EPTIs Snowden guilty of espionage? - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
GreyKnight
United States4720 Posts
| ||
|
BioNova
United States598 Posts
On June 26 2013 03:44 GreyKnight wrote: Yes, but prosecuting him is a waste of time. He did not say anything anyone did not already know. Hes just baiting the feds while the rest of the world watches in glee at this PR battle. No offense, but there are a lot of flatly uninformed citizens in my country. Suspecting something and knowing something is two different realities. Some people literally wouldn't know if their own head was on fire till the gossip came back around or the Penguin Documentary told them. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18870 Posts
On June 26 2013 03:44 GreyKnight wrote: Yes, but prosecuting him is a waste of time. He did not say anything anyone did not already know. Hes just baiting the feds while the rest of the world watches in glee at this PR battle. Well that depends on the message one wants to send. If you are looking to further reinforce the notion that what Snowden did is unacceptable, prosecuting him makes a lot of sense. | ||
|
Sovano
United States1503 Posts
My understanding is that espionage means giving secret or classified information to the enemy. Since Snowden shared information with the American people, his indictment for espionage could reveal (or confirm) that the US Government views you and me as the enemy. | ||
|
Klondikebar
United States2227 Posts
On June 26 2013 03:42 thoradycus wrote: Don't really care whether hes guilty or not. Thanks for making that meaningful contribution to the thread. We'll add it to a mod note if we can so we can make sure everyone knows. | ||
|
omgimonfire15
United States233 Posts
Also, why are so many people surprised by this? Yeah we see it in movies and videogames but did you really think it was that far from the truth that there are people that are capable of hacking into every aspect of your life and retrieving your data? Also, do you really think America's the only one that's doing this? I would not be surprised if every industrialized country had some sort of espionage like this. | ||
|
GreyKnight
United States4720 Posts
On June 26 2013 03:53 farvacola wrote: Well that depends on the message one wants to send. If you are looking to further reinforce the notion that what Snowden did is unacceptable, prosecuting him makes a lot of sense. This would be true if they convinced us he was a spy for another country. | ||
|
fuzzylogic44
Canada2633 Posts
| ||
|
ninini
Sweden1204 Posts
On June 26 2013 02:59 Jockmcplop wrote: To be honest (i know America bashing is way over the top on this forum) i think the US has handled this situation extremely badly. They are starting to be as unpopular as they were during the Bush regime. The impression they are giving out is that they can do what the fuck they want with people's data, all over the world, and anybody who exposes it or gets in the way will be chased down and jailed. My government is just as bad. If it had been a UK citizen, i'm sure the situation would look the same. They need to learn to take a loss, instead raging and crying. Snowden is not a hero, and he is not a criminal. He did his duty as a citizen of the world. Punishing him for this is a crime. I agree with pretty much everything. In a democracy, the government has no right to keep secrets from its citizens, with one exception only, and that is information that could be dangerous in the hands of an enemy. That's not the case here. The fact that Prism has been confirmed to exist, doesn't endanger USA or its citizens. All it does is it hurts the reputation of the US government, and that's why they kept it secret to begin with. I've been known to cut the US government a lot of slack, but this is unacceptable. The fact that he exposed the governments lies by releasing the information, overrides the criminal nature of releasing this kind of information. Things like this shouldn't be secret, and it was his duty to release it. To me, this is not about Prism per say being bad, if the US deems it to be necessary, then go ahead, I wouldn't support it, but if the majority would vote on a party that supported it, then why not? It's the fact that they lied and kept this vital information from their citizens that is unacceptable. | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On June 26 2013 03:53 farvacola wrote: Well that depends on the message one wants to send. If you are looking to further reinforce the notion that what Snowden did is unacceptable, prosecuting him makes a lot of sense. What he did was whistleblowing. "not for hire espionage" or "conciousness espionage". Reinforcing a notion of whistlebloweing being unacceptable is problematic since the whole foundation of whistleblowing is a sign of something being seen as a huge problem that the person wants the public to be aware of. Heck. I'm even referring to Obamas arguments before he became president here. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18870 Posts
