|
In the eyes of the US? Of course. He leaked official secrets. It's the exact same issue as with Bradley Manning.
However, I do believe that morality is a defence and whether the official secrets leaked actually breach the US constitution. Having said this, if Snowden did end up in US hands, I would willingly go out on the streets and protest for his pardon and release. Privacy and an open internet are something I believe in hugely.
All I have to say is... this will likely affect the results of the next US election. If Obama's been exposed as 'Just Another Bush' for his support for the NSA surveilance program and his unwillingness to pardon Bradley Manning or stop blatantly trying to seize Julian Assange, then I can see a Republican landslide.
All the GOP has to do is say the right things and people will vote for them. Unfortunately for them, Mitt Romney didn't last year and Obama got a second term.
|
I would like to bring forward another issue: I have very limited knowledge of US law, so I can't tell if he is guilty or not, but I can plausibly imagine that he could be found guilty, because he definitely operated against many interests of a powerfull goverment.
But another question is: should any state release him to the US? I know this is in principle a question of international law, but international law happens to be a very strange kind of law in that there is no court. While states are expected to behave acccording to treaties, it is much easier and more common for them to break these and go unpunished than for ordinary people. I agree on releasing people accused of some sort of "universal" crime - if he did in his country something for which we would punish him here, such as murder, rape, robbery ... then we should let him be charged and tried. But spying on the US is generally not really illegal in any other country than US, why should any country help them to catch him?
|
On June 26 2013 05:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 05:43 Fruscainte wrote:On June 26 2013 05:35 Meow-Meow wrote:
I'm sorry, but the man is a traitor and a terrorist.
The government tries to protect the people from turban guys and this little bitch tries to throw a wrench in their gears.
Who does he think he is, fucking with America?
And so what if the government spy on us, have you got something to hide?
If you're not a terrorist, gay or paedophile, surely you don't mind e-mail and telephone surveillance.
I'd rather have my conversations recorded than some anti-Jesus sand people fly an airplane into MY yard.
Have you liberal pussies already forgotten Boston? That shows why we need a system in place to prevent Muslims from entering our great nation. Either send them back, or send them to my yard, and I will show them what a shotgun MADE IN AMERICA is capable of.
If you're fucking with Jesus, you're fucking with me.
User was temp banned for this post. If I'm not a terrorist or a pedophile or doing anything wrong, why does the government have any business spying on me? Great satire though, 11/10  Just want to say, it was worth meow-meow getting temp banned for the smile on my face 
Seconded.
|
On June 26 2013 05:46 opisska wrote:
why should any country help them to catch him?
Economic incentivization is a powerful thing, Snowden had to carefully pick which country he would flee to. I'm sure the UK would hand him over on a silver platter for instance. As would many EU countries, probably including my own.
|
I think the bigger question is not whether Snowden did was illegal, but rather how it is possible for the surveillance NSA operated to be legal in the first place.
|
On June 26 2013 05:39 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 05:38 BBS wrote:On June 26 2013 05:25 biology]major wrote:
more appropriate question is do we have to sacrifice our rights to combat terrorism, even a little? More more appropriate question: Should this be a question at all? Sacrificing human rights cannot be justified by any means. If there once is a legitimation to rob a person of his or her inherited rights, it will always remain a door opener to pursue people that are different from what those in charge expect them to be. It is the key to a totaliterian regime, which none of us should be willing to allow. there is a conflict of interest between preserving human life vs preserving human rights. edit: what the government did was wrong by not being transparent to the people, that much I know. But is the actual surveillance a crime? If it even stopped 1 terrorist attack from happening then is it justifiable?
Surveillance without reasoning is a crime. It suggests everybody is a criminal and leaves rules set by the law out of consideration. Even if illegal surveillance stops a terrorist attack, how can you allow abuse of human rights in the millions to justify the safe of a few lifes? Human rights are the highest good we have, and we should not allow it to be taken only we feel to comfortable demanding consequences from people spying on us and invading our privacy.
|
Snowden is Guilty of espionage on behalf of the US government when they told him to spy on the people. Revealing the truth of a corrupt government's actions should not globally be consider treason. Yet, it would make sense that the US would try and punish said whistler blower with every action they could twist.
|
On June 26 2013 05:49 eNbee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 05:46 opisska wrote:
why should any country help them to catch him? Economic incentivization is a powerful thing, Snowden had to carefully pick which country he would flee to. I'm sure the UK would hand him over on a silver platter for instance. As would many EU countries, probably including my own.
Yeah, I meant in a more moralistic level. Sure, many countries are just US-bitches, no doubt about that we would look for a golden or platinum plate to beat the UK, if necessary. But I am very curious about how it turns out in Russia, there can be quite a drama in the end. I also wanted to comment on the fact that the US is acting like if it was everyones duty to hand him over as fast as humanly possible, which is a little too self-confident position in my opinion.
|
On June 26 2013 05:50 DeCoder wrote:
I think the bigger question is not whether Snowden did was illegal, but rather how it is possible for the surveillance NSA operated to be legal in the first place.
