|
On July 16 2013 00:51 LegalLord wrote:
I'm probably one of the only people who thinks this, but I think Snowden should have stood trial for treason. As a US citizen, he is entitled to a fair trial at risk of the ruling being overturned.
The Latin American nations that offer asylum do so as a "screw you" to the US rather than because they support transparency in government. What really happened was a guy stole and revealed important details of a government program. PRISM isn't bad, but if he has the "insurance" files he claims he has, then revealing those is straight up treason. So no, he doesn't deserve any awards. Not that the Peace Prize is anything but a farce anymore.
Just quoting this to let LegalLord and others of such mind know that they're not alone in this thought. Snowden should be tried for treason. Dissemination of classified material isn't permissible... should Julian Assange get a Nobel Peace Prize as well?
The NPP has been degraded over the years to a shadow of its former intent. For those not in the know, it was created by the guy that invented dynamite as a way to promote peace and atone for single-handedly revolutionizing the scale of war. Now it's merely the world's version of "+1".
|
On July 16 2013 17:17 ItanoCircus wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 00:51 LegalLord wrote:
I'm probably one of the only people who thinks this, but I think Snowden should have stood trial for treason. As a US citizen, he is entitled to a fair trial at risk of the ruling being overturned.
The Latin American nations that offer asylum do so as a "screw you" to the US rather than because they support transparency in government. What really happened was a guy stole and revealed important details of a government program. PRISM isn't bad, but if he has the "insurance" files he claims he has, then revealing those is straight up treason. So no, he doesn't deserve any awards. Not that the Peace Prize is anything but a farce anymore. Just quoting this to let LegalLord and others of such mind know that they're not alone in this thought. Snowden should be tried for treason. Dissemination of classified material isn't permissible... should Julian Assange get a Nobel Peace Prize as well? The NPP has been degraded over the years to a shadow of its former intent. For those not in the know, it was created by the guy that invented dynamite as a way to promote peace and atone for single-handedly revolutionizing the scale of war. Now it's merely the world's version of "+1".
Just quoting the following to once again make my point about treason:
On July 16 2013 02:42 dr.fahrenheit wrote:
For all the (american) people with a pitchfork in the one hand and a torch in the other, demanding that ES is prosecuted and lynched as a traitor, take a step back and look on how your great country started out and more importantly who the men and women were who founded it.
I'm not sure, but I guess they were called traitors as well... If your are a traitor or a fighter for freedom always depends on the side you're standing on...
"the land of the free and the home of the brave..." How free can you really be when your government knows literally everything about you and is able to violate your most fundamental rights without even being required to give a reason to anyone? Is it 1984 again?
As for "home of the brave": ES definitely is brave, and probably loves his country and the principles it was founded on more than most of the people who now demand his head. Maybe he just couldn't stand what his country (or government) has become, but what do I know... maybe he just wanted to immortalize himself in the history books.
|
On July 16 2013 15:57 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 15:51 radiatoren wrote:On July 16 2013 15:38 -Archangel- wrote:On July 16 2013 15:28 Ghanburighan wrote:
What happened to the Nobel Peace Prize, it used to be awarded to outstanding individuals after years of grueling work. Take Matti Ahtisaari as an example. He led several high stakes, high profile peace negotations. The IRA weapons dump, the peace between the Free Aceh movement and the Indonesian government, and, he spent nearly 4 years in Kosovo, negotiating the eventual independence of Kosovo. All of these positions were very dangerous hotspots which had a long history of armed conflict. Yet, he managed to successfully conclude all of his aims. With the independence of Kosovo achieved, he received the piece prize.
And now people want to give the Peace Prize to another whistleblower who has not brought any peace, just revealed privacy concerns and spying. Nothing has changed, and his best friends are the very Peace-loving Russia, China and Venezuela... Compared to USA, yes they are peace loving. How many wars have they started since the cold war ended? How many people outside their territory did they kill? Calling Russia peace-loving is a bit heavy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechnya. Russia's involvement in Chechnya is entirely justified. It invaded to keep the peace and prevent terrorism. Done a fine job of it I might add.