On June 26 2013 04:05 radiatoren wrote: What he did was whistleblowing. "not for hire espionage" or "conciousness espionage". Reinforcing a notion of whistlebloweing being unacceptable is problematic since the whole foundation of whistleblowing is a sign of something being seen as a huge problem that the person wants the public to be aware of. Heck. I'm even referring to Obamas arguments before he became president here. It doesn't really matter what Obama himself has argued, there is information pertinent to national security that government officials have an interest in keeping out of the public eye, and an according interest in discouraging its dissemination by government employees. Whether or not the entirety of the information released by Snowden falls under "whistleblower" protection is the crux of the debate, and I'm not really sure myself. On one hand, I think a huge number of people grossly overestimate the granularity of the information gathered by the NSA's programs; because of proportionality, I think the relative threat of the government turning into some Orwellian state very low. On the other, the government has done a poor job showing due diligence in oversight of the program, and they need to prove it well regulated or scrap it at once. | ||
|
Bill Murray
United States9292 Posts
| ||
|
valium
United States251 Posts
| ||
|
Klondikebar
United States2227 Posts
On June 26 2013 04:13 farvacola wrote: It doesn't really matter what Obama himself has argued, there is information pertinent to national security that government officials have an interest in keeping out of the public eye, and an according interest in discouraging its dissemination by government employees. Whether or not the entirety of the information released by Snowden falls under "whistleblower" protection is the crux of the debate, and I'm not really sure myself. On one hand, I think a huge number of people grossly overestimate the granularity of the information gathered by the NSA's programs; because of proportionality, I think the relative threat of the government turning into some Orwellian state very low. On the other, the government has done a poor job showing due diligence in oversight of the program, and they need to prove it well regulated or scrap it at once. Plus there's that whole inconvenient 4th amendment which protects us from unlawful search and seizure. Collecting our information with a secret warrant (whether or not they intend to use it or even notice that they've collected it) is a pretty clear violation of that. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18870 Posts
On June 26 2013 04:19 Klondikebar wrote: Plus there's that whole inconvenient 4th amendment which protects us from unlawful search and seizure. Collecting our information with a secret warrant (whether or not they intend to use it or even notice that they've collected it) is a pretty clear violation of that. Yeah, I agree, but am open to the possibility that the program might be proven "lawful" given the scope of the information gathered. | ||
|
matiK23
United States963 Posts
On June 26 2013 03:57 fuzzylogic44 wrote: Only if the American people are enemies of America Yea but Snowden didn't just tell this to the people of America and even if that was his intention, the news spread it internationally. | ||
|
valium
United States251 Posts
On June 26 2013 04:21 matiK23 wrote: Yea but Snowden didn't just tell this to the people of America and even if that was his intention, the news spread it internationally. Which is good, if we are catching our government infringing on our privacy, then people in other countries could start doing the same thing. | ||
|
Klondikebar
United States2227 Posts
On June 26 2013 04:20 farvacola wrote: Yeah, I agree, but am open to the possibility that the program might be proven "lawful" given the scope of the information gathered. Isn't due process something that's supposed to be public knowledge? Not the details of a particular case obviously but the process by which information is allowed to be gathered? The criteria for issuing a warrant? The office that issues said warrants? The whole thing just reeks of circumventing due process. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18870 Posts
On June 26 2013 04:23 Klondikebar wrote: Isn't due process something that's supposed to be public knowledge? Not the details of a particular case obviously but the process by which information is allowed to be gathered? The criteria for issuing a warrant? The office that issues said warrants? The whole thing just reeks of circumventing due process. You are more or less right, though the law is murky in this area. The problem is that, as far as we know, no warrants or indictments were served as a result of evidence gathered with the NSA's program; according to them, it's resources were only utilized in pursuit of foreign enemy combatants/terrorists. Then again, whether or not all the information is available here is also questionable. | ||
|
Klondikebar
United States2227 Posts
On June 26 2013 04:35 farvacola wrote: You are more or less right, though the law is murky in this area. The problem is that, as far as we know, no warrants or indictments were served as a result of evidence gathered with the NSA's program; according to them, it's resources were only utilized in pursuit of foreign enemy combatants/terrorists. Then again, whether or not all the information is available here is also questionable. But they still knowingly collected domestic citizens' date, even if inadvertently. You'll have to forgive my "BUT BUT BUT" response style in this thread. I have a hard time sticking to what the law specifically says when the law is very probably either warped or willfully murky. You are correct. Although I think the fact that laws allow such dancing around the 4th amendment is pretty atrocious. | ||
| ||
