On July 17 2013 02:59 sva wrote: More then Obama did....
And it hardly matters anymore, but I think he just needs our support not an award.
Indeed. Though, it will be sad if no change is brought about from his sacrifice. Our government will do anything it can to keep it's NSA surveillance weapon in working order, and it seems like we're all pretty powerless vs such a powerful entity.
Lol, what changes ? Look how they react to this. Instead of apologizing for all this shit, they want to capture the guy that exposed them and then kill him. EU(biggest ally) told the US gov. that what they did is not good and they are not happy about it, to say the least... What was the reaction ? Not a single word. US government does whatever it wants and I'm wondering why the people - free citizens - are doing nothing about it. Why there are no protests, riots etc ? For example in Luxembourg the prime minister Jean-Claude Juncker resigned for similar reasons last week.
I think people are just scared and or don't care. If you've experienced first hand just how powerful of a weapon the NSA/FBI alliance can be at oppression/life ruination, then you will probably feel hopeless about the entire situation. I imagine people that aren't fully aware just how shady/powerful and deep the rabbit hole at the NSA truly goes, you likely don't care.
You keep posting this kind of stuff. What are these weapons of "oppression/life ruination" that you're talking about, and could we please get some sources? I agree that invasions of privacy are bad, but its a far stretch to say that the NSA listening to my personal calls is going to ruin my life.
You can't get solid sources, that's the entire point. You think they will just let that type of stuff out into the public willingly? I think if you're going to hear about it from anyone, it will be from mr. Snowden himself considering he has eluded towards seeing incredibly abusive and disturbing examples in some of his interviews before he finally decided to make the entire program public.
I pray and also hope he does talk about some of the more extreme abuses the NSA/FBI combo have done to US citizens. Whether you believe me or not, which you won't, doesn't really matter. We will all have to wait and see if these types of stories come to the surface or not....I have no reason to be making stuff up about this btw, I don't have some sort of agenda or whatever drives people to try and manipulate opinions. Just someone that knows he has been a target by this god awful program over the past 3 or so years. Hint, when you find out something about a multibillion dollar tech focused company that could ultimately cost them a lot of money if people learned about it, well that alone is enough of a reason for these guys to oppress you.
This is ridiculous. You have a totally non-falsifiable argument because all of the bad stuff that's supposedly happening is "secret" and yet you want other people to believe it. You really think that in this day and age of viral videos and such that the FBI could run a secret torture regime and nobody would notice and tell people? Don't drink the kool-aid.
It's very easy to pull the conspiracy nut or paranoia card out, in fact it's their number one ace in the hole. However, is what they've been doing legal or not? And why have they been caught multiple times bluntly lying about it under oath. We're talking about a joint cooperation between the most powerful tech based corporations in america, the nsa, the fbi, and ultimately the entire government. That much money and power involved is capable of all sorts of things. Great things, bad things, evil things, and and amazing ability to oppress those that have been a victim of it all. It's a slaughter of basic human privacy and freedom of speech.
But anyways, please do answer my question. Is what they've been doing illegal or not?
No way that he deserves a peace prize for this. More than a dozen other people have said similar things, and snowden poorly articulated it. Just no one cared to listen.
On July 17 2013 05:20 RHGaming wrote: Polls like these infuriate me. 100% of the people that voted in this poll have no true idea what goes into selecting a Peace Prize recipient.
Good ole "95% of statistics are made up on the spot".
Also you can easily go to wikipedia, read a bit, find out that it's largely arbitrary, and then make a judgment call which is either based on what goes into selecting a peace prize recipient, OR what SHOULD go into the selection.
People should learn history. These extreme forms of control have always been performed by dictatorial governments who needed the information to be able to supress opposition. This is the only reason the nsa is spying so much,everyone defending the usa/nsa in this case is defending a tool that historically has been used to control people and supress thoose who think different. People should not look only at the act itself, but also at the purpose of it. And the purpose is verry frightening.
What has he done to promote the idea of peace in the world? By stirring up a shitstorm of anti-American feelings in other countries? That doesn't seem all that "peace" worthy to me.