To the same degree are the american wars! Libya wasn't an american war, but rather a french/european war, the war in Iraq was justified by fears of possible upcoming state terrorism, the Afghanistan war was exactly to quell terrorists, the war in Kosovo was a "humanitarian war" to keep genocides from occuring, the Gulf war was an invasion war from Iraqi forces and thus legitimate oldschool target of war. The rest of what USA has done is negligible in scope compared to russias involvement in the former soviet block.
I do not think that Russia and USA are that different in terms of their military actions. The only difference is that Russia is operating in only the former east-block while USA is acting in the rest of the word + Russia and media coverage of wars is... While USA has had journalists in larger warzones ever since the Gulf War.
|
On July 16 2013 17:37 radiatoren wrote:
I do not think that Russia and USA are that different in terms of their military actions.
Agreed. Both are/were imperialists denounced by the former imperialists of Europe.
|
On July 15 2013 23:25 Arnstein wrote:
He deserves it as much as anyone else. It's just a shitty gimmick, it doesn't really mean anything. But, if he wins it will certainly get more attention to the NSA thing and internet freedom, which is a good thing.
So what you say is that it doesn't mean anything, but if Snowden win it will mean something?
|
On July 15 2013 23:39 Vivax wrote:
The last to get it were Obama and the European Union. I don't see how this prize still holds any value, it's more of a political instrument and even if it wasn't I don't think Snowden promotes peace in any way with his actions.
I don't even understand how the disclosed information surprised so many people, it was pretty obvious already that secret services collected information without consent, you just had to look at Echelon, and media wrote of a NSA supercomputer being activated a few years ago, what were they supposed to do with such capacities if they only could handpick a few suspects with a legal permission? (the NSA lol)
I think there are different aspects to why people reacted that disgusted. People who were interested always knew that the NSA is a huge criminal shithole which doesnt care about human rights and among the criminal organizations with the highest budget. It's nice for them to see it proven though, because so far it was more a theory made up of interviews, budget and a lot of conspiracy theories. People who were not interested or turned a blind eye to it just can't ignore sth that became so popular anymore.
I agree that the price really lost its impact, but it would be a nice gesture.
On the other hand it was always more of a political tool in the first place. Ghandi was mentioned several times in this thread, but he didnt do anything for peace, in fact he revolted. He just did it peacefully. But there were lots of sacrifices in the Inian-British-conflict, and Ghandi couldnt have not see that coming, he was part of revolts in Africa as well. Essentially Ghandi got it when he was popular because he was popular and an inspiring example in terms of morale and courage. I dont see how Snowden differs except for the fact that he is a single person and not leader/face of an organized movement.
@Traitorship: I dont see how showing others a crime you are part of is treason, unless you feel associated with the criminals. That's like saying "this minister is corrupt and i know it because i was working for him" is treason. Wrong can only happen as long as we tolerate it and Snowden didnt.
@supervision is nothing harmful:
The normal chain of reasoning for this point is that the collection of information would be only harmful if the information got into the wrong hands. As long as the moral integer government has them, they are only going to use it against the bad guys.
But breaking human rights by supervising is a crime. The way this was organized also shows that this is nothing which they feel bad about or are doing just in one special case, but that they apparently dont feel any regret about organizing and committing crimes. Moral integrity of the government? The government is on its best way to become what it is supposed to fight.
|
Now that snowden has exposed the spying, did the spying stop or is it still going on?
To say every country does this is bs btw, am pretty sure the secret services of europe dont read all the emails of every congresman and senator in the usa, maybe the nsa does but europe definatly does not.
There is no other reason for this spying then to control and possibly blackmail people,and to identify thoose politicians who might not agree with the american way of international politics and get info wich could help fighting them. Its exactly the same spying on own citizens as the former east block did , or nixon during watergate. And its goal is control ,not to counter terrorism.
Cant believe that people still justify this with the terrorism argument, you been brainwashed completely and are probably to young to know what it means to be free. It is a verry dangerous situation when a government gets full control over all its citizens.
Edward snowden should definatly get the noble peace price, if only to make up for the mistake of giving obama one.