Fear + George Bush + Colors
|
On June 26 2013 05:49 eNbee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 05:46 opisska wrote:
why should any country help them to catch him? Economic incentivization is a powerful thing, Snowden had to carefully pick which country he would flee to. I'm sure the UK would hand him over on a silver platter for instance. As would many EU countries, probably including my own.
Legally speaking most EU countries (or even Hong Kong) can't choose to not turn him over. They've signed extradition treaties, legally binding by their own law, under which extradition requests can only be procedurally evaluated, not on the content of the case.
|
On June 26 2013 05:50 DeCoder wrote:
I think the bigger question is not whether Snowden did was illegal, but rather how it is possible for the surveillance NSA operated to be legal in the first place.
Legality isn't about moral or ethical principles, it's about enforcing a certain set of rules that is fair. The most absurd laws get passed all the time on the basis of principled proponents in power who want to enforce a certain rule-set that benefits themselves. The whole common law system is supposed to function as a constantly changing rule-set of precedence and over-turns, where nothing is set in stone except for the constitution (even that is amendable). Legal loopholes have existed since the invention of the concept and many of said loopholes are left intentionally open for the benefit of special interests.
If you have a system where every party is apparently benefiting from certain transactions and those parties included some subsidiary of the government, it doesn't even matter if it is illegal or not. Governments disobey domestic and international law all the time, very few have an active policy for following international law.
You see any representative from Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, etc speaking out on this subject before the story was made public? All the hundreds if not thousands of people who had inside knowledge and had to have at least the capacity of knowledge for the whole plan to be functional and implemented. No one said anything because it was in their own best interest. There is no conspiracy, only a tacit conflict of interest that everybody deep down understand.
|
On June 26 2013 05:52 BBS wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 05:39 biology]major wrote:On June 26 2013 05:38 BBS wrote:On June 26 2013 05:25 biology]major wrote:
more appropriate question is do we have to sacrifice our rights to combat terrorism, even a little? More more appropriate question: Should this be a question at all? Sacrificing human rights cannot be justified by any means. If there once is a legitimation to rob a person of his or her inherited rights, it will always remain a door opener to pursue people that are different from what those in charge expect them to be. It is the key to a totaliterian regime, which none of us should be willing to allow. there is a conflict of interest between preserving human life vs preserving human rights. edit: what the government did was wrong by not being transparent to the people, that much I know. But is the actual surveillance a crime? If it even stopped 1 terrorist attack from happening then is it justifiable? Surveillance without reasoning is a crime. It suggests everybody is a criminal and leaves rules set by the law out of consideration. Even if illegal surveillance stops a terrorist attack, how can you allow abuse of human rights in the millions to justify the safe of a few lifes? Human rights are the highest good we have, and we should not allow it to be taken only we feel to comfortable demanding consequences from people spying on us and invading our privacy.
What about speed traps? Surveillance cameras? Security checkpoints at large gatherings and events? By that logic, the government could never use police to stop crime in process, but rather bring people in after the fact.
Honestly, I think the NSA's program is shady, but possibly fair. There are no laws about obfuscating your browsing habits, emails, or phone calls, and there are cheap/free ways of doing so. If we consider internet activity in the public space (and protected by equal access laws etc.), then this makes sense.
|
On June 26 2013 05:43 eNbee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 05:35 Meow-Meow wrote:
I'm sorry, but the man is a traitor and a terrorist.
The government tries to protect the people from turban guys and this little bitch tries to throw a wrench in their gears.
Who does he think he is, fucking with America?
And so what if the government spy on us, have you got something to hide?
If you're not a terrorist, gay or paedophile, surely you don't mind e-mail and telephone surveillance.
I'd rather have my conversations recorded than some anti-Jesus sand people fly an airplane into MY yard.
Have you liberal pussies already forgotten Boston? That shows why we need a system in place to prevent Muslims from entering our great nation. Either send them back, or send them to my yard, and I will show them what a shotgun MADE IN AMERICA is capable of.
If you're fucking with Jesus, you're fucking with me.
User was temp banned for this post. Obvious satire is a bannable offense now?
to the guy that asked me for 10 examples of pro US mods on TL, this case of banning satire is worth at least 20 examples.
|
he isnt a spy, his work gave him some information about amoral behaviour of the US and some allies and he chose to release it to everyone.
Thats not spying.
|
What Snowden did is illegal, no doubt about that. The question should be "is it treason?", and that is a moral question; I believe he did what he did to stop the erosion of the US constitution. The focus on him as a person, asking if he is a criminal, all that should be absolutely irrelevant in that discussion.
This is an example of how media manipulation works. The NSA spokesman said (without noticing the irony) that spying on US citizens is wrong, and Snowden is a criminal. That's the narrative of the US government. Instead of playing into that, like this entire thread is doing, focus on the issue at hand, not on the person.
|
Snowden is absolutely guilty of espionage. But breaking the law can be a good thing in some rare cases, and I believe this is one of them.
When Daniel Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers detailing how corrupt our involvement in Vietnam was, he faced similar charges of espionage and treason. But today, many people, myself included, consider him a hero.
