformed on what those rights are? Maybe he didn't read the Bill of Rights, maybe FISA hasn't either and only thought it was working outside the law. Just like NSA Clapper claiming he "forgot" about the Patriot Act. Who knows:shrug: LOL. Spoken like a true American! The burden of proof is that of the accuser not of the accused, especially in the absence of evidence. You've been watching bad spy movies. Snowden left Hong Kong before the US had issued their extradition papers. Russia doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US and says since Snowden has not technically entered Russia but in transit (because he hasn't applied for a visa to leave the airport nor applied for asylum) that he is free to leave or free to ask for asylum. Up to him. What really really defies credulity is a foreign government asking for secret information that has already been given to a journalist. What good would it do a foreign power? Leaked information has no leverage and if its in the hands of a journalist its already leaked even if its yet to be printed. Snowden's life would have been turned upside down if he remained in the US or done what he's doing now. You really need to get a better grip on the definition of "drama queen". You can read this piece from The Nation, its quite long, they actually take the time to write five pages on the subject. Maybe it will enlighten you on why I said earlier that the US is a dangerous place for whistleblowers: ...That's if you really care to know the truth of the matter. Its really thorough and plays right into how you get to Snowden so its excellent background material on the NSA. Happy reading.
The issue is you misrepresented Russia’s offer it was contingent on his not speaking with the “press”. You left out the word “press” as evidenced in my previous post. It’s not about what Russians are thinking. It is about what the Russian government clearly stated. It’s not about cherry picking through the Russian press releases and editing out the parts that don’t fit with the narrative you are trying to spin. Even if Greenwald or anyone else for that matter, going to release information to the press. It doesn’t mean that Snowden hasn’t released classified information to China and Russia in exchange for protection. Do you believe everything people tell you? Two, you cannot have it both ways. Either Snowden clearly thought through the consequences or he didn’t. If Snowden clearly thought through the consequences of his actions as you have claimed, he could have made his sanctuary arrangements prior to disclosing his espionage or at the very least he could have traveled to one of the countries he now wants to immigrate to and plead for sanctuary (e.g. Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, etc.). Instead, this man of freedom travels to and seeks refuge in places like China and Russia who are renowned for their lack of civil liberties and privacy protections and are potential military enemies of the US. That makes sense to you? I don’t think his petitioning countries for sanctuary is show. I think he is an idiot, remember? You are the one who thinks he thought this through. And just because I don’t buy into Snowden’s drama or have any sympathy for him, it doesn’t mean that I am not informed or do not care about my country and the US Constitution. Remember, I am the one who took an oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. The link up posted didn’t lead to one article; it led to a series of articles. And I am not interested enough to invest that much time in reading each and every one of them based solely on your request. Something cannot be legal if it is not constitutional. And I told you in my last post, what the NSA is doing is legal and I told you why it is constitutional. This is what confuses me; you seem to think FISA is an agency. It isn’t. It is a law. FISA doesn’t generate reports. It occupies printed space on paper in the National Archives. So I have no idea what you are trying to say here. And you want to quote senators and congressmen? Don’t make me laugh; those guys are not credible authorities on anything. They will say anything and do anything if they think it will get them reelected or elected to higher position or put money in their pocket. Well none of that is true either. The US had requested extradition a week prior to Snowden’s departure from Hong Kong. And the US has an extradition treaty with Hong Kong. If Snowden had thought through the consequences of his actions as you have maintained, one would think he would go to a country that doesn’t have an extradition agreement with the US when he makes is great reveal…just saying. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-23/snowden-leaves-hong-kong-as-u-s-seeks-his-extradition.html And why would Russia or China care if the information they seek was disclosed to a journalist. They still want to know the information. They still want to know what the US knows about them. So what, Snowden’s life is not turned upside down with him sitting in an airport in Russia and unable to leave…an international fugitive? Additionally, you need to go back and reread what I wrote. I said if Snowden clearly thought through the consequences of his actions, as you maintain, then he is clearly a drama queen. If your view is true then Snowden is right where he expected to be. As I have repeatedly written here, I think he is an idiot. I don’t think he thought through the consequences of his actions. You don’t have to be a drama queen if you are an idiot. The drama comes naturally.
