In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On May 29 2014 17:07 MarlieChurphy wrote: Sorry if this is repost, but has anyone been talking about this yet?
Should there be a separate thread for this alone?
He says a lot of important shit finally and I think he prepared and killed this interview. He's a martyr/hero for the constitution and American people's rights. I really don't see how anyone can see otherwise.
The fact that he ran away to Russia makes him so much less than a hero/martyr. So much more could have been done if he had stayed and faced trial, so much more brought to light, and much more outrage. Now you just have emblazoned conspiracy theorists throwing around allegations about the NSA/US gov't doing all kinds of unlikely/impossible shit because part of their theory was vindicated, and people (and news orgs) are believing them.
But yes, there is another topic for that, but this isn't a bad place for the discussion either.
Yes like kept in solitary confinement then been granted a secret trial by the same Justice Department that has yet to prosecute anyone involved in the NSA scandal including those that lied under oath in front of Congress.
Pretty sure constitutional rights would have trumped a lot of the claims that he would be essentially squelched. There's a lot of grey area around NSA spying, there's much less about detaining and trials of US citizens.
On May 30 2014 00:14 hunts wrote: Pretty sure him staying in America would be very counter productive to him being able to tell anything else about what the NSA is doing, being they would make sure he's never heard from again.
Life isn't like a movie/TV show where important people just "disappear." The fact that he was able to leak the information is a testament to this fact.
I'm not sure what aksfjh thinks could have been told that wasn't or what conspiracy theories are stretching the truth. In many cases what Snowden said actually surprised the "conspiracy theorists" with how far the NSA is going to spy on everyone.
That's not to say regulation and oversight are always perfect (especially when one party fights them at practically every turn), but it's obvious that right leaning economists like Greenspan and his ilk could not have been more epically wrong about institutions like Lehman Brothers. And those problems unquestionably preceded the run, and had they been addressed when they were pointed out (they were unbelievable obvious to anyone who wanted to look), the entire crisis could of been averted, or at minimum, less harmful.
To use another analogy it's like saying the main reason a house burned down was because a child set fire to it. Well DUH!? But how did we get to a position where the child got to be unsupervised, got the fire source, and had time to make a fire bad enough that the whole house had to burn down instead of just where the fire started?
Remember this?
Yes he sounds like you do now: "This is different." "You don't know what you are talking about." Now we have it figured out so 2008 won't happen again.
The mere fact that your proposal is well-liked by the banking sector should raise eyebrows. "This is different in a trivial way" and "the fed is making a minor amount of interest by providing liquidity over the last five years" aren't very convincing arguments.
I'd like to move on from this topic but it's hard not to respond to this.
Frank was arguing that there wasn't a problem (no housing bubble), and even if there was, there wouldn't be a crisis. I'm arguing something completely different: there is a problem in the financial system and it absolutely needs to be fixed. I'm also arguing for a solution to the problem.
My argument has never been "this is different". My argument was that shadow banking has similar risks to traditional banking and that the solution we used to stop banking runs (Fed as lender of last resort) should be more or less extended to shadow banking.
I have no idea if the banking sector likes my proposal. This seems to be an assumption on your end based upon a misinterpretation of what I'm arguing for.
Hey jonny if you want to require shadow banks to hold substantially more capital and maintain strict leverage limits as a precondition for lending go ahead.
He says a lot of important shit finally and I think he prepared and killed this interview. He's a martyr/hero for the constitution and American people's rights. I really don't see how anyone can see otherwise.
The fact that he ran away to Russia makes him so much less than a hero/martyr. So much more could have been done if he had stayed and faced trial, so much more brought to light, and much more outrage. Now you just have emblazoned conspiracy theorists throwing around allegations about the NSA/US gov't doing all kinds of unlikely/impossible shit because part of their theory was vindicated, and people (and news orgs) are believing them.
But yes, there is another topic for that, but this isn't a bad place for the discussion either.
Yes like kept in solitary confinement then been granted a secret trial by the same Justice Department that has yet to prosecute anyone involved in the NSA scandal including those that lied under oath in front of Congress.
Pretty sure constitutional rights would have trumped a lot of the claims that he would be essentially squelched. There's a lot of grey area around NSA spying, there's much less about detaining and trials of US citizens.