I agree with what he did, but not how he did it. Blowing whistles, stopping crap like this, is good. Running to the press then fleeing the country doesn't seem like the best way to do things. But so much of what we've heard is probably filled with disinformation that it doesn't nothing but confound and confuse us civvies.
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.
As a blanket response to everybody who's defending and hailing Snowden as somebody that revealed this supposed information (and the endless 'acting contrary to national interests = standing up for the country' mantra being parroted), I'll ask you: What civil rights were violated? What human rights were violated?
Assuming of course this is all true and there are no more leaks, show me where the US Constitution guarantees or implies these expectations of privacy.
Oh. They don't? They only cover search and seizure in instances not relating to national security, imminent threat, or individuals of non-citizens where 1.) Majority needs overrule 2.) You're not a US citizen so the Constitution doesn't apply to you? Huh. Go figure. People don't have the right to know everything, nor do I believe that governments SHOULD let their people know everything. The state of ... well, states, has been this way since the first governments.
Javy_'s second half about bravery? Betraying your country's secrets because you think you know better than the entire government isn't brave, it's treason. It's aiding and abetting the enemy. It's also, when the government you're betraying is the United State's government, very stupid.
For the topic on hand: Snowden doesn't deserve a Nobel Peace Prize or anything of the sort. Ever.
That's facism right there. "Oh you arent part of our society? We are denying you basic human rights." To make things even better, there are thousands of people, especially Latinos in southern parts of the USA who dont have US citizenship, so it is also discriminating a minority living in the USA, based on what? A citizenship that comes mainly by birth and in some rare occasions from the state, it's like the incarnation of breaching the principle of equality. Hitler would have loved that part.
Citing that part proudly to prove that the country did nothing wrong just shows the arrogance of US-Americans, thinking that they are above human rights only because they are an imperial superpower. "Either you are American, or we trample on your rights."
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.
As a blanket response to everybody who's defending and hailing Snowden as somebody that revealed this supposed information (and the endless 'acting contrary to national interests = standing up for the country' mantra being parroted), I'll ask you: What civil rights were violated? What human rights were violated?
Assuming of course this is all true and there are no more leaks, show me where the US Constitution guarantees or implies these expectations of privacy.
Oh. They don't? They only cover search and seizure in instances not relating to national security, imminent threat, or individuals of non-citizens where 1.) Majority needs overrule 2.) You're not a US citizen so the Constitution doesn't apply to you? Huh. Go figure. People don't have the right to know everything, nor do I believe that governments SHOULD let their people know everything. The state of ... well, states, has been this way since the first governments.
Javy_'s second half about bravery? Betraying your country's secrets because you think you know better than the entire government isn't brave, it's treason. It's aiding and abetting the enemy. It's also, when the government you're betraying is the United State's government, very stupid.
For the topic on hand: Snowden doesn't deserve a Nobel Peace Prize or anything of the sort. Ever.
Hitler would have loved that part.
FYI you shouldn't do that, ever. Even if the comparison is valid, don't do it.
On July 17 2013 02:15 LegalLord wrote: None of these countries shield him because they believe he did the right thing. They shield him to spite the US.
that doesn't mean that they think that what he did was wrong
I am certain that these countries do the exact same thing (China obviously does, and the USSR did it so Russia almost certainly does). They do not support Snowden for any reason other than because they don't like the US.
And the US has been very, very vocal about how wrong those other countries doing it is. Much like how very supportive they are of dissidents from there. But now the shoe is on the other foot, isn't it?
He should get it imo, because it did cost him to expose this travesty and we do need a signal that this growing worldwide trend of invading the lives of everyone in trade for a pinky promise that all will be well is not something that should just be accepted.
But he probably won't.
Spying is what spies do. The NSA is an organization of spies. I see nothing wrong with that.
Leaking important documents vital to the function of that organization, on the other hand, is treason.
so if the government uses its army to kill citizens that are protesting it's okay because it's the army's job to kill people but if a soldier says: "no I won't kill these people" he should be killed because he is not obeying orders? I'm grateful that there are so few people with this point of view over here... jeez
The army's job is to maintain stability, not kill people. Very much a strawman argument.
Desertion, by the way, is a crime for which you can be shot.