@Joe How could I misrepresent Russia's offer when I provided Putin's quote and the link to the whole bloody piece? I have already told you that they presented asylum for not disclosing the rest of the information, obviously that would be to the press. If this is all about what Russia said it would offer then why don't you just provide a quote and a link of what Russia has made public instead of telling me I misrepresented something when its plainly provided, links and all. You really love minutia Joe, no wonder you always miss the bigger picture. What you should do is go look at the quote I provided and tell me how its cherry picked. All I had to do was show evidence that Russia did indeed offer asylum and did indeed promise him asylum if he didn't release anymore information. If you have evidence that the Russians offered more then by all means go ahead and show it. The burden of proof is yours not mine. :roflmao: Right. First you claim Snowden is going to have a long lonely life in an airport lounge, cold and scared and missing his mommy. Then you claim Snowden 007 agent has provided information to the Chinese and Russians. You say it but you don't provide any evidence since its simply an unsubstantiated rumor. You're told that the Chinese and Russians and even Snowden have denied such allegations and your comment to it all is "It doesn’t mean that Snowden hasn’t released classified information to China and Russia in exchange for protection.". The burden of proof is yours not mine, make your claim seem credible or its just hear-say, speculation, rumor. Protection from what? Hong Kong couldn't keep him. Russia has no binding agreement to throw him out. Allowing someone to leave a country when you have no legal bind on them isn't protection its simply called freedom of movement. Allowing someone to remain in transit when they are in fact 'in transit' isn't protection its simply allowing what is done all the time. SNOWDEN ISN'T IN RUSSIA PROPER BECAUSE HE HASN'T EVEN LEFT THE BLOODY TRANSIT AREA!! I know that's difficult to understand. I know Americans don't travel that much and may not know that in an international airport you don't have to actually deal with the country itself as long as you are 'in transit' and haven't actually filled out the necessary papers needed to step out of the airport. Snowden is getting as much protection as the family sitting at the gate waiting for their next flight. Protection would mean giving Snowden a new passport, it would mean giving him immediate sanctuary which would mean shortening the process of "asylum". That's protection Joe. A country allowing someone to leave and allowing someone to hang out at the airport lounge isn't protection. Do you believe all the unsubstantiated nonsense that goes through your mind? Snowden couldn't ask for asylum and then give up information, making the transition all nice and comfy because then he wouldn't have just cause to request political asylum. Snowden has to show that he would be unjustly persecuted by the US government because of what he's revealed, that's the burden of asylum procedure. On a side note I don't blame him of asking for asylum in Hong Kong its a really really nice place to live, the apartments are generally too small unless you live on Kowloon side but its a damn good life in Hong Kong, Russia's too cold. You're all about Snowden drama. At least Capracus is able to speak to the information Snowden provided, he doesn't seem to care what Snowden is doing or how Snowden is doing. Up until you returned to the thread the discussion was about PRISM and its constitutionality. I checked every single link I posted and they all work! And I'm sure they will work for other members here too. You're just daunted by having to read the material and having to address the information therein. Really? So finally you admit the US government engages in illegal activities. Glad to hear you've finally come around. If you bothered to read the links you would see that an internal NSA report on itself states that its broken two amendments through their surveillance program so I don't know why you are not willing to admit what the NSA cannot avoid admitting to itself. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! When I refer to FISA I'm speaking of the FISA court not the law and it is they who generated the report. If you read the Mother Jones article you would have known that. Again you don't want to take a look at the material you only want to argue from a crack in your you know what, which is a shame really because I would really love to discuss it. I guess I have to wait for Capracus or someone else to return if I want to have a serious discussion on the matter, and by serious I mean a discussion that's based on more than just personal opinion. Really? How would this get Wyden re-elected? How is this a plus for him? I mean especially when this isn't even the highlight of nightly news (american news that is). Did you even bother to read your own linked material? Because I did and it states "The city of Hong Kong said in a statement today that he left “through a lawful and normal channel.” The documents provided by the U.S. seeking Snowden’s arrest didn’t comply with legal requirements and so there was “no legal basis to restrict Mr. Snowden from leaving Hong Kong,” it said. Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying had earlier said any extradition request would be subject to Hong Kong law." Is it your estimation that they shouldn't follow their own laws? Read through the links you provide because other's will. I'm just saying. What's in it for them? Why should they offer any sweet deals for any information they will be able to read for free just like everyone else? That would be like paying for food given at a soup kitchen. Jesus. Now I know you don't travel. What could be more tedious than waiting hours forget about days in an airport when you want to get somewhere else. Snowden is right where he expected to be, what he doesn't know is how much longer he can expect to be there or where he will go from there. Yes I know you keep repeating how Snowden is an "idiot" or "drama queen". Have I told you what I think of people who are too dull to use more than one adjective to describe something? Just saying. Nuance would be refreshing, as would reflection and critical dialogue. This with you is what I would expect in a thread about the antics of Lindsay Lohan. Sad.
As per my previous post and link, you left out the part about the press being a condition for Snowden’s asylum. It is the true that I like the truth and the truth is often revealed in the details or what you would refer to as minutia. You need to stop cherry picking releases if you want credibility. I didn’t put in the part about missing mommy, but it is possible. And no I didn’t make any claim about Snowden being anything close to a 007 double agent. Idiots are generally not able to pull off the double agent gig. Nor did I say anything about Snowden being lonely. This is your rocketing into hyperbole again and inventing some straw man argument. I said that no matter where Snowden winds up, assuming he is not apprehended, he will always live in fear…fear of being caught unless he lives in some remote isolated area. A country might grant him asylum one day and revoke it another as circumstance and political winds change. You also said that Snowden had not released information to China or Russia. I said you were naive to think so. I will say it again; I think you are very naive if you think Snowden has not traded US secrets for preferential treatment in China and Russia. Do you really think China would let Snowden go without revealing the secrets he is reported to have? The US had worked with China weeks before to draft the extradition papers. It was a collaborative effort and then at the last minute, Hong Kong (China) uses a trumped up claim to justify his release? No that really stretches credulity. China could have held him without violating their laws. LOL, oh my! Let’s try to keep things simple and do things one at a time. If Snowden thought things out as you claim, then why did he flee to a country with an extradition agreement with the United States after committing an act of espionage? Why did he flee to a country with a history of human rights abuses like murdering prisoners and selling their body parts, secret police, and with no privacy protections? Why is it only autocratic countries which do not provide their citizens with privacy protections are the only countries willing to accept Snowden? If Snowden had thought through his actions as you claim, he would have at least fled to a country without an extradition agreement with the US rather than a country with an extradition agreement as he did. And if he were a bit smarter he would have negotiated an asylum deal before revealing his crimes to the US. And if he was really smart, he would have used the whistleblower process before reverting to criminal activities. Oh my! I made no such admission. You wrote, “Again if you had read my previous posts you would know that I stated that just because something is made legal doesn't mean its constitutional. I asked you in my post whether you thought the program was constitutional.” To which I responded with, “Something cannot be legal if it is not constitutional. And I told you in my last post, what the NSA is doing is legal and I told you why it is constitutional.” Take a few minutes and think about it. Read it slowly. Well no, if you use the wrong terms, I don’t know what you mean. I can guess but it is better if you are clearer about what it is you are trying to communicate. ..you know using proper names, terms and such. If you have been paying the least bit of attention to American politics you would know American politicians, senators and congressmen, have said some pretty crazy things. (e.g. raped women don’t get pregnant, praising serial killer John Gacy, natural disasters are Gods way of getting the attention of our political leaders, forgetting the 3 cabinet level departments you want to get rid of, etc.,). Again I suggest you stop cherry picking and read the whole article. You see that is the thing, you cannot make sense of your positions if you don’t cherry pick…pay attention to this and ignore the rest. No it is my estimation they should follow their laws and adhere to their agreements. The Chinese knew who Snowden was and they knew where he was. And they knew about the arrest warrants