|
On August 30 2013 11:58 jeremycafe wrote:
Seems like every week he is releasing yet more information. This guy needs to be hunted down...
I will assume you're not talking assassinating someone because he's politically inconvenient to you.
Not sure how anyone can still think someone who got a job in his field for the sole purpose of leaking info
which Snowden didn't
wasn't trying to commit treason.
because he didn't sell a state secret to an enemy state, he gave information to the media and the media gave it to everybody. He didn't sell a military secret to a country that's our enemy because he hates America, he donated over-classified information to the people because he likes America.
Russia got us good on this one.
Us and them? It's the 21st century, the world isn't that simple. Are you suggesting that Russia made the NSA create a series of surveillance programs just so that they could embarrass the US government when a random guy with a conscience came along, or are you suggesting that Russia is a terrorist and now that our "national security" has been harmed by these leaks Russia can carry out its terrorist attacks against the US?
In what universe does a guy telling the American people what its government is doing have anything to do with Russia?
|
On August 31 2013 17:27 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 11:58 jeremycafe wrote:
Seems like every week he is releasing yet more information. This guy needs to be hunted down... I will assume you're not talking assassinating someone because he's politically inconvenient to you. Show nested quote +Not sure how anyone can still think someone who got a job in his field for the sole purpose of leaking info which Snowden didn't because he didn't sell a state secret to an enemy state, he gave information to the media and the media gave it to everybody. He didn't sell a military secret to a country that's our enemy because he hates America, he donated over-classified information to the people because he likes America. Us and them? It's the 21st century, the world isn't that simple. Are you suggesting that Russia made the NSA create a series of surveillance programs just so that they could embarrass the US government when a random guy with a conscience came along, or are you suggesting that Russia is a terrorist and now that our "national security" has been harmed by these leaks Russia can carry out its terrorist attacks against the US? In what universe does a guy telling the American people what its government is doing have anything to do with Russia?
The problem is that the government has the right to classify certain information. Full transparency is all nice and dandy on paper but could do more harm than good in practice. After all, you're voting to pick your government, which means you pick people you trust and if they're hiding something from you it's probably for your own good or not relevant to you at all (at least that's how it should work).
Snowden's move to leak information to the media might be considered heroic by some, but in fact he has not only broken the law but also betrayed his employer (which would be his own country). That's treason all right.
On August 30 2013 23:01 imperator-xy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 22:48 jeremycafe wrote:On August 30 2013 13:24 imperator-xy wrote:On August 30 2013 11:58 jeremycafe wrote:
Seems like every week he is releasing yet more information. This guy needs to be hunted down...
Not sure how anyone can still think someone who got a job in his field for the sole purpose of leaking info wasn't trying to commit treason. Russia got us good on this one. its not about russia or any other country, its about the us do you guys not respect your ancestors at all? they risked their lives for the freedoms youre giving away without much trouble as it seems How is it not? He reportedly got the job he did for the sole purpose of being able to gain information to leak. He is not just sharing information about our freedoms, he is leaking everything he knows one week at a time. How is our satellite program and cell phone intercepting of Osama Bin Ladan overseas have anything to do with America's rights? It doesn't. How about disclosing the fact he knows where a large number of safe houses are over seas? He wants to harm our country, not support our rights. It is oh so convenient after a man who intentional gained information for the purpose of leaking it goes to china, and now russia. You really think he has America's interest in his concern? give me a break.He is going to live a prosperous life in russia. if going to china and russia after leaking highly secret information is a reason that he just wants to harm the us to you, then i dont think you quite understand this right.
Yeah, beacause China and Russia are well-known for their good-hearted nature, respect for civil rights and freedom. Surely the best places to seek refuge as a citizen of the US...
|
On August 31 2013 21:10 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 17:27 oBlade wrote:On August 30 2013 11:58 jeremycafe wrote:
Seems like every week he is releasing yet more information. This guy needs to be hunted down... I will assume you're not talking assassinating someone because he's politically inconvenient to you. Not sure how anyone can still think someone who got a job in his field for the sole purpose of leaking info which Snowden didn't wasn't trying to commit treason. because he didn't sell a state secret to an enemy state, he gave information to the media and the media gave it to everybody. He didn't sell a military secret to a country that's our enemy because he hates America, he donated over-classified information to the people because he likes America. Russia got us good on this one. Us and them? It's the 21st century, the world isn't that simple. Are you suggesting that Russia made the NSA create a series of surveillance programs just so that they could embarrass the US government when a random guy with a conscience came along, or are you suggesting that Russia is a terrorist and now that our "national security" has been harmed by these leaks Russia can carry out its terrorist attacks against the US? In what universe does a guy telling the American people what its government is doing have anything to do with Russia? The problem is that the government has the right to classify certain information. Full transparency is all nice and dandy on paper but could do more harm than good in practice. After all, you're voting to pick your government, which means you pick people you trust and if they're hiding something from you it's probably for your own good or not relevant to you at all (at least that's how it should work). Snowden's move to leak information to the media might be considered heroic by some, but in fact he has not only broken the law but also betrayed his employer (which would be his own country). That's treason all right.