Depending in which country you are serving. I know for a fact that german soldiers are told that they may refuse to follow orders if they are convinced they violate basic human rights. And the american constitution doesn't list basic human rights because it is older than those rights. I can only suppose that other countries have laws to protect these rights as well. In the german Grundgesetz it is article 10 "secrecy of correspondence, posts and telecommunications is inviolable". Every exception to this needs to go through court. At the moment it looks like violation of this right is the rule in the US. Maybe in other countries as well, but we won't know until someone blows the whistle on those.
On July 17 2013 09:15 Cirqueenflex wrote: the one thing he did well was made me understand the reasoning behind the constant internet connection and surveillance options of the xbox one
Yup. All major tech focused corporations are allied with the NSA. The purpose of the mandatory camera is pretty obvious no?
On July 17 2013 02:15 LegalLord wrote: None of these countries shield him because they believe he did the right thing. They shield him to spite the US.
that doesn't mean that they think that what he did was wrong
I am certain that these countries do the exact same thing (China obviously does, and the USSR did it so Russia almost certainly does). They do not support Snowden for any reason other than because they don't like the US.
And the US has been very, very vocal about how wrong those other countries doing it is. Much like how very supportive they are of dissidents from there. But now the shoe is on the other foot, isn't it?
He should get it imo, because it did cost him to expose this travesty and we do need a signal that this growing worldwide trend of invading the lives of everyone in trade for a pinky promise that all will be well is not something that should just be accepted.
But he probably won't.
Spying is what spies do. The NSA is an organization of spies. I see nothing wrong with that.
Leaking important documents vital to the function of that organization, on the other hand, is treason.
so if the government uses its army to kill citizens that are protesting it's okay because it's the army's job to kill people but if a soldier says: "no I won't kill these people" he should be killed because he is not obeying orders? I'm grateful that there are so few people with this point of view over here... jeez
The army's job is to maintain stability, not kill people. Very much a strawman argument.
Desertion, by the way, is a crime for which you can be shot.
This post is endlessly amusing to me, for several reasons. First: the army's job is to maintain stability? Really? I thought that was what police, firefighters, doctors, judges, water purification, and democracy are for. As far as I know, the army, by which I assume you mean the American army, hasn't "maintained stability" on American soil for longer than anyone has been alive. but I suppose it's fair at least to credit them with their commendable services and manpower during various national disasters and states of general hysteria.
Still, though, if I look at the history of the American army from after WWII until the present day, it doesn't really seem like any stability has been maintained or even restored by their presence overseas; if anything, American involvement tends to inflate the death toll of conflicts, bring to light a number of human rights abuses (on both sides) and doesn't have much correlation to a speedy end to hostilities. I mean, I'm not denying that the American military is effective for whatever purpose it's supposed to serve (and I have no idea what that purpose is supposed to be, since it seems like a largely redundant titanium wall coated with diamonds as the people who want to attack the city are either already in the city, know how to climb walls, or trying to attack with forks) but if I look at the "major" conflicts of the past half-century, a large number are pretty close to what I'd call "defeat" (even if America didn't necessarily get conquered or lose territory and just withdrew before losing more soldiers see Vietnam etc.) and the remainder are what I might generously call "not-failures." Perhaps there are one or two actual, roaring successes in there, depending how you qualify that success (I guess the Gulf War was pretty successful, from a certain point of view, especially compared to its younger brother) but they don't really seem to be all that common, or convincing, or major in the scope of commitment vs. goals vs. risk.
Also, saying that the army's job is maintain stability and that characterizing them as killers is a "strawman" is pretty funny when the next line is that they shoot people for deserting.
It's weird to me that Snowden is being hunted over the globe for possibly, hypothetically, potentially harming some ethereal American somewhere in the universe, but when we know that during Iraq/Afghanistan, some American soldiers did shitty things during war we barely prosecute them, barely sentence them, and chalk most of it up to the "horrors of war." This isn't a uniquely American phenomenon, or anything, but it still sucks.
On July 17 2013 02:15 LegalLord wrote: None of these countries shield him because they believe he did the right thing. They shield him to spite the US.
that doesn't mean that they think that what he did was wrong
I am certain that these countries do the exact same thing (China obviously does, and the USSR did it so Russia almost certainly does). They do not support Snowden for any reason other than because they don't like the US.