and they had the documents from the US for over a week. It’s pretty obvious the excuse was just that and excuse. Seriously, are you that naïve? What is in it for them is intelligence, how the US gathers intelligence and how the US spies on them. How does China know that the information will be published? Do you really think Chinese are that dumb? The folks running China are a hell of a lot smarter than that. And time is everything in intelligence. You are funny, you either have a serious case of ADD or you are not paying attention. You wrote, Snowden's life would have been turned upside down if he remained in the US or done what he's doing now. You really need to get a better grip on the definition of "drama queen". “ And I responded with, “So what, Snowden’s life is not turned upside down with him sitting in an airport in Russia and unable to leave…an international fugitive? Additionally, you need to go back and reread what I wrote. I said if Snowden clearly thought through the consequences of his actions, as you maintain, then he is clearly a drama queen. If your view is true then Snowden is right where he expected to be. As I have repeatedly written here, I think he is an idiot. I don’t think he thought through the consequences of his actions. You don’t have to be a drama queen if you are an idiot. The drama comes naturally.” The point is Snowden’s life is turned upside down. So fleeing the country didn’t stop his life from being turned upside down. So I will once again repeat myself. Snowden is an idiot. If he had a shred of intelligence, he would have used the whistleblower channels available to him if he really felt he had observed illegal activity. And failing that, fleeing to a country with a US extradition agreement probably isn’t one of the smartest things he could have done. And from all that you deduce that I don't travel? LOL...what can I say? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Say hello to Lindsay for me. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Again with the minutia. My quote is this "the Russian government has offered him asylum if he doesn't disclose the rest of the information he has in his possession." Obviously the Russians mean publicly released information, meaning the press and not say his mother. Wow, you're really a bore. Was my comment any more of a straw man than say the following? "Snowden has committed himself to a life of fear. Even if Russia should provide him sanctuary or let him inhabit their airport indefinitely, he can never be sure how long sanctuary would be afforded to him. Short of living in some remote outback and living off the land, every day he will wake up wondering if today is the day he is arrested and taken to a solitary jail cell. He is a young man. He has a lifetime of fear to look forward to…some 50-60 years." What difference does it make to the discussion your sadistic imaginary indulgence on Snowden's fate? How is it important in any meaningful way? Its the kind of comment and interpretation you would hear from bored housewives in the laundromat. To the first question I said based on what we know there is no evidence showing he has done so. Its nothing more than speculation. Speculation is defined as forming a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence. Now that I took the trouble to educate you on that account to answer your last question of whether China would allow Snowden to go without revealing "secrets" the answer is yes. Why not? If the secrets were so important to them they could have simply offered him asylum and be done with it. Days not weeks. American officials detailed an elongated back-and-forth with authorities in Hong Kong, beginning on June 10th. According to the Department of Justice, Snowden was charged on June 14th, a formal charge. U.S. officials requested Snowden’s extradition from Hong Kong on June 15. Hong Kong officials acknowledge they received the request on the 17th. On June 19 (or June 20 in Hong Kong), Attorney General Eric Holder called*Hong Kong Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen and encouraged him to comply with the U.S. request for Snowden’s extradition. A day later Hong Kong requests more information on the case, the Americans were working on the request when the following Sunday Hong Kong informed the US Snowden had flown to Moscow. The whole thing was over in a little over a week. What difference does it make where he went first? He disclosed the information in Hong Kong, Greenwald had to meet him there. Filed charges take time as well as any extradition claim so no matter where he went he would have time to leave any country for any other country. In this case he did have the help of Wikileakes which helped give him the documents he needed to go to Russia through the Ecuadorian government. This being the case why don't you accuse Snowden of disclosing information to Ecuador? They're the ones who gave him the papers he needed. Hong Kong simply did nothing. Why? Maybe he's been to Hong Kong and feels comfortable there. Maybe Snowden had to go to Hong Kong because Greenwald would have been there anyway at the end of the day it doesn't matter because he had time to disclose and then transfer elsewhere. Why does it matter