|
On July 17 2013 22:07 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 19:02 sVnteen wrote:On July 17 2013 13:45 cLAN.Anax wrote:He deserves a prison cell. Snowden signed up knowing he'd have to keep silent about the sensitive secrets he would be entrusted with. How is this not treasonous sabotage? He deserves punishment, not recognition. Svallfors also believes this will help the Peace Prize regain some of respect it lost after prematurely awarding Barack Obama the award in 2009. Bahahaha. The Nobel Prize reputation would only plummet farther. soo if someone in noth korea joins the military forces, makes it to the very top and gets confronted with plans to nuke the US (don't complain about logic pls it just an example) and he decides: "no I got to stop this" and somehow manages to get the information about the plans out into the world he should, following your logic, be sent to prison in any country he tries to escape to? I mean it was an act of treason and surely he shouldn't be rewarded for it ,right? You got to put yourself in a neutral perspective here. I mean the US spied on their ALLIES how is that justifiable at all? and then their biggest worry is to go after the man who has revealed this fact instead of apologizing or something.... how would you feel in that situation? There are two faults here: the first of which is the government "spying" on its people and that of its allies; the second is Snowden knowingly breaking his promise to keep quiet on the secrets he was entrusted with. Regardless of what the government is doing wrong (won't deny that), Snowden sinned too. It appears too much like he planned on sabotage from the get-go. Surely there's a better way to do this than leaking the information, going public for recognition, then hiding behind other countries attempting to barter with the U.S. by releasing others' information, fight sin with sin so to speak.
"sin"? first of all if you wanna use this word don't do it like this cause there is so much room for argument on what it means...
2nd. so what is your point with the people and the allies?
3rd. even if he had the intention to shed some lights on the unethical/illegal stuff the nsa is doing I don't see how that makes his motive of drawing attention to those things any worse... I mean the thing is if he had the intetion to uncover it then he must have known there was something to uncover right?
4th. you criticizing him for HOW he released the information is ridiculous since he would be dead right now if he had done it any differently... I don't know about you but if there is a way for me to survive while achieving my goal I would go for that too.
so he didn't do it as cleanly as it could have been but there was simply no other way for him to get the information out there - knowing about it and NOT telling anyone, espically the people whose rights were violated, would have been the greater "sin"
|
So national treason leads to a nobel peace prize. Sry this is just wrong but well Obama got one too and did nothing to deserve it.
|
On July 17 2013 22:39 tadL wrote:
So national treason leads to a nobel peace prize. Sry this is just wrong but well Obama got one too and did nothing to deserve it.
what is wrong with you ppl?
a lot of things are called "treason" when countries do stupid stuff, doesnt mean it really is treason hum? would it be wrong too if ppl helped jews in nazi germany etc pp?
|
On July 17 2013 22:24 sVnteen wrote:
4th. you criticizing him for HOW he released the information is ridiculous since he would be dead right now if he had done it any differently...
This kind of hyperbole really doesn't help.
I'm about as big an anti-Obama person as you can get, but even I'm not saying that he would have Snowden killed. You can argue the merits of your position without resorting to obviously ridiculous statements.
|
Poland3772 Posts
On July 17 2013 22:09 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 21:56 nimdil wrote:On July 17 2013 21:22 sc2superfan101 wrote:
My big problem is: he didn't expose the government doing anything illegal. Also only because US twisted their law that made a lot of loopholes for Big Brother-like organizations like NSA and for actions against anyone branded as terrorists (which every now and then is thrown completely ridiculously around). Also it shows that USA - at least government - does not deserve the trust of international community. If USA doesn't deserve the trust of the international community, then neither does France, Russia, China, or Great Britain...all of whom have been caught in recent years spying on other countries. How many more players would you be prepared to exclude from the international community? I think you have to be realistic, and understand that there will be espionage. Many citizens in these countries don't even trust their own governments; can you really expect their representatives or leaders to trust other governments so completely? It just seems a bit naive to think that the international community has a lot of "trust" to begin with. But that said the USA still plays an important role, whether its climate change, trade deals, or intervention against dictators who massacre their own people (Libya, Syria). So on broad issues of public policy there can be trust; but a reasonable level of trust. Not one where there is the implicit assumption that no one will ever have doubts about the true intentions of other leaders, or follow up on those doubts with espionage.
Whoa, whoa. Hold your horses. I said "doesn't deserve the trust" - not excluded from international community. Even implementing double-standards USA is closer to democratic countries than some other states like Russia or China. Also just because other countries do it is barely an excuse as it is not as much country vs country case but more about citizens vs governments.