On May 30 2014 00:14 hunts wrote: Pretty sure him staying in America would be very counter productive to him being able to tell anything else about what the NSA is doing, being they would make sure he's never heard from again.
Life isn't like a movie/TV show where important people just "disappear." The fact that he was able to leak the information is a testament to this fact.
Remember that whole thing about assassinations on US citizens who were potential terrorists? I don't remember the Constitution protecting them.
You can say Manning is a "special case" all you want but being a soldier doesn't waver his right to due process, something he never got. If Snowden stayed he would have been thrown in solitary long enough for the world to forget him, gotten a show trial and then gotten locked up for life. He did the only thing he could.
On May 29 2014 17:07 MarlieChurphy wrote: He says a lot of important shit finally and I think he prepared and killed this interview. He's a martyr/hero for the constitution and American people's rights. I really don't see how anyone can see otherwise.
Well I wouldn't exactly call him a hero, just gonna leave this here
"In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law."
That's not to say regulation and oversight are always perfect (especially when one party fights them at practically every turn), but it's obvious that right leaning economists like Greenspan and his ilk could not have been more epically wrong about institutions like Lehman Brothers. And those problems unquestionably preceded the run, and had they been addressed when they were pointed out (they were unbelievable obvious to anyone who wanted to look), the entire crisis could of been averted, or at minimum, less harmful.
To use another analogy it's like saying the main reason a house burned down was because a child set fire to it. Well DUH!? But how did we get to a position where the child got to be unsupervised, got the fire source, and had time to make a fire bad enough that the whole house had to burn down instead of just where the fire started?
Yes he sounds like you do now: "This is different." "You don't know what you are talking about." Now we have it figured out so 2008 won't happen again.
The mere fact that your proposal is well-liked by the banking sector should raise eyebrows. "This is different in a trivial way" and "the fed is making a minor amount of interest by providing liquidity over the last five years" aren't very convincing arguments.
I'd like to move on from this topic but it's hard not to respond to this.
Frank was arguing that there wasn't a problem (no housing bubble), and even if there was, there wouldn't be a crisis. I'm arguing something completely different: there is a problem in the financial system and it absolutely needs to be fixed. I'm also arguing for a solution to the problem.
My argument has never been "this is different". My argument was that shadow banking has similar risks to traditional banking and that the solution we used to stop banking runs (Fed as lender of last resort) should be more or less extended to shadow banking.
I have no idea if the banking sector likes my proposal. This seems to be an assumption on your end based upon a misinterpretation of what I'm arguing for.
Hey jonny if you want to require shadow banks to hold substantially more capital and maintain strict leverage limits as a precondition for lending go ahead.
Wouldn't that, by definition, make them stop being "shadow banks"? Forcing banks (by size) to hold capital requirements in order to have the privilege of LoLR would probably work out just fine. Banks that are solely focused on shadow banking aspects likely wouldn't be able to reach that size, while banks that have other obligations that get "too big to fail" that are heavily exposed to shadow banking would have a 2+ stage buffer that would prevent widespread collapse.
He says a lot of important shit finally and I think he prepared and killed this interview. He's a martyr/hero for the constitution and American people's rights. I really don't see how anyone can see otherwise.
The fact that he ran away to Russia makes him so much less than a hero/martyr. So much more could have been done if he had stayed and faced trial, so much more brought to light, and much more outrage. Now you just have emblazoned conspiracy theorists throwing around allegations about the NSA/US gov't doing all kinds of unlikely/impossible shit because part of their theory was vindicated, and people (and news orgs) are believing them.
But yes, there is another topic for that, but this isn't a bad place for the discussion either.
Yes like kept in solitary confinement then been granted a secret trial by the same Justice Department that has yet to prosecute anyone involved in the NSA scandal including those that lied under oath in front of Congress.
Pretty sure constitutional rights would have trumped a lot of the claims that he would be essentially squelched. There's a lot of grey area around NSA spying, there's much less about detaining and trials of US citizens.
On May 30 2014 00:14 hunts wrote: Pretty sure him staying in America would be very counter productive to him being able to tell anything else about what the NSA is doing, being they would make sure he's never heard from again.
Life isn't like a movie/TV show where important people just "disappear." The fact that he was able to leak the information is a testament to this fact.
Remember that whole thing about assassinations on US citizens who were potential terrorists? I don't remember the Constitution protecting them.