And the US has been very, very vocal about how wrong those other countries doing it is. Much like how very supportive they are of dissidents from there. But now the shoe is on the other foot, isn't it?
He should get it imo, because it did cost him to expose this travesty and we do need a signal that this growing worldwide trend of invading the lives of everyone in trade for a pinky promise that all will be well is not something that should just be accepted.
But he probably won't.
Spying is what spies do. The NSA is an organization of spies. I see nothing wrong with that.
Leaking important documents vital to the function of that organization, on the other hand, is treason.
so if the government uses its army to kill citizens that are protesting it's okay because it's the army's job to kill people but if a soldier says: "no I won't kill these people" he should be killed because he is not obeying orders? I'm grateful that there are so few people with this point of view over here... jeez
The army's job is to maintain stability, not kill people. Very much a strawman argument.
Desertion, by the way, is a crime for which you can be shot.
This post is endlessly amusing to me, for several reasons. First: the army's job is to maintain stability? Really? I thought that was what police, firefighters, doctors, judges, water purification, and democracy are for. As far as I know, the army, by which I assume you mean the American army, hasn't "maintained stability" on American soil for longer than anyone has been alive. but I suppose it's fair at least to credit them with their commendable services and manpower during various national disasters and states of general hysteria.
Still, though, if I look at the history of the American army from after WWII until the present day, it doesn't really seem like any stability has been maintained or even restored by their presence overseas; if anything, American involvement tends to inflate the death toll of conflicts, bring to light a number of human rights abuses (on both sides) and doesn't have much correlation to a speedy end to hostilities. I mean, I'm not denying that the American military is effective for whatever purpose it's supposed to serve (and I have no idea what that purpose is supposed to be, since it seems like a largely redundant titanium wall coated with diamonds as the people who want to attack the city are either already in the city, know how to climb walls, or trying to attack with forks) but if I look at the "major" conflicts of the past half-century, a large number are pretty close to what I'd call "defeat" (even if America didn't necessarily get conquered or lose territory and just withdrew before losing more soldiers see Vietnam etc.) and the remainder are what I might generously call "not-failures." Perhaps there are one or two actual, roaring successes in there, depending how you qualify that success (I guess the Gulf War was pretty successful, from a certain point of view, especially compared to its younger brother) but they don't really seem to be all that common, or convincing, or major in the scope of commitment vs. goals vs. risk.
Also, saying that the army's job is maintain stability and that characterizing them as killers is a "strawman" is pretty funny when the next line is that they shoot people for deserting.
It's weird to me that Snowden is being hunted over the globe for possibly, hypothetically, potentially harming some ethereal American somewhere in the universe, but when we know that during Iraq/Afghanistan, some American soldiers did shitty things during war we barely prosecute them, barely sentence them, and chalk most of it up to the "horrors of war." This isn't a uniquely American phenomenon, or anything, but it still sucks.
If you think our involvement overseas is actually for "stability" or "democracy", then it's also true that Allah commanded jihad and genocide against non-Muslims back in the 600s. That isn't our goal lol. It does fool people pretty effectively into thinking it is though .
On July 17 2013 02:15 LegalLord wrote: None of these countries shield him because they believe he did the right thing. They shield him to spite the US.
that doesn't mean that they think that what he did was wrong
I am certain that these countries do the exact same thing (China obviously does, and the USSR did it so Russia almost certainly does). They do not support Snowden for any reason other than because they don't like the US.
And the US has been very, very vocal about how wrong those other countries doing it is. Much like how very supportive they are of dissidents from there. But now the shoe is on the other foot, isn't it?
He should get it imo, because it did cost him to expose this travesty and we do need a signal that this growing worldwide trend of invading the lives of everyone in trade for a pinky promise that all will be well is not something that should just be accepted.
But he probably won't.
Spying is what spies do. The NSA is an organization of spies. I see nothing wrong with that.
Leaking important documents vital to the function of that organization, on the other hand, is treason.
so if the government uses its army to kill citizens that are protesting it's okay because it's the army's job to kill people but if a soldier says: "no I won't kill these people" he should be killed because he is not obeying orders? I'm grateful that there are so few people with this point of view over here... jeez
The army's job is to maintain stability, not kill people. Very much a strawman argument.
