Edward Snowded should...

Edward Snowded should...

get a ticker-tape parade!
4
13%
get a ticker-tape parade!
4
13%
not be proscecuted.
0
No votes
not be proscecuted.
0
No votes
be offered asylum in any decent country.
3
10%
be offered asylum in any decent country.
3
10%
be ignored. Water under the bridge and all that.
3
10%
be ignored. Water under the bridge and all that.
3
10%
be brought to the USA, to answer for his crimes.
3
10%
be brought to the USA, to answer for his crimes.
3
10%
be killed, the fucking traitor, if need be abroad.
2
7%
be killed, the fucking traitor, if need be abroad.
2
7%
 
Total votes: 30
User avatar
Glaucon
Posts: 2832
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:07 am

Edward Snowded should...

Postby Glaucon » Fri Aug 23, 2013 1:20 pm

Maybe you have heard about him. For some reason, it seems the USA is eager to get a hold of him. Presidential planes forced to change routes, presidential visits cancelled, bold words spoken, diplomatic threads made, boyfriends of reporters labelled terrorists and held for questioning, newspaper computers seized or destroyed. It seems that the USA is using all it's influence with friends (and ability to threaten with others) to 'get' the guy. A good thing? Not so good?
User avatar
Anarch Allegiere
Posts: 1000
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 8:01 am
SL Name: Anarch Allegiere

Re: Edward Snowded should...

Postby Anarch Allegiere » Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:47 pm

I like it when our governments show how corrupt they are. Makes me feel more comfortable when I'm breaking the law myself. :thumbup:

That's pretty much the only relevant feelings I have towards the whole Snowden-thing. Is anyone really still under the illusion that our governments are the supposed 'good guys' that are there to 'help it's people'. Please.
JackoS
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:59 am
SL Name: Jacko Stawberry

Re: Edward Snowded should...

Postby JackoS » Fri Aug 23, 2013 4:36 pm

If you ask me, this incident is just another incident in an ongoing secret undercover war that has been going on since nations exist: espionage. Every country in the world has its own intelligence dept and they try to find out other people secrets. Of course, some countries being bigger than others can do more spying than others. But over the centuries that is the truth. Nobody in this is a good guy or a bad guy, it is simply what a government should do.

Now, the insistence with which the US has gone after Snowden, only serves one purpose: tell others that maybe this guy is a big guy who knows a lot and has great value, and hence we should keep him.
User avatar
Glaucon
Posts: 2832
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:07 am

Re: Edward Snowded should...

Postby Glaucon » Sat Aug 24, 2013 11:50 am

Not really true, that nations have always been involved in this stuff. Sure, scouting, spying, and so forth, but is not the same as preventively obtaining, storing and sorting through the private activities of (what seems to be) everyone. That wasn't possible, before the 20th century and wasn't possible in Eastern Germany either, not in this way.

I am always surprised that so few people seem to care about this stuff. I do get it: most people don't care about being watched by big brother, as long as big brother doesn't tell them that he is watching them. Still, it seems unlikely to me that if you give Big Brother the tools to watch you, he will remain content looking for terrorists and child pornographers. When there is a powerful tool ready to be used, other government agencies (like the IRS) will want to use it too. This is happening in many countries. So will private corporations. And the idea that the check of democracy will ensure that it won't be abused is naive. Most people in the USA (and politicians especially) don't seem to care that the NSA did a lot of stuff that was clearly illegal. So, why would it be different if this sort of thing went a lot further?

In theory, something could easily be done about it. People could vote for politicians opposed to this sort of thing. Or just... care about it (so that the polls would show that they cared about it, so politicians would change their views accordingly). All that would be needed would be to give a shit. But even that seems to much to ask.