You can say Manning is a "special case" all you want but being a soldier doesn't waver his right to due process, something he never got. If Snowden stayed he would have been thrown in solitary long enough for the world to forget him, gotten a show trial and then gotten locked up for life. He did the only thing he could.
I remember those citizens taking frequent trips to places the US is actively using deadly force to combat terrorism and frequently meeting with known terrorist leaders. Aiding and abetting terrorism in Yemen vs being a whistleblower on US soil, I wonder which one will more likely get you killed...
Manning got his due process, as is mandated by law, in military court. If he wasn't military, it would have been an entirely public affair. Welcome to the world, where there are colors and hues other than black and white.
That's not to say regulation and oversight are always perfect (especially when one party fights them at practically every turn), but it's obvious that right leaning economists like Greenspan and his ilk could not have been more epically wrong about institutions like Lehman Brothers. And those problems unquestionably preceded the run, and had they been addressed when they were pointed out (they were unbelievable obvious to anyone who wanted to look), the entire crisis could of been averted, or at minimum, less harmful.
To use another analogy it's like saying the main reason a house burned down was because a child set fire to it. Well DUH!? But how did we get to a position where the child got to be unsupervised, got the fire source, and had time to make a fire bad enough that the whole house had to burn down instead of just where the fire started?
Yes he sounds like you do now: "This is different." "You don't know what you are talking about." Now we have it figured out so 2008 won't happen again.
The mere fact that your proposal is well-liked by the banking sector should raise eyebrows. "This is different in a trivial way" and "the fed is making a minor amount of interest by providing liquidity over the last five years" aren't very convincing arguments.
I'd like to move on from this topic but it's hard not to respond to this.
Frank was arguing that there wasn't a problem (no housing bubble), and even if there was, there wouldn't be a crisis. I'm arguing something completely different: there is a problem in the financial system and it absolutely needs to be fixed. I'm also arguing for a solution to the problem.
My argument has never been "this is different". My argument was that shadow banking has similar risks to traditional banking and that the solution we used to stop banking runs (Fed as lender of last resort) should be more or less extended to shadow banking.
I have no idea if the banking sector likes my proposal. This seems to be an assumption on your end based upon a misinterpretation of what I'm arguing for.
Hey jonny if you want to require shadow banks to hold substantially more capital and maintain strict leverage limits as a precondition for lending go ahead.
Wouldn't that, by definition, make them stop being "shadow banks"? Forcing banks (by size) to hold capital requirements in order to have the privilege of LoLR would probably work out just fine. Banks that are solely focused on shadow banking aspects likely wouldn't be able to reach that size, while banks that have other obligations that get "too big to fail" that are heavily exposed to shadow banking would have a 2+ stage buffer that would prevent widespread collapse.
Why yes it would. It's as if shadow banks sprouted up in order to avoid federal regulations in the first place.
He says a lot of important shit finally and I think he prepared and killed this interview. He's a martyr/hero for the constitution and American people's rights. I really don't see how anyone can see otherwise.
The fact that he ran away to Russia makes him so much less than a hero/martyr. So much more could have been done if he had stayed and faced trial, so much more brought to light, and much more outrage. Now you just have emblazoned conspiracy theorists throwing around allegations about the NSA/US gov't doing all kinds of unlikely/impossible shit because part of their theory was vindicated, and people (and news orgs) are believing them.
But yes, there is another topic for that, but this isn't a bad place for the discussion either.
Yes like kept in solitary confinement then been granted a secret trial by the same Justice Department that has yet to prosecute anyone involved in the NSA scandal including those that lied under oath in front of Congress.
Pretty sure constitutional rights would have trumped a lot of the claims that he would be essentially squelched. There's a lot of grey area around NSA spying, there's much less about detaining and trials of US citizens.
On May 30 2014 00:14 hunts wrote: Pretty sure him staying in America would be very counter productive to him being able to tell anything else about what the NSA is doing, being they would make sure he's never heard from again.
Life isn't like a movie/TV show where important people just "disappear." The fact that he was able to leak the information is a testament to this fact.
Remember that whole thing about assassinations on US citizens who were potential terrorists? I don't remember the Constitution protecting them.
You can say Manning is a "special case" all you want but being a soldier doesn't waver his right to due process, something he never got. If Snowden stayed he would have been thrown in solitary long enough for the world to forget him, gotten a show trial and then gotten locked up for life. He did the only thing he could.