Minor technicality on the last part--what snowden did *can* be argued as treasonous depending how malicious they can show snowden's intent was. When it was just Snowden talking to the media this was harder to prove. Now that its snowden possibly selling secrets to china/Russia, maliciousness is easier to prove.
Manning was a military trial involving her breaking of orders and her breaking of military secracy--military trial is different from civilian trial in that you are not judged by your peers, you're judged by military courts. They just need to prove that manning broke direct orders. This is different from the snowden trial where they have to prove maliciousness of snowden's intent.
|
On August 31 2013 21:10 Manit0u wrote:
The problem is that the government has the right to classify certain information. Full transparency is all nice and dandy on paper but could do more harm than good in practice. After all, you're voting to pick your government, which means you pick people you trust and if they're hiding something from you it's probably for your own good or not relevant to you at all (at least that's how it should work).
As far as the US goes it's been both said and shown that there's a serious over-classification in place where things just get classified because why not. In a more general sense, politicians love being able to hide their mistakes through classification so the more transparent the better.
|
On August 31 2013 21:10 Manit0u wrote:
Yeah, beacause China and Russia are well-known for their good-hearted nature, respect for civil rights and freedom. Surely the best places to seek refuge as a citizen of the US...
By alone this arguments " respect for civil rights and freedom " he also coulnd´t have gone to the us /shrug
|
On August 31 2013 17:27 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 11:58 jeremycafe wrote:
Seems like every week he is releasing yet more information. This guy needs to be hunted down... I will assume you're not talking assassinating someone because he's politically inconvenient to you. Show nested quote +Not sure how anyone can still think someone who got a job in his field for the sole purpose of leaking info which Snowden didn't because he didn't sell a state secret to an enemy state, he gave information to the media and the media gave it to everybody. He didn't sell a military secret to a country that's our enemy because he hates America, he donated over-classified information to the people because he likes America. Us and them? It's the 21st century, the world isn't that simple. Are you suggesting that Russia made the NSA create a series of surveillance programs just so that they could embarrass the US government when a random guy with a conscience came along, or are you suggesting that Russia is a terrorist and now that our "national security" has been harmed by these leaks Russia can carry out its terrorist attacks against the US? In what universe does a guy telling the American people what its government is doing have anything to do with Russia?
"politically inconvenient" ? Has nothing to do with politics. He is a traitor who could care less about American safety just so he can be in the news.
And yes, he did intentionally get a role that would allow him to gain more access.
It makes no difference if he sells the info or hands it out to the media. Giving away secrets with malicious intent is all the same. He doesn't like our country.
I am glad you know what year we live in. /Golf clap. Do you think spy programs have downsized? No, they haven't. Foreign spies target people like Snowden all the time in hopes to gain secrets through money, sex, or drugs.
Where in my posts have I hinted at the moronic idea that Russia's spy program created the NSA surveillance program? The hell kind of stupid bullshit are you trying to create? It is hard to take anything serious from you after that statement. Just pure stupidity.
"In what universe does a guy telling the American people what its government is doing have anything to do with Russia?"
I forgot he spoke with CNN or Fox News or any other US news agency. Oh right, he didn't. The universe in which he is now comfortably living in russia, smart ass.
For the few of you that tried to argue my point of him leaking things weekly. Ya, ok he leaked it all at once and the news is catching up. But really, blame the news? Um, no... HE LEAKED THE INFO. Regardless if it happened at once or over time, my point is he leaked EVERYTHING and ANYTHING he could get his hands on.
|
He spoke to newspapers, not to Russia.
He only went to Russia after the newspapers already had the information.
Also, saying he "doesn't like our country" is stupid. Plain and simple.
He doesn't like what the government of the country is doing. He decided to reveal what the government was doing to the people, by going to the media.
That sounds to me like maybe he likes the COUNTRY, but not the GOVERNMENT.
