|
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.
Hong Kong(China) does not have an extradition treaty with the USA. At least if my source is correct.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/United_States_extradition_treaties_countries.PNG
|
United States7483 Posts
Legally he's guilty.
Morally, he did the right thing.
|
On June 26 2013 06:24 Whitewing wrote:
Legally he's guilty.
Morally, he did the right thing.
He called out the NSA for violating the law, by violating the law. Does this not grant him some level of immunity by the justice system?
|
On June 26 2013 06:26 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 06:24 Whitewing wrote:
Legally he's guilty.
Morally, he did the right thing. He called out the NSA for violating the law, by violating the law. Does this not grant him some level of immunity by the justice system?
12 years ago the legalized what the NSA did as being lawful.
Yeah, crazy right?
|
On June 26 2013 05:05 Cirqueenflex wrote:oh come on, don't be that ignorant. He did the wrong thing for the right reasons. That does not absolve him from the law, which is in place to protect the country. He has to be punished, even if it is just for the sake of other information that does need to stay hidden (military emergency/strategic plans, weak points in important infrastructure, undercover agents that get killed for being revealed etc). In my opinion the right thing would probably have been to go to the authorities (any boss of his or a higher-up politician who does have part in power over deciding this kind of stuff), and only go to the public if all those efforts bear no fruit as a last resort. It would have done way less collateral (political) damage. Would it be unfair if this would never have been made public? Maybe. But it is just as unfair to others the way this was made public, and way more people had to suffer for this. He deserves to be punished. Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 05:05 Roonweld wrote:
He isn't guilty of espionage. He hasn't told an enemy of the state secrets. He told the American people what was being done to them...if he's charged with espionage and sentenced, that means we are the enemy here to the US government. the same thing has been said here about half a dozend times at least (just in this thread). Kinda weird to see all the sheeps follow the meta game blindly.
We have laws to protect whistleblowers so that when they do the right thing, for the right reasons, they aren't punished.
If a company, organization, or government is secretly breaking the law it shouldn't be illegal to expose that.He doesn't deserve to be punished.
|
On June 26 2013 06:26 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 06:24 Whitewing wrote:
Legally he's guilty.
Morally, he did the right thing. He called out the NSA for violating the law, by violating the law. Does this not grant him some level of immunity by the justice system?
They weren't breaking a law. But if they were It still doesn't matter.
The burden placed on someone with access to classified information is extreme.
And of course he committed espionage. Not only did he exceed the information he was allowed. He copied classified information and gave it to every fucking government and terrorist organization in the world.
A few years ago a few NSA guys testified before congress on this and stated, without committing any crime, that the government is spying on its people.
|
On June 26 2013 03:56 omgimonfire15 wrote:
Do you have something to hide?
Yes, this thing called "privacy".
|
On June 26 2013 06:26 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 06:24 Whitewing wrote:
Legally he's guilty.
Morally, he did the right thing. He called out the NSA for violating the law, by violating the law. Does this not grant him some level of immunity by the justice system?
The way I imagine it, it's like cops and warrants. If cops find dead children in some dude's refrigerator, but they went in his house without a warrant / probable cause, it cannot be used in court. Anything illegally obtained, if something illegal itself, is ignored. Ironically, this allows what was found to be more easily hidden / protected...
|
This thing is playing out like a spy thriller 1980s, cold war style.
I'm spending way too much time following this story.
I know many feel that the focus of the public and the media shouldn't be on Snowden (certainly not his past).
But there is an important story here. It shows how whistle blowers can expect to be treated.
|
On June 26 2013 06:41 maybenexttime wrote:Yes, this thing called "privacy".
Theoretically, so long as they punish people who leak information, you do have "privacy" in that the information they gather is not to be made public.
|
it's like the dark knight. he's a hero but we're still going to hunt him down for it.
|
|
|
On June 26 2013 05:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 05:35 Acrofales wrote:On June 26 2013 03:00 MidKnight wrote:
The fact that there are people supporting the government when it's essentially using propaganda and trying to play the good ol' "WE ARE THE BIG SCARY GOVERNMENT DON'T FUCK WITH US!" card, is pretty sad..
Like Snowden said, he *could* have leaked classified information to US "enemies" (a loose term), but the only thing he did was expose a very clear abuse of power from government's side. The officials have clearly lied to supreme court multiple times about the program.
Yes, the employees did write some kind of agreement to stay silent, but that SHOULD NOT apply when a crime is being covered up, right? As far as whistle-blowing goes, this is a pretty timid case with no way for "enemies" to take advantage of this information. I think the Nuremberg trials proved this amply. Even if your superiors tell you to commit a crime, it is YOU who commits it and are thus responsible for your actions. Spying on citizens is an illegal act, and he is thus correct to refuse to do so, and in fact report the crime. In this case the only way of reporting it was to blow the whole thing open by giving the information to the press (the police would probably just have turned him right back over to the NSA, who would've destroyed the evidence and pretended it never happened). So, I don't see how he can be guilty under international law. Of course, under US law I presume there are all kinds of clauses and things that mean he is guilty of theft, espionage and probably rape and murder as well if the NSA wants it so. What the NSA is doing is incomprehensible, possibly immoral, and definitely makes me feel icky. But it's not illegal. Yay Bush  you haunt me even after your terms are up...
If espionage is illegal, then the NSA is doing illegal stuff.