I remember those citizens taking frequent trips to places the US is actively using deadly force to combat terrorism and frequently meeting with known terrorist leaders. Aiding and abetting terrorism in Yemen vs being a whistleblower on US soil, I wonder which one will more likely get you killed...
Manning got his due process, as is mandated by law, in military court. If he wasn't military, it would have been an entirely public affair. Welcome to the world, where there are colors and hues other than black and white.
So other than getting to see a trial, what would the benefits of his staying here have been? And what did you mean when you said conspiracy theorists are making stuff up?
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch conceded Wednesday it's only a matter of time before gay marriage is legal across the country, even though he doesn't think that's the right way to go.
Hatch said people who can't see what's happening aren't living in the real world. He made the remarks during an appearance on KSL-Radio's Doug Wright Show (http://bit.ly/1koFdlh).
"Let's face it: anybody who does not believe that gay marriage is going to be the law of the land just hasn't been observing what's going on," said Hatch, a seven-term Republican senator who has been a proponent of keeping marriage exclusively between a man and a woman.
He said he doesn't agree with the string of pro-gay marriage rulings, but defended two Utah judges who issued such decisions. Hatch said Robert Shelby and Dale Kimball are both excellent federal judges. Hatchrecommended both for the bench — Shelby in 2011 and Kimball in 1997.
"How do you blame the judge for deciding a case in accordance with what the Supreme Court has already articulated?" Hatch said.
His only criticism of Shelby was that he didn't immediately put his ruling on hold when he struck down Utah's same-sex marriage ban in December. More than 1,000 gay and lesbian couples until the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay more than two weeks later. The case is before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.
Gay rights activists have won 14 lower court cases since a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling last summer. Gay and lesbian couples currently can marry in 19 states and the District of Columbia, with Oregon and Pennsylvania being the latest states to join the list.
Hatch also questioned whether judges should be able to tell states how to handle an important matter like marriage.
He said he believes nobody should suffer discrimination, and said religious people should try to understand other people's beliefs.
He says a lot of important shit finally and I think he prepared and killed this interview. He's a martyr/hero for the constitution and American people's rights. I really don't see how anyone can see otherwise.
The fact that he ran away to Russia makes him so much less than a hero/martyr. So much more could have been done if he had stayed and faced trial, so much more brought to light, and much more outrage. Now you just have emblazoned conspiracy theorists throwing around allegations about the NSA/US gov't doing all kinds of unlikely/impossible shit because part of their theory was vindicated, and people (and news orgs) are believing them.
But yes, there is another topic for that, but this isn't a bad place for the discussion either.
Yes like kept in solitary confinement then been granted a secret trial by the same Justice Department that has yet to prosecute anyone involved in the NSA scandal including those that lied under oath in front of Congress.
Pretty sure constitutional rights would have trumped a lot of the claims that he would be essentially squelched. There's a lot of grey area around NSA spying, there's much less about detaining and trials of US citizens.
On May 30 2014 00:14 hunts wrote: Pretty sure him staying in America would be very counter productive to him being able to tell anything else about what the NSA is doing, being they would make sure he's never heard from again.
Life isn't like a movie/TV show where important people just "disappear." The fact that he was able to leak the information is a testament to this fact.
Remember that whole thing about assassinations on US citizens who were potential terrorists? I don't remember the Constitution protecting them.
You can say Manning is a "special case" all you want but being a soldier doesn't waver his right to due process, something he never got. If Snowden stayed he would have been thrown in solitary long enough for the world to forget him, gotten a show trial and then gotten locked up for life. He did the only thing he could.
I remember those citizens taking frequent trips to places the US is actively using deadly force to combat terrorism and frequently meeting with known terrorist leaders. Aiding and abetting terrorism in Yemen vs being a whistleblower on US soil, I wonder which one will more likely get you killed...
Manning got his due process, as is mandated by law, in military court. If he wasn't military, it would have been an entirely public affair. Welcome to the world, where there are colors and hues other than black and white.
So other than getting to see a trial, what would the benefits of his staying here have been? And what did you mean when you said conspiracy theorists are making stuff up?