As for Snowden facing justice in the USA: that seems unlikely. Sure, he broke rules, and laws, in making secret stuff public. The point is that he did so to expose other, and far more significant stuff that is against the law. And in so far that it was not, he exposed what the new laws allowing this stuff actually MEANT, something most people in the USA (including many of it's supposed leaders) clearly weren't aware of. To me, it seems that this exactly the sort of thing you are supposed to break the rules for. It is quite odd to me that many Americans, supposedly caring about transparency, law, freedom and democracy would like to see a man convicted that exposed a government agency flaunting the law, infringing freedoms, lying their asses off to congress and thereby giving the US democracy a chance to decide whether they wanted that to continue or not.

Sometimes, Americans make me a bit sick.
...

Re: Edward Snowded should...

Postby ... » Sat Aug 24, 2013 7:07 pm

I hope anyone who advocates for Snowden's prosecution or calls him an enemy dies smeared in their own faeces in a state prison.
User avatar
Glaucon
Posts: 2832
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:07 am

Re: Edward Snowded should...

Postby Glaucon » Mon Aug 26, 2013 1:33 pm

Oor wrote:I hope anyone who advocates for Snowden's prosecution or calls him an enemy dies smeared in their own faeces in a state prison.


Hmmm, those people would appear to include Barak Obama, most democrats in washington, most republicans in washington. most right-wing pundits, most high-level people in government, the brass of the US army (probably the grunts too), Downingstreet 10, and, quite possibly, the majority of Americans, though there is some shifting going on.
User avatar
Leah
Posts: 1043
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 3:14 pm
SL Name: Liara Edring
Role: Rebel
Owner: My Internet Connection
AkA: Lailah, Lia, Liara
Location: Somewhere in Eorzea
Contact:

Re: Edward Snowded should...

Postby Leah » Mon Aug 26, 2013 1:56 pm

Glaucon wrote:and, quite possibly, the majority of Americans


I don't think you can make this statement and be telling the truth. Citation please?
This isn't fucking Survivor. We aren't a tribe.

If I won't put up with an in-character owner trying to control my OOC life, what makes you think I'll put up with you trying to do that?

My Store: https://marketplace.secondlife.com/stores/165499
User avatar
TreatRothschild
Posts: 969
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:11 pm
SL Name: I'm Treat Dammit!
Role: Magistrate and Love Cthulhu
Home Stone: Hesius
Location: NJ

Re: Edward Snowded should...

Postby TreatRothschild » Mon Aug 26, 2013 5:01 pm

American here: I think that the information that Snowden revealed was amazing. I think he did the right thing. I think, however, that immediately running to Russia to get to Cuba was a mistake.

The right way to do it, in my opinion, was to lawyer up with huge, big name lawyers. Then go public. He was a contractor, not an Army private. If he went really public, really quickly, then it's difficult to make him disappear. It is far easier to discredit him now than it would be under the auspices I just put forward.
Let me give you some advice bastard. Never forget what you are. The rest of the world will not. Wear it like armor, and it can never be used to hurt you.
User avatar
Glaucon
Posts: 2832
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:07 am

Re: Edward Snowded should...

Postby Glaucon » Mon Aug 26, 2013 5:57 pm

Leah wrote:
Glaucon wrote:and, quite possibly, the majority of Americans


I don't think you can make this statement and be telling the truth. Citation please?


http://www.businessinsider.com/edward-snowden-poll-traitor-hero-russia-asylum-2013-7

I don't know. I don't conduct polls in the USA, myself, personally. Have to go by what I read.
User avatar
Glaucon
Posts: 2832
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:07 am

Re: Edward Snowded should...

Postby Glaucon » Mon Aug 26, 2013 6:31 pm

TreatRothschild wrote:American here: I think that the information that Snowden revealed was amazing. I think he did the right thing. I think, however, that immediately running to Russia to get to Cuba was a mistake.

The right way to do it, in my opinion, was to lawyer up with huge, big name lawyers. Then go public. He was a contractor, not an Army private. If he went really public, really quickly, then it's difficult to make him disappear. It is far easier to discredit him now than it would be under the auspices I just put forward.