The government is supposed to represent the people of the country, but he doesn't see that they are. Your accusations of him not liking the country are based on your own personal bias, equally he has his own personal and opposite bias, that the country is dying because those in charge are failing, and as he does like the country, he wants to prevent this.
Your opinion is that harming those running the country is something you would only do if you don't like the country.
You must be able to see his perspective on things, even if you don't agree with it.
Also, last I knew, the WASHINGTON Post is a US news agency. Clue is maybe in the name?
The actual chronology is... contact a non-US newspaper. Then contact a US newspaper. Then leak information and flee to Hong Kong, then go to Russia from HK.
It's not go to Russia, give Russia secrets, then leak things to non-US news media. If you're going to make accusations, at least start with a correct chronology. Russia came after everything else.
|
On August 31 2013 23:25 jeremycafe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 17:27 oBlade wrote:On August 30 2013 11:58 jeremycafe wrote:
Seems like every week he is releasing yet more information. This guy needs to be hunted down... I will assume you're not talking assassinating someone because he's politically inconvenient to you. Not sure how anyone can still think someone who got a job in his field for the sole purpose of leaking info which Snowden didn't wasn't trying to commit treason. because he didn't sell a state secret to an enemy state, he gave information to the media and the media gave it to everybody. He didn't sell a military secret to a country that's our enemy because he hates America, he donated over-classified information to the people because he likes America. Russia got us good on this one. Us and them? It's the 21st century, the world isn't that simple. Are you suggesting that Russia made the NSA create a series of surveillance programs just so that they could embarrass the US government when a random guy with a conscience came along, or are you suggesting that Russia is a terrorist and now that our "national security" has been harmed by these leaks Russia can carry out its terrorist attacks against the US? In what universe does a guy telling the American people what its government is doing have anything to do with Russia? "politically inconvenient" ? Has nothing to do with politics. He is a traitor who could care less about American safety just so he can be in the news. And yes, he did intentionally get a role that would allow him to gain more access. It makes no difference if he sells the info or hands it out to the media. Giving away secrets with malicious intent is all the same. He doesn't like our country. I am glad you know what year we live in. /Golf clap. Do you think spy programs have downsized? No, they haven't. Foreign spies target people like Snowden all the time in hopes to gain secrets through money, sex, or drugs. Where in my posts have I hinted at the moronic idea that Russia's spy program created the NSA surveillance program? The hell kind of stupid bullshit are you trying to create? It is hard to take anything serious from you after that statement. Just pure stupidity. "In what universe does a guy telling the American people what its government is doing have anything to do with Russia?" I forgot he spoke with CNN or Fox News or any other US news agency. Oh right, he didn't. The universe in which he is now comfortably living in russia, smart ass. For the few of you that tried to argue my point of him leaking things weekly. Ya, ok he leaked it all at once and the news is catching up. But really, blame the news? Um, no... HE LEAKED THE INFO. Regardless if it happened at once or over time, my point is he leaked EVERYTHING and ANYTHING he could get his hands on.
Could you explain a better way of doing things? Not making some non-involved people aware is not really an option if the things do look that bad from his view. That is the whole benefit from allowing whistleblowing.
I agree that his way of doing it was not very smooth. However, I have a hard time seeing a better alternative. The whistleblower program is beyond useless and going to some random politician with the information is far too risky since trustworthy is a very rare trait in politics unless it is politically convenient. Proper oldschool educated journalists have a certain way of doing things that would give the necessary trust and anonymity which is what a real whistleblower needs.
Have you got any sources on him selling information to the russian or chinese government? I have only heard that he claims the information is encrypted, torture-proof and that he would never give it to foreign governments.
|
On August 31 2013 22:41 Nachtwind wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 21:10 Manit0u wrote:
Yeah, beacause China and Russia are well-known for their good-hearted nature, respect for civil rights and freedom. Surely the best places to seek refuge as a citizen of the US... By alone this arguments " respect for civil rights and freedom " he also coulnd´t have gone to the us /shrug
What? Are you being serious right now? Freedomhouse would heavily disagree with you.
|
On August 31 2013 23:59 docvoc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 22:41 Nachtwind wrote:On August 31 2013 21:10 Manit0u wrote:
Yeah, beacause China and Russia are well-known for their good-hearted nature, respect for civil rights and freedom. Surely the best places to seek refuge as a citizen of the US... By alone this arguments " respect for civil rights and freedom " he also coulnd´t have gone to the us /shrug What? Are you being serious right now? Freedomhouse would heavily disagree with you.