I'm confident history will say the same of Snowden.
|
On June 26 2013 06:04 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 05:52 BBS wrote:On June 26 2013 05:39 biology]major wrote:On June 26 2013 05:38 BBS wrote:On June 26 2013 05:25 biology]major wrote:
more appropriate question is do we have to sacrifice our rights to combat terrorism, even a little? More more appropriate question: Should this be a question at all? Sacrificing human rights cannot be justified by any means. If there once is a legitimation to rob a person of his or her inherited rights, it will always remain a door opener to pursue people that are different from what those in charge expect them to be. It is the key to a totaliterian regime, which none of us should be willing to allow. there is a conflict of interest between preserving human life vs preserving human rights. edit: what the government did was wrong by not being transparent to the people, that much I know. But is the actual surveillance a crime? If it even stopped 1 terrorist attack from happening then is it justifiable? Surveillance without reasoning is a crime. It suggests everybody is a criminal and leaves rules set by the law out of consideration. Even if illegal surveillance stops a terrorist attack, how can you allow abuse of human rights in the millions to justify the safe of a few lifes? Human rights are the highest good we have, and we should not allow it to be taken only we feel to comfortable demanding consequences from people spying on us and invading our privacy. What about speed traps? Surveillance cameras? Security checkpoints at large gatherings and events? By that logic, the government could never use police to stop crime in process, but rather bring people in after the fact. Honestly, I think the NSA's program is shady, but possibly fair. There are no laws about obfuscating your browsing habits, emails, or phone calls, and there are cheap/free ways of doing so. If we consider internet activity in the public space (and protected by equal access laws etc.), then this makes sense.
Most of those things don't really acquire information that one can reasonable expect to be private. Speed traps see nothing more than the speed of a vehicle in a public area. Looking at the highway permits any human being to estimate the speed of a vehicle, and one cannot reasonably expect the speed of one's vehicle while one is traveling in plain sight to be private. Surveillance cameras are tricky. I'd argue that they should be permitted if they do not infringe on privacy, by which I mean that you can install surveillance cameras on your own property, but shouldn't be able to set one up in my house that spies on me. What you can see from your lawn is, of course, fair game. Security checkpoints are perfectly legitimate because they are mandated by whoever owns the property on which the event is being held or by the organizers of an event. If I have a party at my house, it would absolutely be absurd to require that I allow a security guard to inspect all of my guests, because I can let whomever I want into my house on my own terms.
The browsing habits and phone calls of individuals are not in the public space unless they occur in a publicly accessible area (e.g. if people overhear you talking on your cellphone in public, so be it) because you have no reason to suspect your neighbour of somehow tracking your browsing habits without engaging in some sort of trespassing. With phone calls, it's even easier to see that they're reasonably private. If I telephone someone from my own house, then it seems reasonable to suppose that I can expect that someone from China whom I've never met isn't going to be hearing me.
|
reminds me of this one case i kinda remember where a burglar got bitten by the home owners dog and proceeded to sue him
|
On June 26 2013 05:46 opisska wrote:
I would like to bring forward another issue: I have very limited knowledge of US law, so I can't tell if he is guilty or not, but I can plausibly imagine that he could be found guilty, because he definitely operated against many interests of a powerfull goverment.
But another question is: should any state release him to the US? I know this is in principle a question of international law, but international law happens to be a very strange kind of law in that there is no court. While states are expected to behave acccording to treaties, it is much easier and more common for them to break these and go unpunished than for ordinary people. I agree on releasing people accused of some sort of "universal" crime - if he did in his country something for which we would punish him here, such as murder, rape, robbery ... then we should let him be charged and tried. But spying on the US is generally not really illegal in any other country than US, why should any country help them to catch him?
There is no overarching UN convention on extradition, so each country does whatever it wants in that reguard. As long as Snowden stays out of countries that have extradition treaties with the US (and there are plenty of them out there) he should be fine in terms of international-law-mandated extratidions.
Of course, these countries may still choose to give Snowden over voluntarily if it is worth it politically (meaning if the US pays up/threatens in some way and/or if their own public opinion wants it). It's no surprise there's talk of him going to Equador, considering it would be quite a popular move for Equador's president.
|
On June 26 2013 05:59 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 05:49 eNbee wrote:On June 26 2013 05:46 opisska wrote:
why should any country help them to catch him? Economic incentivization is a powerful thing, Snowden had to carefully pick which country he would flee to. I'm sure the UK would hand him over on a silver platter for instance. As would many EU countries, probably including my own. Legally speaking most EU countries (or even Hong Kong) can't choose to not turn him over. They've signed extradition treaties, legally binding by their own law, under which extradition requests can only be procedurally evaluated, not on the content of the case.
That's true, I guess all EU states have signed extradition treaties, but I'm also pretty sure it's a hostile act to violate national privacy laws by spying on innocent citizens of a foreign nation as US+UK have done. In fact, I'm pretty sure wars have been started on lesser grounds, so I'm glad we live in civilized times and noone would go that far.
Now, I'd be even more happy to live in even more civilized times in which no government would have the audacity to violate the privacy and human rights of so many people it has absolutley no business violating. Shame on US+UK (and any other states that may commit similar acts and just haven't been revealed yet)...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