to you so much? Why is it more important than the information he provided? Why do you care where Snowden goes? He would have been in a bind if he stayed in the US or if he went directly to Ecuador or Russia or wherever. Don't worry about it. It went over your head. I was taking the piss out of you. My point is that your idea that the US government cannot make something legal that is in fact unconstitutional is bullshit. The kind of bullshit that's exposed by the fact that these programs are kept secret and run by a secret court. Ever read Kafka's "The Trial"? That's not an argument its a dismissal. The justice department is trying to keep the internal report from reaching public eye, they were forced to release bits and pieces of it. The senator didn't make up the bits and pieces of the report as it didn't originate from him. He himself hasn't disclosed the report. Its not cherry picked. It highlights that Hong Kong went through their own protocols and Snowden had left before the Americans had their shit together. They did follow their laws and their agreements. Its not their fault if the US couldn't make their case thoroughly and in a timely manner. The "charge" is simply a charge, it in no way binds another nation to return someone who may or may not be facing intimidation by another nation. A charge also doesn't make someone guilty. The burden of proof was on the US government, not that of Hong Kong. So you are making judgements made on your imagination? Not any fact based on reality? They didn't give him anything special, actually they didn't give Snowden anything to make his situation easier at all! Snowden was endowed with good timing and good travel partners. You are aware that Snowden isn't alone aren't you? He is traveling with people connected to both Wikileaks and Greenwald. The difference between you and I is I don't care about Snowden at all, I care about what Snowden disclosed. I do believe it took courage and sacrifice and I'm grateful he is engaged in an act of resistance against state deceit. Snowden will either end up back in the US or find safety. Which is a wager he had made from the beginning and I respect that. I keep trying to engage you with the disclosure and its implications and you keep harping about Snowden's motives, other countries vis a vis Snowden, Snowden's prowess, his future etc etc. Its the farmer's wife discussion Joe. Can't you see how absolutely boring and gossipy it is? You propose nothing but conjecture about the man and nothing about what the revelations mean to you as an American or what is says about the nature of the state. You are buried in useless conjecture and rumor and speculation and not dealing with what we do know. If Snowden is an idiot then who cares? Why talk about idiots? Its why I don't have discussions about the Lohans or any of your other fascinating spectacles. I'm interested in the spectacle of your political system, its symbols and ideals you claim to hold dear. That's rich coming from a people who always weigh things between the "lesser of two evils". No actually all I have surmised from this tete a tete with you is that you are an idiot, a provincial one at that. I do have one thing to say but don't bother responding to me because you will only repeat yourself with obsessive attention to airports and rumors and dim witted personal characterizations of Snowden himself and its too boring for me. In a sense you're worse than a troll because you insist in grabbing any meaningful discussion and dragging it through treacle. I am looking to discuss with someone the impact of the information itself and what it says of the American democracy and basic American ideals as outlined in the constitution and bill of rights. @Iceaura or any other poster who comes across this thread Hegel once wrote that "The state is the self-consciousness of a people". For americans to begin to think of the state as engaged in acts of evil would necessitate Americans coming to terms that they themselves may not be good. This would create a traumatic crises. They believe they are the brightest, the greatest, the freest, the best but most fundamentally the most good. Can you imagine if Americans had to face the idea that all this may just be an empty image? Or worse A manifestation of self-delusion? What a trauma! They would prefer to go with an act of faith, ignoring knowledge of grave state misconduct, in favor of believing in the essential goodness of "america" which is of course the manifestation they believe to be the state within themselves. So Iceaura I don't believe Americans are "stupid" as you say, I believe its more profound than that. Its akin to the wife who believes so much in her marriage and in her love and union she will ignore ANY evidence that would make her lose faith in her spouse. For her to lose faith in her spouse would shatter her sense of reality and that's what I see in Americans who refuse to even LOOK and consider information that would diminish the myths they have of themselves and their world. The myth allows for the citizen to admit small transgressions that can be resolved but it doesn't allow for gaping holes that shatter the myth itself. Its akin to a devout catholic finding out that the pope is a pedophile.