The world would heavily disagree with you. The US is pretty much in its early stages to becoming a tyrannical state. Killing indiscriminately around the world, punishing whistleblowers with 90 year jail sentences, it's press has become another part of its military wing to spread its propoganda(CNN fox etc).
Also I took one look at that horrendous graph and came to the conclusion that freedomhouse should consider closing house. No offense to Benin and ghana but seriously? Ghana and Benin are 0.5 "freedom" points behind Sweden and Norway? Mongolia is at the same freedom of Japan? Really?
|
On August 31 2013 23:33 Lonyo wrote:
He spoke to newspapers, not to Russia.
He only went to Russia after the newspapers already had the information.
Also, saying he "doesn't like our country" is stupid. Plain and simple.
He doesn't like what the government of the country is doing. He decided to reveal what the government was doing to the people, by going to the media.
That sounds to me like maybe he likes the COUNTRY, but not the GOVERNMENT.
The government is supposed to represent the people of the country, but he doesn't see that they are. Your accusations of him not liking the country are based on your own personal bias, equally he has his own personal and opposite bias, that the country is dying because those in charge are failing, and as he does like the country, he wants to prevent this.
Your opinion is that harming those running the country is something you would only do if you don't like the country.
You must be able to see his perspective on things, even if you don't agree with it.
Also, last I knew, the WASHINGTON Post is a US news agency. Clue is maybe in the name?
The actual chronology is... contact a non-US newspaper. Then contact a US newspaper. Then leak information and flee to Hong Kong, then go to Russia from HK.
It's not go to Russia, give Russia secrets, then leak things to non-US news media. If you're going to make accusations, at least start with a correct chronology. Russia came after everything else.
This is the assumed chronology. Until we have a trial and evidence is presented on both sides proving the chronology of events, this is all conjecture. Not saying you're wrong, but just because his leaking it on the news came before the whole Russia thing happened does not mean he didn't talk to Russia first (to ensure safety) and then talked to newspapers (once he knew he had an escape)
In either situation evidence would be required which we don't have since he ran away from being trailed.
|
On August 31 2013 23:59 docvoc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 22:41 Nachtwind wrote:On August 31 2013 21:10 Manit0u wrote:
Yeah, beacause China and Russia are well-known for their good-hearted nature, respect for civil rights and freedom. Surely the best places to seek refuge as a citizen of the US... By alone this arguments " respect for civil rights and freedom " he also coulnd´t have gone to the us /shrug What? Are you being serious right now? Freedomhouse would heavily disagree with you.
No wonder after looking further into freedom house...... Its a CIA office disguised as an "NGO" to do it's clandestine operations and infiltrate nations of the world
The Financial Times has reported that Freedom House is one of several organizations selected by the State Department to receive funding for 'clandestine activities' inside Iran.[24
On December 7, 2004, U.S. House Representative Ron Paul criticized Freedom House for allegedly administering a U.S.-funded program in Ukraine where "much of that money was targeted to assist one particular candidate."
Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman have criticized the organization for excessively criticizing states opposed to US interests while being unduly sympathetic to regimes supportive of US interests.[31] According to Chomsky and Herman, Freedom House described the Rhodesian general election of 1979 as "fair" but found the Southern Rhodesian 1980 elections as "dubious".[31] They said that Freedom House found El Salvador's 1982 election to be "admirable".[31]
|
On August 30 2013 13:24 imperator-xy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 11:58 jeremycafe wrote:
Seems like every week he is releasing yet more information. This guy needs to be hunted down...
Not sure how anyone can still think someone who got a job in his field for the sole purpose of leaking info wasn't trying to commit treason. Russia got us good on this one. its not about russia or any other country, its about the us do you guys not respect your ancestors at all? they risked their lives for the freedoms youre giving away without much trouble as it seems
Was thinking the USA people would do something , make him a hero because he did something really good for you guy...
And many of you don't even understand that , just reading this topic make me go ''WTF American'' so many times...
You can be sure if someone like him would have do something like that in Europe , people would back I'm up .
Pathetic , seriously , you don't care for your freedom ?
They are law you should expose illegal stuff , but when that the government you should no ?
Double standard , really pathetic... will look how this end , but this sure don't give American a better reputation so far .
Poor guy exposed something really illegal , other that make the USA government look pathetic et released no data who would hurts the usa , other that make the government of us look really damn pathetic and illegal .
|
On September 01 2013 00:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 23:33 Lonyo wrote:
He spoke to newspapers, not to Russia.