Stuff like "the US government would have silenced him if he stayed!" aren't far off. However, plenty of NSA allegations have surfaced, like their supposed involvement in Heartbleed. We can't know for sure about these allegations, but it's fair to say (from my experience in the field) that they're far off from reality. The conspiracy theorists pull the details of what wasn't revealed to the extreme, that they NSA is some all-powerful GOD organization that can do ANYTHING and the media eats it up. It's not far off from the media hysteria that some disaster is the "result" of global climate change just because it's an extreme weather event.
If he had stayed, he would have been able to use the whistle-blower defense, forcing the US gov't to prove their programs that he leaked were legal, most likely requiring them to present further details of the programs to the public court system (or risk letting Snowden go free). At worst, we would be where we are now information wise, and Snowden would be an actual hero. At best, we would have even more information about the NSA programs, and Snowden would still be free. Somewhere in between, we would have more information about the NSA and Snowden would have been an actual "martyr" (and hero), convicted of sharing state secrets or something.
He says a lot of important shit finally and I think he prepared and killed this interview. He's a martyr/hero for the constitution and American people's rights. I really don't see how anyone can see otherwise.
The fact that he ran away to Russia makes him so much less than a hero/martyr. So much more could have been done if he had stayed and faced trial, so much more brought to light, and much more outrage. Now you just have emblazoned conspiracy theorists throwing around allegations about the NSA/US gov't doing all kinds of unlikely/impossible shit because part of their theory was vindicated, and people (and news orgs) are believing them.
But yes, there is another topic for that, but this isn't a bad place for the discussion either.
Yes like kept in solitary confinement then been granted a secret trial by the same Justice Department that has yet to prosecute anyone involved in the NSA scandal including those that lied under oath in front of Congress.
Pretty sure constitutional rights would have trumped a lot of the claims that he would be essentially squelched. There's a lot of grey area around NSA spying, there's much less about detaining and trials of US citizens.
On May 30 2014 00:14 hunts wrote: Pretty sure him staying in America would be very counter productive to him being able to tell anything else about what the NSA is doing, being they would make sure he's never heard from again.
Life isn't like a movie/TV show where important people just "disappear." The fact that he was able to leak the information is a testament to this fact.
Remember that whole thing about assassinations on US citizens who were potential terrorists? I don't remember the Constitution protecting them.
You can say Manning is a "special case" all you want but being a soldier doesn't waver his right to due process, something he never got. If Snowden stayed he would have been thrown in solitary long enough for the world to forget him, gotten a show trial and then gotten locked up for life. He did the only thing he could.
I remember those citizens taking frequent trips to places the US is actively using deadly force to combat terrorism and frequently meeting with known terrorist leaders. Aiding and abetting terrorism in Yemen vs being a whistleblower on US soil, I wonder which one will more likely get you killed...
Manning got his due process, as is mandated by law, in military court. If he wasn't military, it would have been an entirely public affair. Welcome to the world, where there are colors and hues other than black and white.
So other than getting to see a trial, what would the benefits of his staying here have been? And what did you mean when you said conspiracy theorists are making stuff up?
Stuff like "the US government would have silenced him if he stayed!" aren't far off. However, plenty of NSA allegations have surfaced, like their supposed involvement in Heartbleed. We can't know for sure about these allegations, but it's fair to say (from my experience in the field) that they're far off from reality. The conspiracy theorists pull the details of what wasn't revealed to the extreme, that they NSA is some all-powerful GOD organization that can do ANYTHING and the media eats it up. It's not far off from the media hysteria that some disaster is the "result" of global climate change just because it's an extreme weather event.
If he had stayed, he would have been able to use the whistle-blower defense, forcing the US gov't to prove their programs that he leaked were legal, most likely requiring them to present further details of the programs to the public court system (or risk letting Snowden go free). At worst, we would be where we are now information wise, and Snowden would be an actual hero. At best, we would have even more information about the NSA programs, and Snowden would still be free. Somewhere in between, we would have more information about the NSA and Snowden would have been an actual "martyr" (and hero), convicted of sharing state secrets or something.
Well to be fair they are pretty all knowing when it comes to the data itself (nothing is safe from the NSA if they want it bad enough) But they are still like monkeys with a musket when it comes to the data, in that they are largely using brute force to analyse the data and are still figuring out how to effectively crawl it.
Calling Snowden a 'Martyr' is just categorically wrong, you could make a case for 'hero' although a pretty weak one. Snowden was a whistle-blower though.