Desertion, by the way, is a crime for which you can be shot.
This post is endlessly amusing to me, for several reasons. First: the army's job is to maintain stability? Really? I thought that was what police, firefighters, doctors, judges, water purification, and democracy are for. As far as I know, the army, by which I assume you mean the American army, hasn't "maintained stability" on American soil for longer than anyone has been alive. but I suppose it's fair at least to credit them with their commendable services and manpower during various national disasters and states of general hysteria.
Still, though, if I look at the history of the American army from after WWII until the present day, it doesn't really seem like any stability has been maintained or even restored by their presence overseas; if anything, American involvement tends to inflate the death toll of conflicts, bring to light a number of human rights abuses (on both sides) and doesn't have much correlation to a speedy end to hostilities. I mean, I'm not denying that the American military is effective for whatever purpose it's supposed to serve (and I have no idea what that purpose is supposed to be, since it seems like a largely redundant titanium wall coated with diamonds as the people who want to attack the city are either already in the city, know how to climb walls, or trying to attack with forks) but if I look at the "major" conflicts of the past half-century, a large number are pretty close to what I'd call "defeat" (even if America didn't necessarily get conquered or lose territory and just withdrew before losing more soldiers see Vietnam etc.) and the remainder are what I might generously call "not-failures." Perhaps there are one or two actual, roaring successes in there, depending how you qualify that success (I guess the Gulf War was pretty successful, from a certain point of view, especially compared to its younger brother) but they don't really seem to be all that common, or convincing, or major in the scope of commitment vs. goals vs. risk.
Also, saying that the army's job is maintain stability and that characterizing them as killers is a "strawman" is pretty funny when the next line is that they shoot people for deserting.
It's weird to me that Snowden is being hunted over the globe for possibly, hypothetically, potentially harming some ethereal American somewhere in the universe, but when we know that during Iraq/Afghanistan, some American soldiers did shitty things during war we barely prosecute them, barely sentence them, and chalk most of it up to the "horrors of war." This isn't a uniquely American phenomenon, or anything, but it still sucks.
If you think our involvement overseas is actually for "stability" or "democracy", then it's also true that Allah commanded jihad and genocide against non-Muslims back in the 600s. That isn't our goal lol. It does fool people pretty effectively into thinking it is though .
Oh, I know. I'm probably one of the people on this forum most vehemently opposed to military operations/war in general, so I'd be pretty skeptical of any claim that overseas involvement is for democracy or stability. I tend to think wanton violence in pursuit of either of the two to be pretty oxymoronic.
On July 17 2013 10:09 Shiori wrote: As far as I know, the army, by which I assume you mean the American army, hasn't "maintained stability" on American soil for longer than anyone has been alive.
Alright then, here's an experiment for you: take the country you live in, and imagine that the entire armed forces of said country was disbanded. Is that country more stable now?
Oh and, ironically, much of your post was once again a strawman because I was responding to a post regarding Manning and quelling riots. There was nothing there addressing US overseas activities, which is another topic altogether.
On July 17 2013 10:09 Shiori wrote: As far as I know, the army, by which I assume you mean the American army, hasn't "maintained stability" on American soil for longer than anyone has been alive.
Alright then, here's an experiment for you: take the country you live in, and imagine that the entire armed forces of said country was disbanded. Is that country more stable now?
Oh and, ironically, much of your post was once again a strawman because I was responding to a post regarding Manning and quelling riots. There was nothing there addressing US overseas activities, which is another topic altogether.
I pretty much wouldn't even notice (with respect to day to day activities) if the military disappeared. As far as I know, my country (Canada) isn't courting war with anyone, and nor is anyone making overtures to invade us, so how exactly is the military maintaining stability in a fashion that only the military can do? I don't deny that they have manpower and organization, which are useful for auxiliary support during natural disasters and the like, but an army is more than just that.
Is it hypothetically "more stable"? Uh, I have no idea, because I don't consider the military to be a force actively going out of its way to undermine the stability of my life. I just think it's mostly pointless and violent, which I don't like.