Snowden wont get it though i am afraid, and there are other decent candidates.
Maybe merkel or putin could get one, merkel for keeping the european union intact and sacrificing german national interest to do so, or putin for having kept peace (more or less) in the former ussr wich no doubt is no easy task.
|
On July 16 2013 17:37 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 15:57 LegalLord wrote:On July 16 2013 15:51 radiatoren wrote:On July 16 2013 15:38 -Archangel- wrote:On July 16 2013 15:28 Ghanburighan wrote:
What happened to the Nobel Peace Prize, it used to be awarded to outstanding individuals after years of grueling work. Take Matti Ahtisaari as an example. He led several high stakes, high profile peace negotations. The IRA weapons dump, the peace between the Free Aceh movement and the Indonesian government, and, he spent nearly 4 years in Kosovo, negotiating the eventual independence of Kosovo. All of these positions were very dangerous hotspots which had a long history of armed conflict. Yet, he managed to successfully conclude all of his aims. With the independence of Kosovo achieved, he received the piece prize.
And now people want to give the Peace Prize to another whistleblower who has not brought any peace, just revealed privacy concerns and spying. Nothing has changed, and his best friends are the very Peace-loving Russia, China and Venezuela... Compared to USA, yes they are peace loving. How many wars have they started since the cold war ended? How many people outside their territory did they kill? Calling Russia peace-loving is a bit heavy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechnya. Russia's involvement in Chechnya is entirely justified. It invaded to keep the peace and prevent terrorism. Done a fine job of it I might add. To the same degree are the american wars! Libya wasn't an american war, but rather a french/european war, the war in Iraq was justified by fears of possible upcoming state terrorism, the Afghanistan war was exactly to quell terrorists, the war in Kosovo was a "humanitarian war" to keep genocides from occuring, the Gulf war was an invasion war from Iraqi forces and thus legitimate oldschool target of war. The rest of what USA has done is negligible in scope compared to russias involvement in the former soviet block. I do not think that Russia and USA are that different in terms of their military actions. The only difference is that Russia is operating in only the former east-block while USA is acting in the rest of the word + Russia and media coverage of wars is... While USA has had journalists in larger warzones ever since the Gulf War.
that's a really bad comparison.
chechnya is INSIDE russian territority, last time i checked libya, iraq, afghanistan wasn't US territority.
iraq was a war based on faked evidence and therefore illegal and the first one was to take saddam the weapons US gave him to fight iran...
russia behaves much more polite outside their territority then the US ever did...
also: integrated journalists for war propagande are not exactly a GOOD thing to have...
last time i read an article of an embedded journalist in syria (in german SPIEGEL) he was talking about how the group of rebels he was part of (which were all chechyans btw...) rallied under an Al-Quaeda flag (that's the GOOD side in syria according to the West) and was bombarding a village. the article went on about some whine that they badly need more weapons... that's so fucking absurd to read and just plain wrong.
|
On July 16 2013 17:40 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 17:37 radiatoren wrote:
I do not think that Russia and USA are that different in terms of their military actions. Agreed. Both are/were imperialists denounced by the former imperialists of Europe.
Well, what is Europe and who is denouncing? I think I stated the american reasons jovially. The Kosovo war and the war in Libya were europeans dragging USA into a war, so it is not like europe is a beacon for all that is just. USA is doing a lot of the dirty work europe could have been forced to do otherwise.
If you are implying that Russia is somewhat better than both USA and Europe, I do not agree. Russia has used quite some force in Gergia (protect a minority), Tajikistan (protect allies) and Chechen (fight terrorism) as the larger official "wars". A lot of smaller skirmishes with the anti-terrorist reason has been fought too, but again, the media coverage is so weak compared to Europe and USA.