What Snowden did would be like Ghandi leaving India to fight for Indian rights in Somalia or something. The outcome of staying would of most probably been really shitty for Snowden but that's the life of a true martyr/hero.
You don't see the Medal of Honor being pinned on people who say "I was totally going to save my brothers but you know... bullets aren't flesh friendly"
Being a 'hero' means you do it regardless of how you end up because it's the right thing to do. Not to mention Russia was not the best country to run to considering...
He says a lot of important shit finally and I think he prepared and killed this interview. He's a martyr/hero for the constitution and American people's rights. I really don't see how anyone can see otherwise.
The fact that he ran away to Russia makes him so much less than a hero/martyr. So much more could have been done if he had stayed and faced trial, so much more brought to light, and much more outrage. Now you just have emblazoned conspiracy theorists throwing around allegations about the NSA/US gov't doing all kinds of unlikely/impossible shit because part of their theory was vindicated, and people (and news orgs) are believing them.
But yes, there is another topic for that, but this isn't a bad place for the discussion either.
Yes like kept in solitary confinement then been granted a secret trial by the same Justice Department that has yet to prosecute anyone involved in the NSA scandal including those that lied under oath in front of Congress.
Pretty sure constitutional rights would have trumped a lot of the claims that he would be essentially squelched. There's a lot of grey area around NSA spying, there's much less about detaining and trials of US citizens.
On May 30 2014 00:14 hunts wrote: Pretty sure him staying in America would be very counter productive to him being able to tell anything else about what the NSA is doing, being they would make sure he's never heard from again.
Life isn't like a movie/TV show where important people just "disappear." The fact that he was able to leak the information is a testament to this fact.
Remember that whole thing about assassinations on US citizens who were potential terrorists? I don't remember the Constitution protecting them.
You can say Manning is a "special case" all you want but being a soldier doesn't waver his right to due process, something he never got. If Snowden stayed he would have been thrown in solitary long enough for the world to forget him, gotten a show trial and then gotten locked up for life. He did the only thing he could.
I remember those citizens taking frequent trips to places the US is actively using deadly force to combat terrorism and frequently meeting with known terrorist leaders. Aiding and abetting terrorism in Yemen vs being a whistleblower on US soil, I wonder which one will more likely get you killed...
Manning got his due process, as is mandated by law, in military court. If he wasn't military, it would have been an entirely public affair. Welcome to the world, where there are colors and hues other than black and white.
So other than getting to see a trial, what would the benefits of his staying here have been? And what did you mean when you said conspiracy theorists are making stuff up?
Stuff like "the US government would have silenced him if he stayed!" aren't far off. However, plenty of NSA allegations have surfaced, like their supposed involvement in Heartbleed. We can't know for sure about these allegations, but it's fair to say (from my experience in the field) that they're far off from reality. The conspiracy theorists pull the details of what wasn't revealed to the extreme, that they NSA is some all-powerful GOD organization that can do ANYTHING and the media eats it up. It's not far off from the media hysteria that some disaster is the "result" of global climate change just because it's an extreme weather event.
If he had stayed, he would have been able to use the whistle-blower defense, forcing the US gov't to prove their programs that he leaked were legal, most likely requiring them to present further details of the programs to the public court system (or risk letting Snowden go free). At worst, we would be where we are now information wise, and Snowden would be an actual hero. At best, we would have even more information about the NSA programs, and Snowden would still be free. Somewhere in between, we would have more information about the NSA and Snowden would have been an actual "martyr" (and hero), convicted of sharing state secrets or something.
Snowden's ability to use whistleblower protections is not so clear.
Greenwald said that if Snowden returned to the United States, he would have no protections under the Espionage Act and would not be allowed to justify his actions in court. In terms of the law, Greenwald is literally correct.
Two other legal documents, however, could have provided Snowden some potential protections before he shared classified information with the press. But once he did, no law offers Snowden any shelter.
Greenwald’s further claim on what Snowden could say in his defense is less clear because it depends on what government prosecutors would do. We can’t assess the accuracy of any statement about future outcomes. However, it is clear that there is ample precedent to show that Snowden would have no guaranteed opportunity to explain his motivations.