Edit: making me go back and read the quote-chain in question (in which you forgive the NSA for spying on anyone ever because they're, like, spies, and brand Snowden a traitor, among other things) really doesn't inspire me to give you the benefit of the doubt regarding your defense of military functions.
On July 17 2013 10:09 Shiori wrote: As far as I know, the army, by which I assume you mean the American army, hasn't "maintained stability" on American soil for longer than anyone has been alive.
Alright then, here's an experiment for you: take the country you live in, and imagine that the entire armed forces of said country was disbanded. Is that country more stable now?
Oh and, ironically, much of your post was once again a strawman because I was responding to a post regarding Manning and quelling riots. There was nothing there addressing US overseas activities, which is another topic altogether.
I pretty much wouldn't even notice if the military disappeared. As far as I know, my country (Canada) isn't courting war with anyone, and nor is anyone making overtures to invades us, so how exactly is the military maintaining stability in a fashion that only the military can do? I don't deny that they have manpower and organization, which are useful for auxiliary support during natural disasters and the like, but an army is more than just that.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree. But I think it's utterly naive to think that you will lose nothing by having no armed forces, no matter how much of a pacifist you are.
On July 17 2013 10:09 Shiori wrote: As far as I know, the army, by which I assume you mean the American army, hasn't "maintained stability" on American soil for longer than anyone has been alive.
Alright then, here's an experiment for you: take the country you live in, and imagine that the entire armed forces of said country was disbanded. Is that country more stable now?
Oh and, ironically, much of your post was once again a strawman because I was responding to a post regarding Manning and quelling riots. There was nothing there addressing US overseas activities, which is another topic altogether.
I pretty much wouldn't even notice if the military disappeared. As far as I know, my country (Canada) isn't courting war with anyone, and nor is anyone making overtures to invades us, so how exactly is the military maintaining stability in a fashion that only the military can do? I don't deny that they have manpower and organization, which are useful for auxiliary support during natural disasters and the like, but an army is more than just that.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree. But I think it's utterly naive to think that you will lose nothing by having no armed forces, no matter how much of a pacifist you are.
Oh I don't deny that some things would be lost: a stockpile of (mostly male) people of good physical fitness who have good discipline, know how to obey a command, and know lots about killing people; the feeling that my tax dollars fund, on some level, organized killing, which tends to incidentally include civilians; and (hopefully) the depressing tendency to label soldiers as uniquely heroic* (as if Afghanistan were Normandy Beach) when there are tonnes of doctors, surgeons, teachers, scientists, judges actually positively contributing to the well-being of people on a day-to-day basis who receive nominal to modest praise upon their death.
*I don't deny that there are heroic soldiers, or that soldiers can do good things (both sides of my family have members who were at some point soldiers,and obviously I don't think they're bad people or anything less than good people). I'd say that the vast majority of soldiers are normal and good people, and that many of them have the best of intentions and truly love their country and/or their mission. I do deny that being in the military makes one a hero (regardless of death) in any automatic sense (the reason I state this is because the government renamed a major highway the "Highway of Heroes" since all fallen soldiers are escorted up it in funerary proceedings) and certainly not simply because they were killed doing something as a member of the armed forces. Dying for a cause shows resolve, but to be a hero, to me, means doing something noble or good in addition to being incredible/difficult. In that respect, I consider a firefighter who rushes to save someone from a burning building on the verge of collapse, despite indications of poisonous gas, to be far more worthy of the title of "hero" than a hypothetical soldier who was tragically shot during a firefight with insurgents in a random street. The latter is certainly very sad and definitely something to be mourned, but I think heroism is about deeds, not about tragedy. The firefighter is a hero whether he dies of poisoning or not; the soldier is venerated for death simply because the military is viewed by some as some literal, pure element of a nation more so than anyone else.
I understand the tendency to venerate the dead is very human and tends to concentrate around service professions that involve some kind of risk (police etc.). That's fine with me, but it seems to only be soldiers that are elevated so high in death, and that only soldiers are considered heroic not only by rgw people close to them, but also by people they've never met, and even by the government itself in such a systematic way that I feel is unmatched.
EPT
.