He only went to Russia after the newspapers already had the information.
Also, saying he "doesn't like our country" is stupid. Plain and simple.
He doesn't like what the government of the country is doing. He decided to reveal what the government was doing to the people, by going to the media.
That sounds to me like maybe he likes the COUNTRY, but not the GOVERNMENT.
The government is supposed to represent the people of the country, but he doesn't see that they are. Your accusations of him not liking the country are based on your own personal bias, equally he has his own personal and opposite bias, that the country is dying because those in charge are failing, and as he does like the country, he wants to prevent this.
Your opinion is that harming those running the country is something you would only do if you don't like the country.
You must be able to see his perspective on things, even if you don't agree with it.
Also, last I knew, the WASHINGTON Post is a US news agency. Clue is maybe in the name?
The actual chronology is... contact a non-US newspaper. Then contact a US newspaper. Then leak information and flee to Hong Kong, then go to Russia from HK.
It's not go to Russia, give Russia secrets, then leak things to non-US news media. If you're going to make accusations, at least start with a correct chronology. Russia came after everything else. This is the assumed chronology. Until we have a trial and evidence is presented on both sides proving the chronology of events, this is all conjecture. Not saying you're wrong, but just because his leaking it on the news came before the whole Russia thing happened does not mean he didn't talk to Russia first (to ensure safety) and then talked to newspapers (once he knew he had an escape) In either situation evidence would be required which we don't have since he ran away from being trailed.
If he had talked to Russia first, would he not simply have travelled to Russia first to ensure his safety, rather than travelling to Hong Kong, being outed/outing himself, and THEN trying to travel to Russia, risking being refused a flight from HK and being handed over to the US by China?
Or did he first make an agreement with China, then make an agreement with Russia (or Russia then China), THEN speak to the media, THEN leak his name?
How much credit are we going to give him before things start diving into absolute ridiculous Hollywood style levels of absurdity?
|
On September 01 2013 00:51 quebecman77 wrote:
Poor guy exposed something really illegal , other that make the USA government look pathetic et released no data who would hurts the usa , other that make the government of us look really damn pathetic and illegal .
Running away from a fair and reasonable justice system for no reason other than to avoid punishment is not the mark of an innocent man.
And also, it's utter BS that releasing the inner workings of the NSA would not harm the country. That's pretty important as far as security goes. Exposing specific overreaches would be whistleblowing, but that's not what Snowden did. And FWIW the NSA was and still is being investigated for overreach for programs including PRISM.
If you think your country doesn't have a spy program that does the exact same thing as the NSA, then you are naive. Every country that can gather data will do it.
|
On September 01 2013 01:00 Lonyo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2013 00:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 31 2013 23:33 Lonyo wrote:
He spoke to newspapers, not to Russia.
He only went to Russia after the newspapers already had the information.
Also, saying he "doesn't like our country" is stupid. Plain and simple.
He doesn't like what the government of the country is doing. He decided to reveal what the government was doing to the people, by going to the media.
That sounds to me like maybe he likes the COUNTRY, but not the GOVERNMENT.
The government is supposed to represent the people of the country, but he doesn't see that they are. Your accusations of him not liking the country are based on your own personal bias, equally he has his own personal and opposite bias, that the country is dying because those in charge are failing, and as he does like the country, he wants to prevent this.
Your opinion is that harming those running the country is something you would only do if you don't like the country.
You must be able to see his perspective on things, even if you don't agree with it.
Also, last I knew, the WASHINGTON Post is a US news agency. Clue is maybe in the name?
The actual chronology is... contact a non-US newspaper. Then contact a US newspaper. Then leak information and flee to Hong Kong, then go to Russia from HK.
It's not go to Russia, give Russia secrets, then leak things to non-US news media. If you're going to make accusations, at least start with a correct chronology. Russia came after everything else. This is the assumed chronology. Until we have a trial and evidence is presented on both sides proving the chronology of events, this is all conjecture. Not saying you're wrong, but just because his leaking it on the news came before the whole Russia thing happened does not mean he didn't talk to Russia first (to ensure safety) and then talked to newspapers (once he knew he had an escape) In either situation evidence would be required which we don't have since he ran away from being trailed. If he had talked to Russia first, would he not simply have travelled to Russia first to ensure his safety, rather than travelling to Hong Kong, being outed/outing himself, and THEN trying to travel to Russia, risking being refused a flight from HK and being handed over to the US by China? Or did he first make an agreement with China, then make an agreement with Russia (or Russia then China), THEN speak to the media, THEN leak his name? How much credit are we going to give him before things start diving into absolute ridiculous Hollywood style levels of absurdity?