Obviously you are assuming things here. The facts are that Russians will give him asylum only if he stops the anti-American secret information disclosure to the press. The rest are assumptions, stemming from prejudice.
Exactly. That's what the Russians have said publicly and what I am asserting to Joe. Who else would Snowden disclose the information to but the press? Greenwald has all the information and has said he is in the process of vetting and extraction of the load for disclosure, so even if Snowden had taken a deal with the Russians it wouldn't have any impact on the actions of Greenwald. In other words the "leak" cannot be plugged.
In addition to that the way NSA and other high security agencies work, such as NASA, is that they tend to distribute the security levels and protocols, so that one person cannot just gain access to the system from outside without proper authentication methods. The password changes every two weeks or so. New security protocols are implemented. The real security hazard is the disclosure of at-risk hacked targets previously, currently, or in future under surveillance by NSA. I doubt he will supply some new security algorithms used by NSA...although that is a possibility. The main risk here is not in methods utilized by NSA, but rather the hazard such information presents itself if disclosed to public. Someone with such information will challenge the many countries' agencies under surveillance and put credibility in the security of information at large at such institutions, which in turn may lead to loss of credibility from say investors in that sector. They main task currently by the media in US, as instructed per NSA "advice", is to discredit the credibility of the source of this security leak. The more such source can be deemed untrustworthy, the less impact on credibility of at-risk security exposed targets there will be. Snowden is at all means must be discredit as a trustworthy source of information. Other tactics are also in use by the media in US, such as confusing the general public of the nature of the documents leaked to the press. Fear is a great way of controlling the population. As Warren Buffet once said, "Investors...they should try to be fearful when others are greedy and greedy only when others are fearful." Through fear, you can accomplish many tasks, not just make money on Wall Street.
Which is why he gave the information to the previous lawyer now investigative journalist Greenwald and not say Wikileaks. The only reason why Greenwald hasn't disclosed the next package of details is because he is carefully vetting and extracting. Why? Because if the outcome is not to simply disclose all information as is but to disclose information that has the most impact between the nature of reality between the state and its citizenry. Its not to unveil the state to other states, though this will happen anyway, or to unearth disclosure of "at risk hacked targets" within past, future or present, the main goal is to unveil the state to its own people. What was revealed really? What was revealed was the scope in which the US government can access all that is within the private domain. But didn't we know this? We reveal information online all the time of our own volition. Fine. We know that within the public domain that our privacy is at risk all the time. Fine. We didn't need Snowden to know this. Also we didn't need Snowden's revelations to understand that the state spies. We know they spy on other nations and we know they spy on its citizens but most citizens tend to believe that this is done with serious legal and technical constraints (not to mention the hope of moral restraint). What Snowden has revealed is that none of the previous legal-technical constraints apply to the citizens within the US nor outside in other nations and a large part of the problem of why those constraints no longer apply is because of the influence of private sector contractor/corporate entities on government itself, this is what is indicated in the article in The Nation which is about NSA surveillance previous to Snowden and why I have the link posted because its so obviously connected The whistle blowers in The Nation article and Snowden differ in only one respect, the former is concerned with the internal fraudulent activities which leave the government and by extension the citizenry vulnerable. The latter focuses on how, partly because of the former, the citizenry is at the mercy of a corrupt government controlled by corporate forces undermining the rule of law. When you contract out NSA programs you are contracting out the privacy and safety of state citizens and state secrets which government has sworn to protect. Notice this is hardly ever part of the discussion in this case. Just listen to Snowden in this interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yB3n9fu-rM) Now I ask you does this even come close to fitting a profile of someone who is doing this for personal gain? If he were he would have accepted Russia's or anyone elses offer and forego all this personal stress. His disclosure is intense and yet no one wants to discuss what he disclosed. His greatest fear for the outcome of this disclosure is that nothing will change, that the government will grant itself powers unilaterally to create greater control over American society AND global society, that the public won't take the necessary risk to stand up and fight. For this he gets eaten alive by the American public who make good ostriches put their head in the sand.