Folding in that ambiguity, we rate the claim Mostly True
@aksfjh why are you whining about the potential difference in manner and / or degree of speculations in what hasn't been revealed, made by a marginal group, if snowden hadn't left the us? how is that even remotely relevant, important or interesting? who gives a shit?
suspecting us intelligence heartbleed bug knowledge or involvement is out of touch with reality? according to the guy who wrote it it's an obvious assumption:
Dr Seggelmann said it was obvious to assume that the bug was intentionally inserted, especially after various revelations by Edward Snowden of the surveillance activities carried out by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and other countries intelligence agencies.
you think you know better with your exploit scripting experience 'in the field' or you think this would had been a less obvious assumption if he had stayed in the us? get out.
On May 30 2014 02:22 nunez wrote: @aksfjh why are you whining about the potential difference in manner and / or degree of speculations in what hasn't been revealed, made by a marginal group, if snowden hadn't left the us? how is that even remotely relevant, important or interesting? who gives a shit?
suspecting us intelligence heartbleed bug knowledge or involvement is out of touch with reality? according to the guy who wrote it it's an obvious assumption:
Dr Seggelmann said it was obvious to assume that the bug was intentionally inserted, especially after various revelations by Edward Snowden of the surveillance activities carried out by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and other countries intelligence agencies.
you think you know better with your exploit scripting experience 'in the field' or you think this would had been a less obvious assumption if he had stayed in the us? get out.
Thanks for the example of conspiracy theorists I was talking about.
He says a lot of important shit finally and I think he prepared and killed this interview. He's a martyr/hero for the constitution and American people's rights. I really don't see how anyone can see otherwise.
The fact that he ran away to Russia makes him so much less than a hero/martyr. So much more could have been done if he had stayed and faced trial, so much more brought to light, and much more outrage. Now you just have emblazoned conspiracy theorists throwing around allegations about the NSA/US gov't doing all kinds of unlikely/impossible shit because part of their theory was vindicated, and people (and news orgs) are believing them.
But yes, there is another topic for that, but this isn't a bad place for the discussion either.
Yes like kept in solitary confinement then been granted a secret trial by the same Justice Department that has yet to prosecute anyone involved in the NSA scandal including those that lied under oath in front of Congress.
Pretty sure constitutional rights would have trumped a lot of the claims that he would be essentially squelched. There's a lot of grey area around NSA spying, there's much less about detaining and trials of US citizens.
On May 30 2014 00:14 hunts wrote: Pretty sure him staying in America would be very counter productive to him being able to tell anything else about what the NSA is doing, being they would make sure he's never heard from again.
Life isn't like a movie/TV show where important people just "disappear." The fact that he was able to leak the information is a testament to this fact.
Remember that whole thing about assassinations on US citizens who were potential terrorists? I don't remember the Constitution protecting them.
You can say Manning is a "special case" all you want but being a soldier doesn't waver his right to due process, something he never got. If Snowden stayed he would have been thrown in solitary long enough for the world to forget him, gotten a show trial and then gotten locked up for life. He did the only thing he could.
I remember those citizens taking frequent trips to places the US is actively using deadly force to combat terrorism and frequently meeting with known terrorist leaders. Aiding and abetting terrorism in Yemen vs being a whistleblower on US soil, I wonder which one will more likely get you killed...
Manning got his due process, as is mandated by law, in military court. If he wasn't military, it would have been an entirely public affair. Welcome to the world, where there are colors and hues other than black and white.
So other than getting to see a trial, what would the benefits of his staying here have been? And what did you mean when you said conspiracy theorists are making stuff up?
Stuff like "the US government would have silenced him if he stayed!" aren't far off. However, plenty of NSA allegations have surfaced, like their supposed involvement in Heartbleed. We can't know for sure about these allegations, but it's fair to say (from my experience in the field) that they're far off from reality. The conspiracy theorists pull the details of what wasn't revealed to the extreme, that they NSA is some all-powerful GOD organization that can do ANYTHING and the media eats it up. It's not far off from the media hysteria that some disaster is the "result" of global climate change just because it's an extreme weather event.
If he had stayed, he would have been able to use the whistle-blower defense, forcing the US gov't to prove their programs that he leaked were legal, most likely requiring them to present further details of the programs to the public court system (or risk letting Snowden go free). At worst, we would be where we are now information wise, and Snowden would be an actual hero. At best, we would have even more information about the NSA programs, and Snowden would still be free. Somewhere in between, we would have more information about the NSA and Snowden would have been an actual "martyr" (and hero), convicted of sharing state secrets or something.
Snowden's ability to use whistleblower protections is not so clear.