Being that I said that both arguments are purely conjecture until evidence is present, I see both comments on his heroism and his heresy as being ridiculous. If we had an actual trial to showing evidence based arguments to inform us what actually happened, we would actually know what happened.
Until then everything is just conjecture.
|
i guess many people don't like the true face of their goverment, but people should aware of what their goverment is up to.
Yes may be the NSA isn't using the information they are gathering in an bad way. But what with the next administration or the one after that, or 10, 20, 30, 50 years later?
We can already see how anti terrorism laws are abused, when convinient. Of course these tools if once gotten, will also be abused in the future. But then it might be to late to "oppose".
The road to hell is paved with good intentions!
|
On September 01 2013 01:00 Lonyo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2013 00:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 31 2013 23:33 Lonyo wrote:
He spoke to newspapers, not to Russia.
He only went to Russia after the newspapers already had the information.
Also, saying he "doesn't like our country" is stupid. Plain and simple.
He doesn't like what the government of the country is doing. He decided to reveal what the government was doing to the people, by going to the media.
That sounds to me like maybe he likes the COUNTRY, but not the GOVERNMENT.
The government is supposed to represent the people of the country, but he doesn't see that they are. Your accusations of him not liking the country are based on your own personal bias, equally he has his own personal and opposite bias, that the country is dying because those in charge are failing, and as he does like the country, he wants to prevent this.
Your opinion is that harming those running the country is something you would only do if you don't like the country.
You must be able to see his perspective on things, even if you don't agree with it.
Also, last I knew, the WASHINGTON Post is a US news agency. Clue is maybe in the name?
The actual chronology is... contact a non-US newspaper. Then contact a US newspaper. Then leak information and flee to Hong Kong, then go to Russia from HK.
It's not go to Russia, give Russia secrets, then leak things to non-US news media. If you're going to make accusations, at least start with a correct chronology. Russia came after everything else. This is the assumed chronology. Until we have a trial and evidence is presented on both sides proving the chronology of events, this is all conjecture. Not saying you're wrong, but just because his leaking it on the news came before the whole Russia thing happened does not mean he didn't talk to Russia first (to ensure safety) and then talked to newspapers (once he knew he had an escape) In either situation evidence would be required which we don't have since he ran away from being trailed. If he had talked to Russia first, would he not simply have travelled to Russia first to ensure his safety, rather than travelling to Hong Kong, being outed/outing himself, and THEN trying to travel to Russia, risking being refused a flight from HK and being handed over to the US by China? Or did he first make an agreement with China, then make an agreement with Russia (or Russia then China), THEN speak to the media, THEN leak his name? How much credit are we going to give him before things start diving into absolute ridiculous Hollywood style levels of absurdity?
Wouldn't it be better for him to simply go to a country that has no extradition treaties with US and is more favorable towards political refugees?
He could easily find such info here (of all places):
http://uk.askmen.com/top_10/travel_top_ten_150/176_travel_top_ten.html
|
On September 01 2013 01:00 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2013 00:51 quebecman77 wrote:
Poor guy exposed something really illegal , other that make the USA government look pathetic et released no data who would hurts the usa , other that make the government of us look really damn pathetic and illegal .
Running away from a fair and reasonable justice system for no reason other than to avoid punishment is not the mark of an innocent man. And also, it's utter BS that releasing the inner workings of the NSA would not harm the country. That's pretty important as far as security goes. Exposing specific overreaches would be whistleblowing, but that's not what Snowden did. And FWIW the NSA was and still is being investigated for overreach for programs including PRISM. If you think your country doesn't have a spy program that does the exact same thing as the NSA, then you are naive. Every country that can gather data will do it.
the usa justice system far far far from reasonable and fair , if you ask , that a damn joke , the guy with the most money never end up in jail , that broken , if he would have stay he would be in your ''private'' prison .
but hey , some country are worst , but not many  unless they are third rate
|
If you even remotely care about the constitution of the USA, then you would understand the why behind Snowden. Our rights are being traded for our "security", this is a debate that should be had publicly and let the voters decide on this important issue.
However the NSA has removed the power away from the people, by not being transparent about their actions or at least acknowledging their infringement on privacy. For this reason Snowden gave Americans the chance at truth and see how we would react. We haven't done shit, but atleast he has done his job and got the truth out there, and for that I greatly appreciate his service.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