On July 16 2013 17:56 fleeze wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 17:37 radiatoren wrote:On July 16 2013 15:57 LegalLord wrote:On July 16 2013 15:51 radiatoren wrote:On July 16 2013 15:38 -Archangel- wrote:On July 16 2013 15:28 Ghanburighan wrote:
What happened to the Nobel Peace Prize, it used to be awarded to outstanding individuals after years of grueling work. Take Matti Ahtisaari as an example. He led several high stakes, high profile peace negotations. The IRA weapons dump, the peace between the Free Aceh movement and the Indonesian government, and, he spent nearly 4 years in Kosovo, negotiating the eventual independence of Kosovo. All of these positions were very dangerous hotspots which had a long history of armed conflict. Yet, he managed to successfully conclude all of his aims. With the independence of Kosovo achieved, he received the piece prize.
And now people want to give the Peace Prize to another whistleblower who has not brought any peace, just revealed privacy concerns and spying. Nothing has changed, and his best friends are the very Peace-loving Russia, China and Venezuela... Compared to USA, yes they are peace loving. How many wars have they started since the cold war ended? How many people outside their territory did they kill? Calling Russia peace-loving is a bit heavy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechnya. Russia's involvement in Chechnya is entirely justified. It invaded to keep the peace and prevent terrorism. Done a fine job of it I might add. To the same degree are the american wars! Libya wasn't an american war, but rather a french/european war, the war in Iraq was justified by fears of possible upcoming state terrorism, the Afghanistan war was exactly to quell terrorists, the war in Kosovo was a "humanitarian war" to keep genocides from occuring, the Gulf war was an invasion war from Iraqi forces and thus legitimate oldschool target of war. The rest of what USA has done is negligible in scope compared to russias involvement in the former soviet block. I do not think that Russia and USA are that different in terms of their military actions. The only difference is that Russia is operating in only the former east-block while USA is acting in the rest of the word + Russia and media coverage of wars is... While USA has had journalists in larger warzones ever since the Gulf War. that's a really bad comparison. chechnya is INSIDE russian territority, last time i checked libya, iraq, afghanistan wasn't US territority. iraq was a war based on faked evidence and therefore illegal and the first one was to take saddam the weapons US gave him to fight iran... russia behaves much more polite outside their territority then the US ever did... also: integrated journalists for war propagande are not exactly a GOOD thing to have... last time i read an article of an embedded journalist in syria (in german SPIEGEL) he was talking about how the group of rebels he was part of (which were all chechyans btw...) rallied under an Al-Quaeda flag (that's the GOOD side in syria according to the West) and was bombarding a village. the article went on about some whine that they badly need more weapons... that's so fucking absurd to read and just plain wrong.
Chechnya had independence. between the wars and was reoccupied by Russia because of the terrorists and the lack of official Chechen actions against them.
As I mentioned above, France dragged USA into the Libyan war. Iraq was not USAs finest moment in history.
Russia is not waging direct war against its former USSR allies, but they are definately not all friendly towards them!
As for integrated journalism I agree that some, if not a majority of journalists are getting into some very concerning situations, but if you had to choose, would you honestly not want to know that the west is supporting al-quaeda affiliated fractions (and the "experts" agree that islamic extremists are a strong part of the war against Assad, so it is not only a journalist finding bad company with insignificant elements)?
|
On July 16 2013 18:07 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 17:40 LegalLord wrote:On July 16 2013 17:37 radiatoren wrote:
I do not think that Russia and USA are that different in terms of their military actions. Agreed. Both are/were imperialists denounced by the former imperialists of Europe. Well, what is Europe and who is denouncing? I think I stated the american reasons jovially. The Kosovo war and the war in Libya were europeans dragging USA into a war, so it is not like europe is a beacon for all that is just. USA is doing a lot of the dirty work europe could have been forced to do otherwise. If you are implying that Russia is somewhat better than both USA and Europe, I do not agree. Russia has used quite some force in Gergia (protect a minority), Tajikistan (protect allies) and Chechen (fight terrorism) as the larger official "wars". A lot of smaller skirmishes with the anti-terrorist reason has been fought too, but again, the media coverage is so weak compared to Europe and USA.
Oh please, you really think Kosovo and Yugoslavian break up wasn't in United States interest? And Europe dragged them to war!? Any European country could have done what US did, but they didn't. Ask your self why.