If espionage is not illegal, then who cares whether Snowden is accused of espionage?
|
On June 26 2013 06:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 06:41 maybenexttime wrote:On June 26 2013 03:56 omgimonfire15 wrote:
Do you have something to hide? Yes, this thing called "privacy". Theoretically, so long as they punish people who leak information, you do have "privacy" in that the information they gather is not to be made public.
I guess he wants privacy, not "privacy. "
|
On June 26 2013 06:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 06:41 maybenexttime wrote:On June 26 2013 03:56 omgimonfire15 wrote:
Do you have something to hide? Yes, this thing called "privacy". Theoretically, so long as they punish people who leak information, you do have "privacy" in that the information they gather is not to be made public.
Theoretically, it is only murder if you get caught.
|
On June 26 2013 02:34 electronic voyeur wrote:
The US government has officially charged NSA whistleblower with espionage charges. Did he or did he not under national and international laws in fact committed espionage?
Under US laws, espionage means a government or individual obtaining information considered secret or confidential without the permission of the holder of the information. Espionage is moreover an institutional effort by a government or commercial concern on potential or actual enemies primarily for military purposes.
In the case of Snowden, the question lies in the issue of "obtain". He is a commissioned employee of the NSA, and as such the information he obtain he did so legally and with the full knowledge and consent of NSA, and by extension the US government. But when we start to reclassify obtain in the sense of obtaining for the purpose other than what is officially intended, which in this case Snowden did by coping NSA information and sharing them to the media, then the espionage case might make some sense. On the second point of being done on potential or actual enemies, for military purposes, this still has yet to be determined as the issue of whether Snowden is a spy for Hong Kong or China or whatever is still being investigated.
What does TL think about this issue? Is Snowden a spy, and did he commit espionage by releasing to the public information which he thought are invasive to their privacy?
That is funny if that's our definition. Ironic because he actually just pointed out that the government was guilty of espionage of its citizens.
The NSA can say they aren't breaking the law all they want because they have protection from the people who we expect to hold everyone responsible for said laws. But the fact is they are, they just think its excusable.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"
|
On June 26 2013 06:57 nam nam wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 06:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 26 2013 06:41 maybenexttime wrote:On June 26 2013 03:56 omgimonfire15 wrote:
Do you have something to hide? Yes, this thing called "privacy". Theoretically, so long as they punish people who leak information, you do have "privacy" in that the information they gather is not to be made public. I guess he wants privacy, not "privacy. "
I know he's talking about the theoretical understanding of privacy and not the literal understanding of privacy. Or, more specifically, he wants personal autonomy of information commonly understood to be his own.
A lot of our "privacy" is technically shared with various institutions. Banks, Hospitals, Insurance, DMV, etc... and our execution of privacy is the control of how public and how shared this information is.
However our "concept" of privacy is the idea of no one having an idea about us and our information being locked away for only those we deem worthy.
The NSA, in essence, is no different from having medical records, police records, bank records, etc... All information shared with an institution kept private by a promise shared between the person who owns the information and the institution that holds the information. We gave them the okay 12 years ago with the Patriot Act.
The NSA, however, breaks our concept of privacy since it was 12 fucking years ago passed by a president at least half the US hates. The other half are paranoid nutbags who are scared of gun registration let alone full bore observation.
So while the NSA does keep things about as "private" as a hospital keeps thing private; its obvious that its the concept of privacy they shattered, not actual privacy.
|
On June 26 2013 06:58 Wrongspeedy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 02:34 electronic voyeur wrote:
The US government has officially charged NSA whistleblower with espionage charges. Did he or did he not under national and international laws in fact committed espionage?
Under US laws, espionage means a government or individual obtaining information considered secret or confidential without the permission of the holder of the information. Espionage is moreover an institutional effort by a government or commercial concern on potential or actual enemies primarily for military purposes.
In the case of Snowden, the question lies in the issue of "obtain". He is a commissioned employee of the NSA, and as such the information he obtain he did so legally and with the full knowledge and consent of NSA, and by extension the US government. But when we start to reclassify obtain in the sense of obtaining for the purpose other than what is officially intended, which in this case Snowden did by coping NSA information and sharing them to the media, then the espionage case might make some sense. On the second point of being done on potential or actual enemies, for military purposes, this still has yet to be determined as the issue of whether Snowden is a spy for Hong Kong or China or whatever is still being investigated.
What does TL think about this issue? Is Snowden a spy, and did he commit espionage by releasing to the public information which he thought are invasive to their privacy? That is funny if that's our definition. Ironic because he actually just pointed out that the government was guilty of espionage of its citizens. The NSA can say they aren't breaking the law all they want because they have protection from the people who we expect to hold everyone responsible for said laws. But the fact is they are, they just think its excusable. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"
This, when the people who decide what is considered legal are the ones that want to break the law, we are in trouble. Oh and they decide their interpretation of the law in secret.
|
Espionage, or spying? no.
Leaking condifential information "vital" to state, yeah he will be charged with that.
Thing is, he didnt transfer the information to a rival state in secret. he opened it to public, and to my knowladge he didn't put anyone under danger. he just released information on the project.
If he was a reporter, what he did would not have been a crime at all.
The legal binding rises with his cotnract I guess.
|
He is fighting a losing battle. Not only he failed to obtain the protection he was looking at Hong Kong, he is having trouble finding his next safe heaven. His departure of Hong Kong prematurely probably indicate that he is not longer safe in Hong Kong. Now that he is stranded at Moscow airport, not on his way to the next destination probably means he is having a hard time to seek asylum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