You maybe share different perspective living in Canada but in Poland - USA for years was symbol of liberties and beacon of hope. That we learned better in past two decades doesn't change the fact that massive spying program was a bit of a shock for most. I for once didn't expect US government to be quite so bold with their spying systems.
Also I think USA don''t do much in Syria and even in Libya they weren't as active as was expected.
All in all - my point is sympathies for USA are falling apart around the globe and that's not exactly good. And it's their fault.
|
Well since Obama got it this price is worth less than the dirt under my shoes. But he should still get it, probably even 2.
|
Poland3772 Posts
On July 17 2013 23:21 theodorus12 wrote:
Well since Obama got it this price is worth less than the dirt under my shoes. But he should still get it, probably even 2.
You still get >1m$ with the prize - even assuming that Obama could devaluate the prize to worthless level - so unless diamonds are dirt in your area...
|
On July 17 2013 22:50 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 22:24 sVnteen wrote:
4th. you criticizing him for HOW he released the information is ridiculous since he would be dead right now if he had done it any differently... This kind of hyperbole really doesn't help. I'm about as big an anti-Obama person as you can get, but even I'm not saying that he would have Snowden killed. You can argue the merits of your position without resorting to obviously ridiculous statements.
1.I'm not anti Obama... I was soo happy when he won the last election you don't even wanna know man...
2.well I am not so sure about my statement being so far fetched... you can never keep someone quiet if you just keep him in jail... human rights n stuff you know the drill
|
On July 17 2013 23:57 sVnteen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 22:50 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 17 2013 22:24 sVnteen wrote:
4th. you criticizing him for HOW he released the information is ridiculous since he would be dead right now if he had done it any differently... This kind of hyperbole really doesn't help. I'm about as big an anti-Obama person as you can get, but even I'm not saying that he would have Snowden killed. You can argue the merits of your position without resorting to obviously ridiculous statements. 1.I'm not anti Obama... I was soo happy when he won the last election you don't even wanna know man... 2.well I am not so sure about my statement being so far fetched... you can never keep someone quiet if you just keep him in jail... human rights n stuff you know the drill
There was no need to have Snowden killed, as that would risk creating a martyr. They could just have him locked up and make his life hell. Looking at all the uncentainty surrounding Bradley Manning's trial, I don't think that would have been impossible.
|
On July 18 2013 00:23 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 23:57 sVnteen wrote:On July 17 2013 22:50 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 17 2013 22:24 sVnteen wrote:
4th. you criticizing him for HOW he released the information is ridiculous since he would be dead right now if he had done it any differently... This kind of hyperbole really doesn't help. I'm about as big an anti-Obama person as you can get, but even I'm not saying that he would have Snowden killed. You can argue the merits of your position without resorting to obviously ridiculous statements. 1.I'm not anti Obama... I was soo happy when he won the last election you don't even wanna know man... 2.well I am not so sure about my statement being so far fetched... you can never keep someone quiet if you just keep him in jail... human rights n stuff you know the drill There was no need to have Snowden killed, as that would risk creating a martyr. They could just have him locked up and make his life hell. Looking at all the uncentainty surrounding Bradley Manning's trial, I don't think that would have been impossible.
To be fair, I don't know that Snowden was thinking straight after he made the decision to release info. Not exactly a calming activity. I think he should have stayed, but I can see why he left.
|
Well he deserve it more than Barack Obama that's for sure.
|
On July 17 2013 23:57 sVnteen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 22:50 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 17 2013 22:24 sVnteen wrote:
4th. you criticizing him for HOW he released the information is ridiculous since he would be dead right now if he had done it any differently... This kind of hyperbole really doesn't help. I'm about as big an anti-Obama person as you can get, but even I'm not saying that he would have Snowden killed. You can argue the merits of your position without resorting to obviously ridiculous statements. 1.I'm not anti Obama... I was soo happy when he won the last election you don't even wanna know man... 2.well I am not so sure about my statement being so far fetched... you can never keep someone quiet if you just keep him in jail... human rights n stuff you know the drill
If you are so happy that he's president, why are you assuming that he would have a man killed for releasing classified documents?
No, I'm sorry, it's really fucking far-fetched to think that the US Government would "make him disappear" for leaks. They might prosecute him, and he might do time, but having him killed and his body dumped? Stop pretending that reality is some stupid movie and actually have a mature discussion on this.
|
On July 17 2013 16:42 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 16:27 Mataza wrote:
This argument is stupid.
Of course you don't know which secrets you are not allowed to tell when you agree to an oath of secrecy. You think they tell you the secrets first and then want you to agree to keep them secret? That's not how secrets work. You don't share them just because you don't agree with them. Don't like them? Too bad. Sharing them is and should be treated as a criminal offense. (Just to clarify, I'm not sure whether or not you got it, but that line you quoted was sarcasm)
I guess we'll have to go back in time and acquit everyone found guilty in the Nuremberg trials; they were just keeping state secrets even if they didn't agree with them!
Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 16:27 Mataza wrote:
Either way police states are a bad thing. Doesn't matter how scared you are of dissidents in your country. Security always comes at the cost of freedom and the US have been increasing security and decreasing freedom at an alarming rate in the last decade. This is nothing new; every country with the power to do it has been doing this for decades. If you didn't know that, then you simply have not been keeping up with the politics of espionage.
I don't think this is relevant. If someone asserts "man, look at this country doing this horrible thing!" and you reply with "yeah but every country does this" that doesn't imply that the thing isn't horrible; it implies that there are a lot of horrible countries. It just so happens that the US is always condescending to everyone about freedom and privacy rights and whatnot, so I guess it's ironic in an amusing way.
Like this is like saying "wow, you're upset that someone killed his wife and children? Psh, there are criminals who do way worse and more; stop whining." Particulars of the situation aside, simply because other people/countries do worse/similar has nothing to do with whether something is worthy of condemnation.
If you are so happy that he's president, why are you assuming that he would have a man killed for releasing classified documents?
No, I'm sorry, it's really fucking far-fetched to think that the US Government would "make him disappear" for leaks. They might prosecute him, and he might do time, but having him killed and his body dumped? Stop pretending that reality is some stupid movie and actually have a mature discussion on this.
I imagine that people are pleased Obama was elected because the alternative was a member of the Republican Party (a group that, as a whole, tends to have serious debates about shit like whether gay people should be allowed to get married or whether poor people are lazy) and not because Obama was the second coming of Christ.
Obviously the US wouldn't execute Snowden; it'd just hurt their public image more than has already occurred. But I don't imagine he'd get out of a jail for a good, long while, despite having exposed a very relevant issue with respect to personal privacy, and despite not actually aiding enemies of the state in any tangible way (you have to be a pretty dumb anti-American insurgent to think that America doesn't have eyes and ears in common internet channels of communication).
|
On July 18 2013 00:30 Shiori wrote:
I imagine that people are pleased Obama was elected because the alternative was a member of the Republican Party (a group that, as a whole, tends to have serious debates about shit like whether gay people should be allowed to get married or whether poor people are lazy) and not because Obama was the second coming of Christ.
Yeah, I don't really give a shit about the Republican vs Democrat crap in this thread. To be honest, this has nothing to do with any of that. The point had nothing to do with Republicans being for or against gay marriage (wtf are you even bringing that up for?). The point was that how the fuck could you not be anti-Obama if you actually think he's going to have goons kidnap, murder, and then dispose of a man for releasing some state secrets?
Obviously the US wouldn't execute Snowden
Exactly.
|
On July 18 2013 00:38 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 00:30 Shiori wrote:
I imagine that people are pleased Obama was elected because the alternative was a member of the Republican Party (a group that, as a whole, tends to have serious debates about shit like whether gay people should be allowed to get married or whether poor people are lazy) and not because Obama was the second coming of Christ. Yeah, I don't really give a shit about the Republican vs Democrat crap in this thread. To be honest, this has nothing to do with any of that. The point had nothing to do with Republicans being for or against gay marriage (wtf are you even bringing that up for?). The point was that how the fuck could you not be anti-Obama if you actually think he's going to have goons kidnap, murder, and then dispose of a man for releasing some state secrets?
Way to totally miss the point. People were happy Obama got elected because the alternative was part of a party that has all the problems Obama does plus actually is crazy on some issues. That doesn't mean people think Obama is a saint or even a good leader; it just means he wasn't as bad as the other one.
|
No one ever achieved world peace so how can we have a prize for it. War always exists somewhere in the world and we have never had true peace (world peace). Once it happens give out the prize, otherwise stop wasting the worlds time.
Stating that - I really don't care because the prize is meaningless imo but he can use the money, Moscow is expensive.
|
Guys, just because Obama got one, doesn't mean the award is worthless. While it is commonly made fun of, the people who win them usually do something to merit the award. Also, Snowden didn't show the world anything it didn't know. I'd say most people who don't try to stay blissfully unaware saw headlines on any major news site previously about facial recognition software, etc. What Snowden did was different than what merits a Nobel Peace Prize; if Snowden had leaked important information and then stopped, info that didn't hurt American security, but did shine the light on the NSA, I'd agree with giving him the award, but he didn't. Similaraly to the guy who blew the pentagon papers, who did not receive a Nobel Prize for his actions, I doubt Snowden will.
|
On July 18 2013 00:30 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 16:42 LegalLord wrote:On July 17 2013 16:27 Mataza wrote:
This argument is stupid.
Of course you don't know which secrets you are not allowed to tell when you agree to an oath of secrecy. You think they tell you the secrets first and then want you to agree to keep them secret? That's not how secrets work. You don't share them just because you don't agree with them. Don't like them? Too bad. Sharing them is and should be treated as a criminal offense. (Just to clarify, I'm not sure whether or not you got it, but that line you quoted was sarcasm) I guess we'll have to go back in time and acquit everyone found guilty in the Nuremberg trials; they were just keeping state secrets even if they didn't agree with them!
Wow, what a Godwin.
There is a significant difference between a program that seeks to systematically eradicate any race of people that the government deems degenerate and the NSA's surveillance program that is made and used only to prevent terrorism.
On July 18 2013 01:04 docvoc wrote:
Guys, just because Obama got one, doesn't mean the award is worthless. While it is commonly made fun of, the people who win them usually do something to merit the award. Also, Snowden didn't show the world anything it didn't know. I'd say most people who don't try to stay blissfully unaware saw headlines on any major news site previously about facial recognition software, etc. What Snowden did was different than what merits a Nobel Peace Prize; if Snowden had leaked important information and then stopped, info that didn't hurt American security, but did shine the light on the NSA, I'd agree with giving him the award, but he didn't. Similaraly to the guy who blew the pentagon papers, who did not receive a Nobel Prize for his actions, I doubt Snowden will.
Arafat got the award as well. That made it lose all value.
On July 17 2013 20:07 FluffyBinLaden wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 16:42 LegalLord wrote:On July 17 2013 16:27 Mataza wrote:
This argument is stupid.
Of course you don't know which secrets you are not allowed to tell when you agree to an oath of secrecy. You think they tell you the secrets first and then want you to agree to keep them secret? That's not how secrets work. You don't share them just because you don't agree with them. Don't like them? Too bad. Sharing them is and should be treated as a criminal offense. (Just to clarify, I'm not sure whether or not you got it, but that line you quoted was sarcasm) If the secrets you learn are of an illegal nature, and has the potential to directly harm the people he signed on to protect, I'd argue he had an obligation to bring that information forward. The Constitution is still the highest law in the land, and there's lots of people out there who takes oaths to protect that and ignore it. Whether there were better ways of releasing the information, I don't know, but it was good he did.
"Protect the Constitution" is a far more nebulous term, considering that it is subject to interpretation and that it is considered a "living document" that can change. Keeping government secrets, on the other hand, is very straightforward.
Also, PRISM isn't illegal. It's just not a very pleasant secret.
|
On July 18 2013 01:04 docvoc wrote:
Guys, just because Obama got one, doesn't mean the award is worthless. While it is commonly made fun of, the people who win them usually do something to merit the award. Also, Snowden didn't show the world anything it didn't know. I'd say most people who don't try to stay blissfully unaware saw headlines on any major news site previously about facial recognition software, etc. What Snowden did was different than what merits a Nobel Peace Prize; if Snowden had leaked important information and then stopped, info that didn't hurt American security, but did shine the light on the NSA, I'd agree with giving him the award, but he didn't. Similaraly to the guy who blew the pentagon papers, who did not receive a Nobel Prize for his actions, I doubt Snowden will.
In all honesty I don't think people actually expect he will will the Nobel Peace Prize, but more so just showing their support for him and what he has done. Also I don't really agree that most people already knew what our government was up to in regards to spying on not just suspected terrorists, but well, everyone and everything. Even if that were the case, he has provided proof and confirmation of it all in exchange for essentially his entire life. That is a true hero imo.
|
On July 18 2013 00:23 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 23:57 sVnteen wrote:On July 17 2013 22:50 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 17 2013 22:24 sVnteen wrote:
4th. you criticizing him for HOW he released the information is ridiculous since he would be dead right now if he had done it any differently... This kind of hyperbole really doesn't help. I'm about as big an anti-Obama person as you can get, but even I'm not saying that he would have Snowden killed. You can argue the merits of your position without resorting to obviously ridiculous statements. 1.I'm not anti Obama... I was soo happy when he won the last election you don't even wanna know man... 2.well I am not so sure about my statement being so far fetched... you can never keep someone quiet if you just keep him in jail... human rights n stuff you know the drill There was no need to have Snowden killed, as that would risk creating a martyr. They could just have him locked up and make his life hell. Looking at all the uncentainty surrounding Bradley Manning's trial, I don't think that would have been impossible.
I mean like before the information even gets out at all
if they somehow manage to keep the information contained AND get a hold of him
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