Greenwald said that if Snowden returned to the United States, he would have no protections under the Espionage Act and would not be allowed to justify his actions in court. In terms of the law, Greenwald is literally correct.
Two other legal documents, however, could have provided Snowden some potential protections before he shared classified information with the press. But once he did, no law offers Snowden any shelter.
Greenwald’s further claim on what Snowden could say in his defense is less clear because it depends on what government prosecutors would do. We can’t assess the accuracy of any statement about future outcomes. However, it is clear that there is ample precedent to show that Snowden would have no guaranteed opportunity to explain his motivations.
Folding in that ambiguity, we rate the claim Mostly True
However if he went to the intelligence committees (instead of the media) he may have had some more protection but even that isn't perfectly clear.
If that's true, then it's a shame. I still think there are legal channels he could have explored locally to get out his message, which would have given the public more pressure on the Obama administration and Congress to change the NSA actions. Now he has absolutely no important public defenders besides some fringe Congressmen. It weakens the case for things to be done when you defect to a foreign nation, especially a traditional enemy/adversary.
@askfjh specify which part of seggelmanns quote is a conspiracy theory, you're not making sense. it rips apart your half-assed attempt at marginalizing the healthy suspicion surrounding the bug. filing your reply under '100% dodge'.
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration is preparing to roll out new regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants on Monday, and the rules are already drawing criticism from congressional Republicans.
Of course, many of the rules' opponents are not even convinced that the issue the rules seek to address -- namely, climate change -- is even a problem at all. The Republican-led House Science Committee is holding a hearing on Thursday morning questioning the most recent scientific reports on climate change.
A reporter asked House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) at Thursday morning's Republican leadership press conference if, given his stated concerns about EPA regulations, "Are there steps you would support to take action against climate change, and do you think that's a problem?"
Boehner's response didn't exactly answer the question.
"Well, listen. I'm not qualified to debate the science over climate change. But I am astute enough to understand that every proposal that has come out of this administration to deal with climate change involves hurting our economy and killing American jobs," said Boehner. "That can't be the prescription for dealing with changes in our climate."
The speaker's low estimation of his grasp of the science has not prevented him in the past from casting doubt on the idea that climate change is a problem that can be attributed to human activity, and particularly the burning of fossil fuels.
are you kidding me nunez? quote the whole part, lol
Dr Seggelmann said it was obvious to assume that the bug was intentionally inserted, especially after various revelations by Edward Snowden of the surveillance activities carried out by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and other countries intelligence agencies. "But in this case, it was a simple programming error in a new feature, which unfortunately occurred in a security relevant area," he said. "It was not intended at all, especially since I have previously fixed OpenSSL bugs myself, and was trying to contribute to the project."
Yes the assumption is obvious, but then he states that it definitely wasn't the case. So don't misquote people on purpose to spew the weird tinfoil crap you carry to every thread you enter.
On May 30 2014 03:42 nunez wrote: @askfjh specify which part of seggelmanns quote is a conspiracy theory, you're not making sense. it rips apart your half-assed attempt at marginalizing the healthy suspicion surrounding the bug.
Also, it's good to assume that anybody could have been using this exploit since it was introduced, in the same way it's good to assume that anybody could steal your wallet. That doesn't mean they (the NSA) did. Also, it specifically says that it's "obvious to assume" things about the NSA, but that they didn't insert the bug, so the assumption is wrong on that front. I merely posit that the assumption that the NSA is run by gods of information theft and know/exploit every bug soon after it is released is probably wrong as well.
It's improper to jump to the conclusion that, because the NSA spies on the internet, that they put Heartbleed there.
i'm well aware nyxisto, think before you post. he readily admits that nsa involvement is an obvious and primary concern, not interesting that he's professing his innocence.
@aksfjh you're not answering my questions (hard hitting).
which part of the quote seggelman is a conspiracy? why do you think you're in a better position than seggelman to speak on how justified the suspicion and allegations are?
suspicion of nsa involvement in the heartbleed bug is not a marginal concern, that is utter bs.
how would this have been any different if snowden had stayed in the us?
I think you vastly underestimate the disdain with which many in DC view the relatively recent expansion of executive authority, and hypotheticals in which Snowden finds allies on both sides of the aisle in the event that he chooses to remain in the US are less ridiculous than you may expect.
EPT