You need to realize that no one will go to war if there is no benefits in it, alliances between governments don't exist, only same interests.
|
On July 16 2013 18:07 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 17:40 LegalLord wrote:On July 16 2013 17:37 radiatoren wrote:
I do not think that Russia and USA are that different in terms of their military actions. Agreed. Both are/were imperialists denounced by the former imperialists of Europe. Well, what is Europe and who is denouncing? I think I stated the american reasons jovially. The Kosovo war and the war in Libya were europeans dragging USA into a war, so it is not like europe is a beacon for all that is just. USA is doing a lot of the dirty work europe could have been forced to do otherwise. If you are implying that Russia is somewhat better than both USA and Europe, I do not agree. Russia has used quite some force in Gergia (protect a minority), Tajikistan (protect allies) and Chechen (fight terrorism) as the larger official "wars". A lot of smaller skirmishes with the anti-terrorist reason has been fought too, but again, the media coverage is so weak compared to Europe and USA.
the russian have "wars" on right on their borders... that's totally different from the US which fights against terrorism on other CONTINENTS.
also the georgia case had much to do with the US, if i have to remind you...
On July 16 2013 18:07 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 17:56 fleeze wrote:On July 16 2013 17:37 radiatoren wrote:On July 16 2013 15:57 LegalLord wrote:On July 16 2013 15:51 radiatoren wrote:On July 16 2013 15:38 -Archangel- wrote:On July 16 2013 15:28 Ghanburighan wrote:
What happened to the Nobel Peace Prize, it used to be awarded to outstanding individuals after years of grueling work. Take Matti Ahtisaari as an example. He led several high stakes, high profile peace negotations. The IRA weapons dump, the peace between the Free Aceh movement and the Indonesian government, and, he spent nearly 4 years in Kosovo, negotiating the eventual independence of Kosovo. All of these positions were very dangerous hotspots which had a long history of armed conflict. Yet, he managed to successfully conclude all of his aims. With the independence of Kosovo achieved, he received the piece prize.
And now people want to give the Peace Prize to another whistleblower who has not brought any peace, just revealed privacy concerns and spying. Nothing has changed, and his best friends are the very Peace-loving Russia, China and Venezuela... Compared to USA, yes they are peace loving. How many wars have they started since the cold war ended? How many people outside their territory did they kill? Calling Russia peace-loving is a bit heavy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechnya. Russia's involvement in Chechnya is entirely justified. It invaded to keep the peace and prevent terrorism. Done a fine job of it I might add. To the same degree are the american wars! Libya wasn't an american war, but rather a french/european war, the war in Iraq was justified by fears of possible upcoming state terrorism, the Afghanistan war was exactly to quell terrorists, the war in Kosovo was a "humanitarian war" to keep genocides from occuring, the Gulf war was an invasion war from Iraqi forces and thus legitimate oldschool target of war. The rest of what USA has done is negligible in scope compared to russias involvement in the former soviet block. I do not think that Russia and USA are that different in terms of their military actions. The only difference is that Russia is operating in only the former east-block while USA is acting in the rest of the word + Russia and media coverage of wars is... While USA has had journalists in larger warzones ever since the Gulf War. that's a really bad comparison. chechnya is INSIDE russian territority, last time i checked libya, iraq, afghanistan wasn't US territority. iraq was a war based on faked evidence and therefore illegal and the first one was to take saddam the weapons US gave him to fight iran... russia behaves much more polite outside their territority then the US ever did... also: integrated journalists for war propagande are not exactly a GOOD thing to have... last time i read an article of an embedded journalist in syria (in german SPIEGEL) he was talking about how the group of rebels he was part of (which were all chechyans btw...) rallied under an Al-Quaeda flag (that's the GOOD side in syria according to the West) and was bombarding a village. the article went on about some whine that they badly need more weapons... that's so fucking absurd to read and just plain wrong. Chechnya had independence. between the wars and was reoccupied by Russia because of the terrorists and the lack of official Chechen actions against them. As I mentioned above, France dragged USA into the Libyan war. Iraq was not USAs finest moment in history. Russia is not waging direct war against its former USSR allies, but they are definately not all friendly towards them! As for integrated journalism I agree that some, if not a majority of journalists are getting into some very concerning situations, but if you had to choose, would you honestly not want to know that the west is supporting al-quaeda affiliated fractions (and the "experts" agree that islamic extremists are a strong part of the war against Assad, so it is not only a journalist finding bad company with insignificant elements)?
i never said russia was "friendly" to ex-USSR countries. but those countries are directly on their own borders and so they have legitimate interests in the stability of the region. with threats like chechnya and al-quaeda.
in syria case every person that wants a secular state HAS to side with assad at least in THIS conflict. supporting al-quaeda with weapons (like the US wants) is as dumb and stupid as you can be. there really are no words for the bullshit that is happening with the media propaganda that wants to present giving weapons to so called "rebels" which are in fact al-quaeda terrorists as the right thing to do.
history repeating itself again. reading up about iran/iraq in the '80s should disqualify any discussion about supplying terrorists with weapons.
|
I'm really surprised by the amount of Yes answers tbh.
I thought the information Snowden leaked was really obvious (and had been leaked in parts before). We already knew the US was having ISPs and major online companies store up to 2 years of information for government requests. We knew all 9 of those companies were complying with US information requests.
It's not remotely surprising (to me anyway) that they also had backend access to collect metadata.
|
On July 16 2013 19:12 dcemuser wrote:
I'm really surprised by the amount of Yes answers tbh.
I thought the information Snowden leaked was really obvious (and had been leaked in parts before). We already knew the US was having ISPs and major online companies store up to 2 years of information for government requests. We knew all 9 of those companies were complying with US information requests.
It's not remotely surprising (to me anyway) that they also had backend access to collect metadata.
hey, captain hindsight. good to have you here.
could you reveal your prove that you obviously have been holding on for such a long time of the amount of data the NSA saves in your and also other countries?
not "surprising" is quite different from "proven guilty".
|
On July 15 2013 23:48 Silvanel wrote:
Imagine the shitstorm. Obama would probably gave his own award back. Not that this award holds much prestige....
If Obama gave his award back then we might be able to see the award in a somewhat positive light once more. Giving it to Obama was ridiculous, it now means far less than it ever did.
As for Snowden... meh. I don't think he deserves it. Leaking that information was probably the right thing to do but the information itself is used to try and prevent terrorism/promote peace. Yes well done, no it's not the most important issue in the world right now.
|
Doesn't anyone else consider him well disloyal to his country. I would never do something like that for mine and im Australian
|
On July 16 2013 19:27 Geefking wrote:
Doesn't anyone else consider him well disloyal to his country. I would never do something like that for mine and im Australian
You have it backwards. Being loyal means having the courage to stand up for your country and against the government when it steps out of line, especially when it violates the constitution. In this line, Snowden is very loyal to his country.
|
I think the USA should get a nobel peace prize because it does so much to keep and make peace around the world. I'm not sure Snowden should though.
|
On July 16 2013 20:03 Joedaddy wrote:
I think the USA should get a nobel peace prize because it does so much to keep and make peace around the world. I'm not sure Snowden should though.
I am about as pro-american as they come but this is a troll right? Or am I missing a joke?
|
On July 16 2013 20:03 Joedaddy wrote:
I think the USA should get a nobel peace prize because it does so much to keep and make peace around the world. I'm not sure Snowden should though.
what world are you living in, because in this one, the usa certainly does not keep and make peace around the world.
or are you sarcastic?
for snowden, he deserves a prize, but not the nobel peace prize.
|
He is not wrong, per se. US is currently involved in 15 peace-keeping operations:
- Western Sahara
- Mali
- Haiti
- Congo
- Darfur
- Israel-Syria border
- Cyprus
- Lebanon
- Abyei
- South Sudan
- Cote d'Ivoire
- Kosovo
- Liberia
- India-Pakistan
- And the general Middle-Eastern Truce observation operation.
I see why people might not think of the US as a particularly peaceful nation at the moment (having engaged in 2 wars, and also Libya and Syria in more or less extent) but one cannot just ignore the genuine efforts and casualties on the US side.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