I do not think any of that was an option for him, really. Maybe he was a contractor, but he signed stuff that legally obliged him to keep mum. And even if he hadn't, 'cloak and dagger' laws in the USA are pretty far-reaching. Even someone who has not agreed to anything can be legally obliged to keep stuff secret.

So, the minute he went informing/betraying his country (take your pick), he would have been arrested, hot-shot lawyers or no lawyers, and probably not have been allowed any more contact with the outside world (see Manning). So, he would have needed to hand over ALL the stuff he knew in one go to reporters (the way Manning did to Assange) and trust them to reveal the relevant stuff and not to reveal the stuff that should not be revealed. He also would not have been around to tell his story, do interviews, etc, which would most likely have lessened the impact/credibilty of what he had to say.

Being locked up, not able to say or do anything, he would not have been able to say anything in his own defence, would not have been able to bring up new stuff directly contradicted the stuff brought up by the NSA and it's champions after the first revelations came out, the way he has been doing now. He might have had a few lawyers speaking for him, but that doesn't mean that much with the public. In the eyes of most people, lawyers will say anything. After all, they speak on behalf of murderers as well.

Being 'free', he has the means to elaborate on his claims, to keep the story alive, instead of it getting burried on page 7 and then forgotten about as another tiny scandal. The very FACT that he ran gave the story greater impact by itself, turning it into a spy-novel sort of thing that everyone was bound to hear about. A bit of drama really helps to make people notice something. Also, being free probably has the added benefit of not being locked up for the better part of his time on earth.

I guess that the 'PR-downside' to him doing a runner is this whole patriotic thing that you US-folks have a lot of. You root for team US. And if this guy is running from team US, embarrassing it, finding help from team Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, and so forth, he is likely to be viewed as the enemy according to the logic of blind patriotism. I suspect that, if he could have, he would have gone to a less obviously anti-American country (he went to (fairly neutral, politcally) Hong Kong, and then he applied for asylum in Iceland, then in a load of other countries, that really OUGHT to grant it, given their vaunted legal principles, but which won't, because their big buddy the US will get really pissed if they were to do so). So, he had few alternatives in that regard.

I honestly believe that if he had given over his info to reporters (assuming that it would have been possible to do that without one or other secret agency intervening, given a single interview) and then have let himself get arrested, the story would not have been heard by most people in the USA. Everything he said would have been contradicted, he would have been discreted and smeared as much as possible (however 'noble' it would have been for him to give himself up) and then that would have been the end of the story, which would have gone cold pretty quickly (well, some people would be following his trial, probably, but... it would no longer be major news). He would have been convicted, and after a short while, the public would have forgotten about him completely.

That is the main reason why the people in charge in the US want him so badly. Simple 'revenge' may play a part as well, and the wish to set another example too. And it is simply a matter of prestige, as well. But if they get him, the story goes cold, they think.

The interesting thing is that, while Snowden is and is likely to be continued to seen as an enemy of the nation, the debate on the things he revealed does seem to be shifting. People like Rand Paul, at the moment the most notable Star in the GOP's firmament, as well as others from the 'tea-party'/libertarian wings of that party seem be very critical of the stuff the NSA has been up to. The instinct of most typical 'traditional' republicans seems to be to consider Snowden a liberal commie traitor, but the narrative on the right is confused. Of course, most federal-level politicians in the US were fine with all this stuff, before it was public. But they always fear the opinions of the voters back home, so... there seems to be movement. I don't think this is an issue that the majority of Americans care deeply about (much easier to have them split in neat right-and-left sides to argue over gun-control, gay marraige and Obamacare), but I do think that a significant part of the smarter Americans probably DO care about the sort of stuff the NSA has been doing and planning to do a lot more of. It may not have an immediate impact on the everyday party politics, but in the long run, this issue might become a really important one, politically.

My view, of course.

Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest