|
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.
He is a US citizen and a civilian, so he'll get a fair trial. Manning was tried in military court, which is very much not the same.
Obama also quite directly said that Snowden would be tried fairly if Russia extradites him, FWIW. If he doesn't, there is room for appeal. They're not going to send him to Guantanamo Bay because he's not a terrorist and they don't gain anything from depriving him of due process.
|
On July 18 2013 00:54 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 00:38 sc2superfan101 wrote: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, see you're missing the point. I don't give a fuck about Republican vs Democrat. Stop bringing it up. It's irrelevant.
I repeat my question: How could you not be anti-Obama if you actually think he will murder a man for posting classified information?
|
On July 18 2013 01:14 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 00:30 Shiori wrote: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.
There is indeed a significant difference, both in intent and in function. But look at what you initially said: 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.
You argued that revealing secrets should be criminal because it's revealing secrets, not because the secrets are good, bad, dangerous, or irrelevant. In that respect, any clandestine operation carried out by any nation ever is, according to you, entitled to absolute secrecy, no matter what the operation actually is. According to the line of reason you originally presented, the Nuremberg trials were invalid, because people cannot be held responsible for revealing state secrets or otherwise being non-cooperative with government orders (since they took an oath!) and because that is precisely the defense (following orders etc. etc., unaware of what was going on, afraid of being executed) that many (eventually convicted) war criminals have used over the years.
No, see you're missing the point. I don't give a fuck about Republican vs Democrat. Stop bringing it up. It's irrelevant.
I repeat my question: How could you not be anti-Obama if you actually think he will murder a man for posting classified information?
I am anti-Obama (and not because I think he'd murder Snowden, because I don't think he would). But being anti-Obama doesn't mean one can't be incredibly happy that Obama won the election over Romney or McCain. That's the point you appear to be missing. I am incredibly happy that the dictator of North Korea is Kim Jong-un instead of Kim Jong-Il, but that doesn't mean I'm not anti-Jong-un.
|
On July 18 2013 01:27 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 01:14 LegalLord wrote:On July 18 2013 00:30 Shiori wrote: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. There is indeed a significant difference, both in intent and in function. But look at what you initially said: Show nested quote +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. You argued that revealing secrets should be criminal because it's revealing secrets, not because the secrets are good, bad, dangerous, or irrelevant. In that respect, any clandestine operation carried out by any nation ever is, according to you, entitled to absolute secrecy, no matter what the operation actually is. According to the line of reason you originally presented, the Nuremberg trials were invalid, because people cannot be held responsible for revealing state secrets or otherwise being non-cooperative with government orders (since they took an oath!) and because that is precisely the defense (following orders etc. etc., unaware of what was going on, afraid of being executed) that many (eventually convicted) war criminals have used over the years.
There is a significant difference between "just because you don't agree with them" and "because they are responsible for the genocide of an entire race of people." You very much Godwin'd here.
|
On July 18 2013 01:29 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 01:27 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2013 01:14 LegalLord wrote:On July 18 2013 00:30 Shiori wrote: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. There is indeed a significant difference, both in intent and in function. But look at what you initially said: 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. You argued that revealing secrets should be criminal because it's revealing secrets, not because the secrets are good, bad, dangerous, or irrelevant. In that respect, any clandestine operation carried out by any nation ever is, according to you, entitled to absolute secrecy, no matter what the operation actually is. According to the line of reason you originally presented, the Nuremberg trials were invalid, because people cannot be held responsible for revealing state secrets or otherwise being non-cooperative with government orders (since they took an oath!) and because that is precisely the defense (following orders etc. etc., unaware of what was going on, afraid of being executed) that many (eventually convicted) war criminals have used over the years. There is a significant difference between "just because you don't agree with them" and "because they are responsible for the genocide of an entire race of people." You very much Godwin'd here.
Uh, nobody was tried for the genocide of an entire race, because nobody was individually responsible for it. People were tried for different offenses, ranging from illegal medical experimentation (technically not at Nuremberg) to being military commanders. There's a pretty big difference.
That aside, I'm pretty sure Snowden didn't leak information because he merely "didn't agree" with the NSA. I'm pretty sure he thought that what the NSA was doing was immoral. I didn't claim that it was as immoral as Nazi policies, but, again, you're missing the point: if you are saying that people shouldn't be allowed to leak secrets simply because they're secrets you happen to disagree with (which is literally what you said) then literally any secret can't be leaked ever, because, phrased a certain way, thinking something is wrong/immoral/evil is "just disagreeing" with it from the point of view of its supporters.
Comparing something to something involving a known evil (like Nazi Germany) is not a logical fallacy unless the comparison is made in a fallacious sense. I was very clear that the commonality between this situation and Nazi Germany is that both of them were concerned with secrets, and, according to your argument, them being secrets is enough to justify punishing people to leak them, regardless of what the secret actually is.
I mean, I can swap Nuremberg for Soviet defectors, if you want. Should America have extradited them back to the USSR for trial?
|
On July 18 2013 01:27 Shiori wrote:
I am anti-Obama (and not because I think he'd murder Snowden, because I don't think he would). But being anti-Obama doesn't mean one can't be incredibly happy that Obama won the election over Romney or McCain. That's the point you appear to be missing. I am incredibly happy that the dictator of North Korea is Kim Jong-un instead of Kim Jong-Il, but that doesn't mean I'm not anti-Jong-un.
The person I originally asked that question too said they weren't anti-Obama. So basically, I don't think your Republican vs Democrat shit (which I never brought up nor cared to debate) is relevant whatsoever.
the point:
Saying that Snowden would be murdered and his murder covered up by the government if he had stayed is so completely absurd that it's beyond laughable, it's actually somewhat disturbing.
|
|
|
Uh, nobody was tried for the genocide of an entire race, because nobody was individually responsible for it. People were tried for different offenses, ranging from illegal medical experimentation (technically not at Nuremberg) to being military commanders. There's a pretty big difference.
Nobody was tried for it because you can't pin that on them. That's like saying Al Capone isn't responsible for gang violence and murdering dozens of people because the US couldn't pin it on him. It's just not true.
That aside, I'm pretty sure Snowden didn't leak information because he merely "didn't agree" with the NSA. I'm pretty sure he thought that what the NSA was doing was immoral. I didn't claim that it was as immoral as Nazi policies, but, again, you're missing the point: if you are saying that people shouldn't be allowed to leak secrets simply because they're secrets you happen to disagree with (which is literally what you said) then literally any secret can't be leaked ever, because, phrased a certain way, thinking something is wrong/immoral/evil is "just disagreeing" with it from the point of view of its supporters.
Comparing something to something involving a known evil (like Nazi Germany) is not a logical fallacy unless the comparison is made in a fallacious sense. I was very clear that the commonality between this situation and Nazi Germany is that both of them were concerned with secrets, and, according to your argument, them being secrets is enough to justify punishing people to leak them, regardless of what the secret actually is.
You did make the comparison in a fallacious sense: it's hyperbole and you know it. Nothing about felony espionage charges is comparable to WWII war crimes. It's basically the "should an officer lie about hiding jews?" argument for Snowden.
And no, you don't break the law or break an oath of secrecy and steal classified documents just because you don't agree with them. The law isn't something you follow only when you agree with it, and we're not talking about exceptional circumstances as in Nazi Germany.
I mean, I can swap Nuremberg for Soviet defectors, if you want. Should America have extradited them back to the USSR for trial?
If the US weren't at war with the USSR and if they would be guaranteed a fair trial and due process, yes.
|
some people should look up the difference between legal and legitimate
|
On July 18 2013 01:49 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +Uh, nobody was tried for the genocide of an entire race, because nobody was individually responsible for it. People were tried for different offenses, ranging from illegal medical experimentation (technically not at Nuremberg) to being military commanders. There's a pretty big difference. Nobody was tried for it because you can't pin that on them. That's like saying Al Capone isn't responsible for gang violence and murdering dozens of people because the US couldn't pin it on him. It's just not true.
If Al Capone orders Jim Bob to kill X, and Jim Bob does so, Jim Bob is guilty of murder. Al Capone is guilty of a crime, too, but it's not the murder itself.
That aside, I'm pretty sure Snowden didn't leak information because he merely "didn't agree" with the NSA. I'm pretty sure he thought that what the NSA was doing was immoral. I didn't claim that it was as immoral as Nazi policies, but, again, you're missing the point: if you are saying that people shouldn't be allowed to leak secrets simply because they're secrets you happen to disagree with (which is literally what you said) then literally any secret can't be leaked ever, because, phrased a certain way, thinking something is wrong/immoral/evil is "just disagreeing" with it from the point of view of its supporters.
Comparing something to something involving a known evil (like Nazi Germany) is not a logical fallacy unless the comparison is made in a fallacious sense. I was very clear that the commonality between this situation and Nazi Germany is that both of them were concerned with secrets, and, according to your argument, them being secrets is enough to justify punishing people to leak them, regardless of what the secret actually is.
You did make the comparison in a fallacious sense: it's hyperbole and you know it. Nothing about felony espionage charges is comparable to WWII war crimes. It's basically the "should an officer lie about hiding jews?" argument for Snowden.
And no, you don't break the law or break an oath of secrecy and steal classified documents just because you don't agree with them. The law isn't something you follow only when you agree with it, and we're not talking about exceptional circumstances as in Nazi Germany.
Hyperbole isn't fallacious; it a perfectly valid component of a reductio ad absurdum argument. My argument is against your original statement, which was that leaking secrets because you "just disagree" with them should be a criminal offense. My argument is that if you applied this universally, it would lead to idiotic situations.
The law is something you follow when you believe that it is either correct or wrong in minor enough ways that you can live with. You do not follow the law if you believe the law requires or legitimizes something that is horribly immoral. Just to make sure you don't take it the wrong way this time, I'm not saying Snowden is as serious as this, but merely that your argument makes no sense if applied universally: MLK broke the law numerous times and was jailed. Should he have followed the law even though he didn't agree with it? Amusingly, that's one of the lines of argument people used against him: that he should be patient and try to wait for the law to be amended in a gradual, indeterminate way.
I mean, I can swap Nuremberg for Soviet defectors, if you want. Should America have extradited them back to the USSR for trial?
If the US weren't at war with the USSR and if they would be guaranteed a fair trial and due process, yes.
What an instance of strong commitment to the rule of law! Even if the USSR was gonna give a defector a fair trial, there's no way in hell any Western nation would extradite them if the US had anything to say about it. I guess justice is only worth following when it's convenient, and not when you can do something unjust to aid your chance in an ideological war.
|
On July 18 2013 00:30 sc2superfan101 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 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.
ok I think you are missing my point here
my point is that Snowden was AFRAID so he left the country-god knows what he thought they would do with him it doesn't really matter because we will never know I'm just saying that he probably wasn't thinking about what it might look like if he leaves the country, he was just scared of what might happen to him
|
On July 18 2013 02:00 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 01:49 LegalLord wrote:Uh, nobody was tried for the genocide of an entire race, because nobody was individually responsible for it. People were tried for different offenses, ranging from illegal medical experimentation (technically not at Nuremberg) to being military commanders. There's a pretty big difference. Nobody was tried for it because you can't pin that on them. That's like saying Al Capone isn't responsible for gang violence and murdering dozens of people because the US couldn't pin it on him. It's just not true. If Al Capone orders Jim Bob to kill X, and Jim Bob does so, Jim Bob is guilty of murder. Al Capone is guilty of a crime, too, but it's not the murder itself.
Nonsense, Al Capone is guilty of tax evasion and tax evasion alone. Never mind that he personally shot quite a few people.
On July 18 2013 02:00 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +That aside, I'm pretty sure Snowden didn't leak information because he merely "didn't agree" with the NSA. I'm pretty sure he thought that what the NSA was doing was immoral. I didn't claim that it was as immoral as Nazi policies, but, again, you're missing the point: if you are saying that people shouldn't be allowed to leak secrets simply because they're secrets you happen to disagree with (which is literally what you said) then literally any secret can't be leaked ever, because, phrased a certain way, thinking something is wrong/immoral/evil is "just disagreeing" with it from the point of view of its supporters.
Comparing something to something involving a known evil (like Nazi Germany) is not a logical fallacy unless the comparison is made in a fallacious sense. I was very clear that the commonality between this situation and Nazi Germany is that both of them were concerned with secrets, and, according to your argument, them being secrets is enough to justify punishing people to leak them, regardless of what the secret actually is. Show nested quote +You did make the comparison in a fallacious sense: it's hyperbole and you know it. Nothing about felony espionage charges is comparable to WWII war crimes. It's basically the "should an officer lie about hiding jews?" argument for Snowden.
And no, you don't break the law or break an oath of secrecy and steal classified documents just because you don't agree with them. The law isn't something you follow only when you agree with it, and we're not talking about exceptional circumstances as in Nazi Germany. Hyperbole isn't fallacious; it a perfectly valid component of a reductio ad absurdum argument. My argument is against your original statement, which was that leaking secrets because you "just disagree" with them should be a criminal offense. My argument is that if you applied this universally, it would lead to idiotic situations. The law is something you follow when you believe that it is either correct or wrong in minor enough ways that you can live with. You do not follow the law if you believe the law requires or legitimizes something that is horribly immoral. Just to make sure you don't take it the wrong way this time, I'm not saying Snowden is as serious as this, but merely that your argument makes no sense if applied universally: MLK broke the law numerous times and was jailed. Should he have followed the law even though he didn't agree with it? Amusingly, that's one of the lines of argument people used against him: that he should be patient and try to wait for the law to be amended in a gradual, indeterminate way.
It is a criminal offense to steal data, it is a criminal offense to spill military secrets, and it is a criminal offense to conduct espionage. All of those are crimes for which he must answer.
MLK answered for the crimes he committed by going to prison. He didn't run away to China just because he wanted to avoid punishment. If Snowden is such a moral figure, then he should answer for his crimes, just as MLK did.
On July 18 2013 02:00 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +I mean, I can swap Nuremberg for Soviet defectors, if you want. Should America have extradited them back to the USSR for trial? Show nested quote +If the US weren't at war with the USSR and if they would be guaranteed a fair trial and due process, yes. What an instance of strong commitment to the rule of law! Even if the USSR was gonna give a defector a fair trial, there's no way in hell any Western nation would extradite them if the US had anything to say about it. I guess justice is only worth following when it's convenient, and not when you can do something unjust to aid your chance in an ideological war.
How is it bad to send a criminal back to his country to be tried? We do this all the time.
|
On July 18 2013 01:14 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 00:30 Shiori wrote: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. Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 20:07 FluffyBinLaden wrote: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.
for the nuremberg thing: of course it is completely different but then again it isn't because the one thing was obviously bad and so is the other... (if you don't agree that it was wrong we don't even need to continue the discussion)
as for the leaglity: maybe it isn't illegal in the USA (eventhough someone mentioned something with the 4th amendment but I'm not gonna say anything about that since I don't know about it well enough) but it IS illegal based on international law and based on the law of at least some of the countries that fell victim to the program
simply disregarding that fact seems completely ridiculous and quite offensive to me
|
On July 18 2013 02:08 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 02:00 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2013 01:49 LegalLord wrote:Uh, nobody was tried for the genocide of an entire race, because nobody was individually responsible for it. People were tried for different offenses, ranging from illegal medical experimentation (technically not at Nuremberg) to being military commanders. There's a pretty big difference. Nobody was tried for it because you can't pin that on them. That's like saying Al Capone isn't responsible for gang violence and murdering dozens of people because the US couldn't pin it on him. It's just not true. If Al Capone orders Jim Bob to kill X, and Jim Bob does so, Jim Bob is guilty of murder. Al Capone is guilty of a crime, too, but it's not the murder itself. Nonsense, Al Capone is guilty of tax evasion and tax evasion alone. Never mind that he personally shot quite a few people.
What does this have to do with what I said? Stop strawmanning.
On July 18 2013 02:00 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +That aside, I'm pretty sure Snowden didn't leak information because he merely "didn't agree" with the NSA. I'm pretty sure he thought that what the NSA was doing was immoral. I didn't claim that it was as immoral as Nazi policies, but, again, you're missing the point: if you are saying that people shouldn't be allowed to leak secrets simply because they're secrets you happen to disagree with (which is literally what you said) then literally any secret can't be leaked ever, because, phrased a certain way, thinking something is wrong/immoral/evil is "just disagreeing" with it from the point of view of its supporters.
Comparing something to something involving a known evil (like Nazi Germany) is not a logical fallacy unless the comparison is made in a fallacious sense. I was very clear that the commonality between this situation and Nazi Germany is that both of them were concerned with secrets, and, according to your argument, them being secrets is enough to justify punishing people to leak them, regardless of what the secret actually is. Show nested quote +You did make the comparison in a fallacious sense: it's hyperbole and you know it. Nothing about felony espionage charges is comparable to WWII war crimes. It's basically the "should an officer lie about hiding jews?" argument for Snowden.
And no, you don't break the law or break an oath of secrecy and steal classified documents just because you don't agree with them. The law isn't something you follow only when you agree with it, and we're not talking about exceptional circumstances as in Nazi Germany. Hyperbole isn't fallacious; it a perfectly valid component of a reductio ad absurdum argument. My argument is against your original statement, which was that leaking secrets because you "just disagree" with them should be a criminal offense. My argument is that if you applied this universally, it would lead to idiotic situations. The law is something you follow when you believe that it is either correct or wrong in minor enough ways that you can live with. You do not follow the law if you believe the law requires or legitimizes something that is horribly immoral. Just to make sure you don't take it the wrong way this time, I'm not saying Snowden is as serious as this, but merely that your argument makes no sense if applied universally: MLK broke the law numerous times and was jailed. Should he have followed the law even though he didn't agree with it? Amusingly, that's one of the lines of argument people used against him: that he should be patient and try to wait for the law to be amended in a gradual, indeterminate way.
It is a criminal offense to steal data, it is a criminal offense to spill military secrets, and it is a criminal offense to conduct espionage. All of those are crimes for which he must answer.
MLK answered for the crimes he committed by going to prison. He didn't run away to China just because he wanted to avoid punishment. If Snowden is such a moral figure, then he should answer for his crimes, just as MLK did.
MLK: "I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season"
He was arrested and jailed. He didn't leave the country because he was literally trying to fix things in the country. It's not like he could continue to lead protests and marches from Canada or something. Conversely, Snowden isn't trying to actually lead marches or protests or whatever. He released some data from a location he believed to be safe; given the US's track record of overreacting to anyone whose name is mentioned alongside "traitor," and given the pathetic history of massively fucking up things that are known to be huge problems (how long did it take to deal with Guantanamo Bay, again?) I'd say Snowden was within his rights to feel pessimistic about the chance of being treated poorly.
On July 18 2013 02:00 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +I mean, I can swap Nuremberg for Soviet defectors, if you want. Should America have extradited them back to the USSR for trial? Show nested quote +If the US weren't at war with the USSR and if they would be guaranteed a fair trial and due process, yes. What an instance of strong commitment to the rule of law! Even if the USSR was gonna give a defector a fair trial, there's no way in hell any Western nation would extradite them if the US had anything to say about it. I guess justice is only worth following when it's convenient, and not when you can do something unjust to aid your chance in an ideological war.
How is it bad to send a criminal back to his country to be tried? We do this all the time.
It's bad if the crime is something absurd. Would we extradite someone back to North Korea for telling us about the tyranny or revealing how many nukes they have?
|
On July 18 2013 02:17 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 02:08 LegalLord wrote:On July 18 2013 02:00 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2013 01:49 LegalLord wrote:Uh, nobody was tried for the genocide of an entire race, because nobody was individually responsible for it. People were tried for different offenses, ranging from illegal medical experimentation (technically not at Nuremberg) to being military commanders. There's a pretty big difference. Nobody was tried for it because you can't pin that on them. That's like saying Al Capone isn't responsible for gang violence and murdering dozens of people because the US couldn't pin it on him. It's just not true. If Al Capone orders Jim Bob to kill X, and Jim Bob does so, Jim Bob is guilty of murder. Al Capone is guilty of a crime, too, but it's not the murder itself. Nonsense, Al Capone is guilty of tax evasion and tax evasion alone. Never mind that he personally shot quite a few people. What does this have to do with what I said? Stop strawmanning.
Al Capone was guilty of far more than he was convicted for. So were many Nazis.
On July 18 2013 02:17 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 02:00 Shiori wrote:That aside, I'm pretty sure Snowden didn't leak information because he merely "didn't agree" with the NSA. I'm pretty sure he thought that what the NSA was doing was immoral. I didn't claim that it was as immoral as Nazi policies, but, again, you're missing the point: if you are saying that people shouldn't be allowed to leak secrets simply because they're secrets you happen to disagree with (which is literally what you said) then literally any secret can't be leaked ever, because, phrased a certain way, thinking something is wrong/immoral/evil is "just disagreeing" with it from the point of view of its supporters.
Comparing something to something involving a known evil (like Nazi Germany) is not a logical fallacy unless the comparison is made in a fallacious sense. I was very clear that the commonality between this situation and Nazi Germany is that both of them were concerned with secrets, and, according to your argument, them being secrets is enough to justify punishing people to leak them, regardless of what the secret actually is. You did make the comparison in a fallacious sense: it's hyperbole and you know it. Nothing about felony espionage charges is comparable to WWII war crimes. It's basically the "should an officer lie about hiding jews?" argument for Snowden.
And no, you don't break the law or break an oath of secrecy and steal classified documents just because you don't agree with them. The law isn't something you follow only when you agree with it, and we're not talking about exceptional circumstances as in Nazi Germany. Hyperbole isn't fallacious; it a perfectly valid component of a reductio ad absurdum argument. My argument is against your original statement, which was that leaking secrets because you "just disagree" with them should be a criminal offense. My argument is that if you applied this universally, it would lead to idiotic situations. The law is something you follow when you believe that it is either correct or wrong in minor enough ways that you can live with. You do not follow the law if you believe the law requires or legitimizes something that is horribly immoral. Just to make sure you don't take it the wrong way this time, I'm not saying Snowden is as serious as this, but merely that your argument makes no sense if applied universally: MLK broke the law numerous times and was jailed. Should he have followed the law even though he didn't agree with it? Amusingly, that's one of the lines of argument people used against him: that he should be patient and try to wait for the law to be amended in a gradual, indeterminate way. Show nested quote +It is a criminal offense to steal data, it is a criminal offense to spill military secrets, and it is a criminal offense to conduct espionage. All of those are crimes for which he must answer.
MLK answered for the crimes he committed by going to prison. He didn't run away to China just because he wanted to avoid punishment. If Snowden is such a moral figure, then he should answer for his crimes, just as MLK did. MLK: "I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season"
Now THAT is a strawman. Who said he should have done nothing? If he's willing to do the crime and the court is fair, then he should spend time in jail. Not because the law is fair, but because the law isn't something you ignore when it's not convenient.
On July 18 2013 02:17 Shiori wrote:He was arrested and jailed. He didn't leave the country because he was literally trying to fix things in the country. It's not like he could continue to lead protests and marches from Canada or something. Conversely, Snowden isn't trying to actually lead marches or protests or whatever. He released some data from a location he believed to be safe; given the US's track record of overreacting to anyone whose name is mentioned alongside "traitor," and given the pathetic history of massively fucking up things that are known to be huge problems (how long did it take to deal with Guantanamo Bay, again?) I'd say Snowden was within his rights to feel pessimistic about the chance of being treated poorly.
Snowden is a US citizen, and a civilian. He has rights under the Constitution that will be respected. He would receive a fair trial by law. The US only does judicial lynchings on foreigners suspected of terrorism.
On July 18 2013 02:17 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 02:00 Shiori wrote:I mean, I can swap Nuremberg for Soviet defectors, if you want. Should America have extradited them back to the USSR for trial? If the US weren't at war with the USSR and if they would be guaranteed a fair trial and due process, yes. What an instance of strong commitment to the rule of law! Even if the USSR was gonna give a defector a fair trial, there's no way in hell any Western nation would extradite them if the US had anything to say about it. I guess justice is only worth following when it's convenient, and not when you can do something unjust to aid your chance in an ideological war. Show nested quote +How is it bad to send a criminal back to his country to be tried? We do this all the time. It's bad if the crime is something absurd. Would we extradite someone back to North Korea for telling us about the tyranny or revealing how many nukes they have?
That's fair grounds upon which asylum should be granted. Sending someone back to a stable country to be tried in a reasonable court of law for crimes he actually did commit? That's not the same. Snowden will probably spend 5-10 years in prison if convicted, which I would argue is a fair punishment for the crime.
On July 18 2013 02:16 sVnteen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 01:14 LegalLord wrote:On July 18 2013 00:30 Shiori wrote: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: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. for the nuremberg thing: of course it is completely different but then again it isn't because the one thing was obviously bad and so is the other... (if you don't agree that it was wrong we don't even need to continue the discussion) as for the leaglity: maybe it isn't illegal in the USA (eventhough someone mentioned something with the 4th amendment but I'm not gonna say anything about that since I don't know about it well enough) but it IS illegal based on international law and based on the law of at least some of the countries that fell victim to the program simply disregarding that fact seems completely ridiculous and quite offensive to me
I suppose we'll end it at that, because i don't believe espionage on other countries or on suspected terrorists (with the caveat of proper rules of evidence) is wrong.
I am almost certain that your own country spies on everyone else just the same.
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
Sad day when Team Liquid has been invaded by /r/politics. The 75% of of you who answered yes to the OP's poll need to be hit over the head with a strong dose of perspective.
No, Snowden doesn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. The peace prize should go to someone who actually has done something to "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." There are many extraordinary individuals around the world who have dedicated their lives to peace, often in places where their work may have (and may still) cost them their lives. These people deserve the award. Not Snowden.
Sure there have been some poor choices in the past. Sure the award is political. Doesn't mean we should sully the award further by honoring an attention seeker who claims to speak from a position of moral authority while seeking asylum from a range of countries, some of whom simply fail to protect journalists and human rights, others who actively harass, intimidate, and kill journalists while abusing the human rights of their citizens.
Hypocrites and publicity hounds have gotten the award before, lets not let it happen again.
Seriously, this discussion makes me really angry. Get your heads out of your asses people.
Three Better candidates:
Democratic Voice of Burma, Radio Free Asia, Voice of America — The opening of Burma/Myanmar provides an occasion to honor the media organizations who have worked to spread information in areas where it has been actively repressed.
Denis Mukwege — Singlehandedly has treated thousands of rape victims in the DRC and is a powerful global speaker on the issue of rape in conflict areas. Gave a speech in December to the UN, provides an occasion to honor his incredible life work.
Gene Sharp — One of the world's foremost advocates for non-violent struggle. His writings have inspired movements from the independence of the Baltics from the USSR to the Occupy Wall Street movement.
|
On July 18 2013 02:17 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 02:08 LegalLord wrote:On July 18 2013 02:00 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2013 01:49 LegalLord wrote:Uh, nobody was tried for the genocide of an entire race, because nobody was individually responsible for it. People were tried for different offenses, ranging from illegal medical experimentation (technically not at Nuremberg) to being military commanders. There's a pretty big difference. Nobody was tried for it because you can't pin that on them. That's like saying Al Capone isn't responsible for gang violence and murdering dozens of people because the US couldn't pin it on him. It's just not true. If Al Capone orders Jim Bob to kill X, and Jim Bob does so, Jim Bob is guilty of murder. Al Capone is guilty of a crime, too, but it's not the murder itself. Nonsense, Al Capone is guilty of tax evasion and tax evasion alone. Never mind that he personally shot quite a few people. What does this have to do with what I said? Stop strawmanning. Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 02:00 Shiori wrote:That aside, I'm pretty sure Snowden didn't leak information because he merely "didn't agree" with the NSA. I'm pretty sure he thought that what the NSA was doing was immoral. I didn't claim that it was as immoral as Nazi policies, but, again, you're missing the point: if you are saying that people shouldn't be allowed to leak secrets simply because they're secrets you happen to disagree with (which is literally what you said) then literally any secret can't be leaked ever, because, phrased a certain way, thinking something is wrong/immoral/evil is "just disagreeing" with it from the point of view of its supporters.
Comparing something to something involving a known evil (like Nazi Germany) is not a logical fallacy unless the comparison is made in a fallacious sense. I was very clear that the commonality between this situation and Nazi Germany is that both of them were concerned with secrets, and, according to your argument, them being secrets is enough to justify punishing people to leak them, regardless of what the secret actually is. You did make the comparison in a fallacious sense: it's hyperbole and you know it. Nothing about felony espionage charges is comparable to WWII war crimes. It's basically the "should an officer lie about hiding jews?" argument for Snowden.
And no, you don't break the law or break an oath of secrecy and steal classified documents just because you don't agree with them. The law isn't something you follow only when you agree with it, and we're not talking about exceptional circumstances as in Nazi Germany. Hyperbole isn't fallacious; it a perfectly valid component of a reductio ad absurdum argument. My argument is against your original statement, which was that leaking secrets because you "just disagree" with them should be a criminal offense. My argument is that if you applied this universally, it would lead to idiotic situations. The law is something you follow when you believe that it is either correct or wrong in minor enough ways that you can live with. You do not follow the law if you believe the law requires or legitimizes something that is horribly immoral. Just to make sure you don't take it the wrong way this time, I'm not saying Snowden is as serious as this, but merely that your argument makes no sense if applied universally: MLK broke the law numerous times and was jailed. Should he have followed the law even though he didn't agree with it? Amusingly, that's one of the lines of argument people used against him: that he should be patient and try to wait for the law to be amended in a gradual, indeterminate way. Show nested quote +It is a criminal offense to steal data, it is a criminal offense to spill military secrets, and it is a criminal offense to conduct espionage. All of those are crimes for which he must answer.
MLK answered for the crimes he committed by going to prison. He didn't run away to China just because he wanted to avoid punishment. If Snowden is such a moral figure, then he should answer for his crimes, just as MLK did. MLK: "I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season" He was arrested and jailed. He didn't leave the country because he was literally trying to fix things in the country. It's not like he could continue to lead protests and marches from Canada or something. Conversely, Snowden isn't trying to actually lead marches or protests or whatever. He released some data from a location he believed to be safe; given the US's track record of overreacting to anyone whose name is mentioned alongside "traitor," and given the pathetic history of massively fucking up things that are known to be huge problems (how long did it take to deal with Guantanamo Bay, again?) I'd say Snowden was within his rights to feel pessimistic about the chance of being treated poorly. Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 02:00 Shiori wrote:I mean, I can swap Nuremberg for Soviet defectors, if you want. Should America have extradited them back to the USSR for trial? If the US weren't at war with the USSR and if they would be guaranteed a fair trial and due process, yes. What an instance of strong commitment to the rule of law! Even if the USSR was gonna give a defector a fair trial, there's no way in hell any Western nation would extradite them if the US had anything to say about it. I guess justice is only worth following when it's convenient, and not when you can do something unjust to aid your chance in an ideological war. Show nested quote +How is it bad to send a criminal back to his country to be tried? We do this all the time. It's bad if the crime is something absurd. Would we extradite someone back to North Korea for telling us about the tyranny or revealing how many nukes they have?
I must say you are better at finding good arguments that aren't as hyperbolic :D
I completely agree with you
|
On July 18 2013 02:31 tree.hugger wrote:
Sad day when Team Liquid has been invaded by /r/politics. The 75% of of you who answered yes to the OP's poll need to be hit over the head with a strong dose of perspective.
No, Snowden doesn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. The peace prize should go to someone who actually has done something to "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." There are many extraordinary individuals around the world who have dedicated their lives to peace, often in places where their work may have (and may still) cost them their lives. These people deserve the award. Not Snowden.
Sure there have been some poor choices in the past. Sure the award is political. Doesn't mean we should sully the award further by honoring an attention seeker who claims to speak from a position of moral authority while seeking asylum from a range of countries, some of whom simply fail to protect journalists and human rights, others who actively harass, intimidate, and kill journalists while abusing the human rights of their citizens.
Hypocrites and publicity hounds have gotten the award before, lets not let it happen again.
Seriously, this discussion makes me really angry. Get your heads out of your asses people.
Three Better candidates:
Democratic Voice of Burma, Radio Free Asia, Voice of America — The opening of Burma/Myanmar provides an occasion to honor the media organizations who have worked to spread information in areas where it has been actively repressed.
Denis Mukwege — Singlehandedly has treated thousands of rape victims in the DRC and is a powerful global speaker on the issue of rape in conflict areas. Gave a speech in December to the UN, provides an occasion to honor his incredible life work.
Gene Sharp — One of the world's foremost advocates for non-violent struggle. His writings have inspired movements from the independence of the Baltics from the USSR to the Occupy Wall Street movement.
well I think 90% of the people who voted just wanted to express their support for Snowden's actions and don't actually want him to get the nobel peace prize...
|
I'd like to see Snowden get the NPP. Bringing state secrets to light is not a criminal offense on a world scale. Should NK defectors be flown back to Best Korea to die horrible deaths, just because they pulled the curtain back a bit on the operations there that the government was trying to keep hush hush?
|
On July 18 2013 02:29 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 02:17 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2013 02:08 LegalLord wrote:On July 18 2013 02:00 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2013 01:49 LegalLord wrote:Uh, nobody was tried for the genocide of an entire race, because nobody was individually responsible for it. People were tried for different offenses, ranging from illegal medical experimentation (technically not at Nuremberg) to being military commanders. There's a pretty big difference. Nobody was tried for it because you can't pin that on them. That's like saying Al Capone isn't responsible for gang violence and murdering dozens of people because the US couldn't pin it on him. It's just not true. If Al Capone orders Jim Bob to kill X, and Jim Bob does so, Jim Bob is guilty of murder. Al Capone is guilty of a crime, too, but it's not the murder itself. Nonsense, Al Capone is guilty of tax evasion and tax evasion alone. Never mind that he personally shot quite a few people. What does this have to do with what I said? Stop strawmanning. Al Capone was guilty of far more than he was convicted for. So were many Nazis.
What does that have to do with what I said: that nobody was individually responsible for the genocide of an entire race?
On July 18 2013 02:17 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 02:00 Shiori wrote:That aside, I'm pretty sure Snowden didn't leak information because he merely "didn't agree" with the NSA. I'm pretty sure he thought that what the NSA was doing was immoral. I didn't claim that it was as immoral as Nazi policies, but, again, you're missing the point: if you are saying that people shouldn't be allowed to leak secrets simply because they're secrets you happen to disagree with (which is literally what you said) then literally any secret can't be leaked ever, because, phrased a certain way, thinking something is wrong/immoral/evil is "just disagreeing" with it from the point of view of its supporters.
Comparing something to something involving a known evil (like Nazi Germany) is not a logical fallacy unless the comparison is made in a fallacious sense. I was very clear that the commonality between this situation and Nazi Germany is that both of them were concerned with secrets, and, according to your argument, them being secrets is enough to justify punishing people to leak them, regardless of what the secret actually is. You did make the comparison in a fallacious sense: it's hyperbole and you know it. Nothing about felony espionage charges is comparable to WWII war crimes. It's basically the "should an officer lie about hiding jews?" argument for Snowden.
And no, you don't break the law or break an oath of secrecy and steal classified documents just because you don't agree with them. The law isn't something you follow only when you agree with it, and we're not talking about exceptional circumstances as in Nazi Germany. Hyperbole isn't fallacious; it a perfectly valid component of a reductio ad absurdum argument. My argument is against your original statement, which was that leaking secrets because you "just disagree" with them should be a criminal offense. My argument is that if you applied this universally, it would lead to idiotic situations. The law is something you follow when you believe that it is either correct or wrong in minor enough ways that you can live with. You do not follow the law if you believe the law requires or legitimizes something that is horribly immoral. Just to make sure you don't take it the wrong way this time, I'm not saying Snowden is as serious as this, but merely that your argument makes no sense if applied universally: MLK broke the law numerous times and was jailed. Should he have followed the law even though he didn't agree with it? Amusingly, that's one of the lines of argument people used against him: that he should be patient and try to wait for the law to be amended in a gradual, indeterminate way. Show nested quote +It is a criminal offense to steal data, it is a criminal offense to spill military secrets, and it is a criminal offense to conduct espionage. All of those are crimes for which he must answer.
MLK answered for the crimes he committed by going to prison. He didn't run away to China just because he wanted to avoid punishment. If Snowden is such a moral figure, then he should answer for his crimes, just as MLK did. MLK: "I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season"
Now THAT is a strawman. Who said he should have done nothing? If he's willing to do the crime and the court is fair, then he should spend time in jail. Not because the law is fair, but because the law isn't something you ignore when it's not convenient.
You can ignore the law when it's not just: "an unjust law is no law at all."
On July 18 2013 02:17 Shiori wrote:He was arrested and jailed. He didn't leave the country because he was literally trying to fix things in the country. It's not like he could continue to lead protests and marches from Canada or something. Conversely, Snowden isn't trying to actually lead marches or protests or whatever. He released some data from a location he believed to be safe; given the US's track record of overreacting to anyone whose name is mentioned alongside "traitor," and given the pathetic history of massively fucking up things that are known to be huge problems (how long did it take to deal with Guantanamo Bay, again?) I'd say Snowden was within his rights to feel pessimistic about the chance of being treated poorly.
Snowden is a US citizen, and a civilian. He has rights under the Constitution that will be respected. He would receive a fair trial by law. The US only does judicial lynchings on foreigners suspected of terrorism.
You do realize that having a fair trial (questionable what this would actually look like, especially since the invocation of States Secrets Privilege, which the US (ab)uses all the time would impede any real "fairness," but let's say he gets one) isn't everything, right? I mean, many countries, for example, extradite based on a number of criteria, including things that have to do with the actual validity of a law or with the punishments for it (e.g. many countries do not extradite if there is a chance of capital punishment being inflicted).
All that aside, maybe Snowden doesn't want to go to jail for a decade for doing something that hasn't been established to have hurt anybody and which exposed something that a lot of people think is pretty fucking awful.
(It's also cute that you imply that the US is extending Snowden some massive favour by not judicially lynching him as they would a foreigner, when in reality the US should never judicially lynch anyone at all).
On July 18 2013 02:17 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 02:00 Shiori wrote:I mean, I can swap Nuremberg for Soviet defectors, if you want. Should America have extradited them back to the USSR for trial? If the US weren't at war with the USSR and if they would be guaranteed a fair trial and due process, yes. What an instance of strong commitment to the rule of law! Even if the USSR was gonna give a defector a fair trial, there's no way in hell any Western nation would extradite them if the US had anything to say about it. I guess justice is only worth following when it's convenient, and not when you can do something unjust to aid your chance in an ideological war. Show nested quote +How is it bad to send a criminal back to his country to be tried? We do this all the time. It's bad if the crime is something absurd. Would we extradite someone back to North Korea for telling us about the tyranny or revealing how many nukes they have?
That's fair grounds upon which asylum should be granted. Sending someone back to a stable country to be tried in a reasonable court of law for crimes he actually did commit? That's not the same. Snowden will probably spend 5-10 years in prison if convicted, which I would argue is a fair punishment for the crime.
There's the rub: if you didn't think this was "a fair punishment for the crime," you'd be singing a different tune, just like Snowden is, and just like many people in this thread and worldwide are doing. The notion that any serious threat has been made to US national security with respect to the War on Terror is legendarily speculative, especially given that the War on Terror has gone on for long enough that I think it's no longer controversial to say it's an embarrassing failure which fucked up more things than it rectified.
But again: let's say North Korea guaranteed a defector a fair trial (i.e. he got a lawyer, an impartial tribunal, a jury, presumption of innocence, etc.). How the fuck would that make it okay to extradite someone to NK? Unless you're really being generous with the news, the reason North Korea's legal system sucks ass isn't because the people convicted are always innocent (lots of defectors or insurrectionists are actually working against the laws of NK) but because you get sentenced to death or forced labour for doing something that, while criminal, is pretty much not bad in the eyes of everyone in the West.
And that's the point: you're basically ignoring the fact that part of whether we consider a legal system legitimate/illegitimate is concerned with whether its laws actually make sense/are just, not just whether the trial itself is impartial and unbiased and follows the principles of fair trials...
If Snowden believes that what he did should not be a criminal act (on the grounds that what the NSA was/is doing is immoral as fuck and is something that the public deserves to know about) then why would he come back to the US to be tried when he doesn't acknowledge the legitimacy of the charges themselves?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