You mentioned previously a concern about government violation of personal freedom. The degree of isolation from the influence of society or government could be considered a measure of an individual’s privacy or freedom. Apathy, ignorance, complexity, a need to know, there’s a myriad of reasons why the average citizen would be unaware or vaguely aware of many government programs. In the case of intelligence programs, they require secrecy to be effective, so ideally operational knowledge of such programs would and should be kept to a minimum. You may assume that those common institutions evolved in the light of day, but the historical reality of government negotiation is that much of the impetus for such action is rooted in as much secrecy as any intelligence program. So much goes on behind the scenes that the governed are never aware of. The act of observation deprives one of nothing of significance. Taxation is a deprivation of one’s fruits of labor, and property regulation is an imposition of expense and order. Not that I personally consider these unreasonable or egregious intrusions, but there are many who do.
I agree with you that intelligence programs require secrecy to be effective. I think the media is largely to blame for the ignorance but that's up for debate. Okay. And without even a tinge of cynicism I'm curious as to how you can place so much faith in the notion you have a real democracy and rule of law for the people by the people? I previously spoke of "the light of day" in terms of rules and regulations simply because the rules are accessible and any dispute over the interpretation or implementation can be subject to open judicial review. FISA courts are secret and I don't understand how Americans can feel comfortable with that considering how the information can be used to malign individuals in the worst way ie: loss of physical freedom and called out on "terror" activities one may not be engaged in. In other words where is the protection for the individual? Wow. Well on this point you and I will really have to get into it because there are so many ways to deconstruct the statement. Try to imagine how, from a purely existential point of view, you would be constrained psychically if you were say in an open cage where you were watched all the time? Try and imagine how you could become constrained politically if you were under state scrutiny all the time via every form of expression save the thoughts you keep to yourself? Its a radical prospect. Radical enough to change what it means to be a social, political expressive human being. I believe privacy to be fundamental human need if one is to react in a healthy manner socially and politically free from the intimidation and exertion of outside forces. If this were not the case then every modern oppressive state in human history wouldn't attack the privacy of its citizens first and foremost before it imposes itself. The lack of privacy can very easily be equated with the lack of freedom which is a post-modernist debate. I'm knackered so I will have to respond more deeply to your post tomorrow when I can give your replies the attention they deserve.
Gee, I don't know...perhaps the Chinese or the Russians as we have discussed? That is why that little "insignificant" word is so significant.
Every time I read that, at every speed, it reads as someone claiming they know what the NSA has been doing. I wonder how you know that. The accusations of Snowden and the Congressman you disparaged and the FISA court's review documents and several other eyewitnesses over the years have been of illegal and unconstitutional behaviors, and the only response has been official and carefully worded denial - any information that would support that denial is still secret. That is from the same people who have been telling us up until now that they were not dragnet monitoring Americans at all, not compiling files on regular US citizens, nothing like that. Since you don't know what information is in those files the NSA turns out to have been, actually, compiling on us, a program which is itself contrary to the supposed and officially designated role of the NSA (so alien they had to get their FISA permits for the domestic stuff through their buddies in the FBI), I see no informed basis for your confidence in the deference and propriety of the NSA and all of its thousands of agents, private contractors, corporate liaisons, etc etc etc. For all you know they've got blackmail files on every publisher and media producer in the country, and that's why we are getting this weirdly uninformative tabloid coverage
