A sociology professor in Sweden has recommended NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden for the Nobel Peace Prize. Snowden will not be eligible for the 2013 Nobel prize, but will be considered for 2014.
Professor Stefan Svallfors nominated Snowden for his 'heroic effort at great personal cost' shedding light on the expansive cyber-spying conducted by the U.S. National Security Agency. A nomination for Snowden would be symbolic because it shows 'that individuals can stand up for fundamental rights and freedoms.' He compares Snowden's act to the rulings in the Nuremberg trials of 1945 because 'I was just following orders' was not held as a viable excuse for the Nazis who carried out human rights atrocities. Svallfors also believes this will help the Peace Prize regain some of respect it lost after prematurely awarding Barack Obama the award in 2009.
Meanwhile, Snowden is still in hiding and is in dire need of a positive acceptance to his plea for asylum in many countries, including Russia and Norway.
What do you think TLers? Is his act of whistleblowing and exposing of government activities an act worthy of winning the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize?
Poll: Does Snowden deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?
Yes (1119)
75%
No (377)
25%
1496 total votes
Your vote: Does Snowden deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?
On July 15 2013 23:15 Whitewing wrote: If he'd stuck it out at home as an act of civil disobedience so he could actually have his day in court I'd say yes.
He'd have disappeared from the face of the Earth had he stayed in the US one second longer that he did.
On July 15 2013 23:15 Whitewing wrote: If he'd stuck it out at home as an act of civil disobedience so he could actually have his day in court I'd say yes.
He'd have disappeared from the face of the Earth had he stayed in the US one second longer that he did.
Yeah, he would have a fate much worse than the guy who leaked info to wikileaks.
If Obama was awarded it I don't see any reason why Snowden shouldn't get it too, I doubt he would be able to attend the ceremony but it would be funny to see Obama's reaction.
I don't know what the other candidates are, but abstractly I do think he deserves to be recognized for standing up to our government, which is violating our basic rights.
If Snowden were not so popular and considered as some kind of "people's hero" (for example, if some sensitive government information that had implications on everyday Americans had real world effects), would Nobel really accept his nomination? They'd accept it at the behest of the US government. US government on the one hand, popular opinion on the other.
He deserves it as much as anyone else. It's just a shitty gimmick, it doesn't really mean anything. But, if he wins it will certainly get more attention to the NSA thing and internet freedom, which is a good thing.
On July 15 2013 23:22 jello_biafra wrote: If Obama was awarded it I don't see any reason why Snowden shouldn't get it too, I doubt he would be able to attend the ceremony but it would be funny to see Obama's reaction.
I can't say I follow matters regarding the nobel peace prize very closely and really what goes into choosing a recipient but I personally would based on my currently not entirely well-informed knowledge agree that snowden should get it.
On July 15 2013 23:28 Nub4ever wrote: I can't say I follow matters regarding the nobel peace prize very closely and really what goes into choosing a recipient but I personally would based on my currently not entirely well-informed knowledge agree that snowden should get it.
One could say that after 2009 the nobel peace prize was reduced to a popularity contest.
The last to get it were Obama and the European Union. I don't see how this prize still holds any value, it's more of a political instrument and even if it wasn't I don't think Snowden promotes peace in any way with his actions.
I don't even understand how the disclosed information surprised so many people, it was pretty obvious already that secret services collected information without consent, you just had to look at Echelon, and media wrote of a NSA supercomputer being activated a few years ago, what were they supposed to do with such capacities if they only could handpick a few suspects with a legal permission? (the NSA lol)
I don't really think he deserves it. I think what he did is good, and everything, but with respect to promoting peace, I don't think Snowden's info has really done all that much. I'd much prefer the Peace Prize to be rewarded to those who actually put years and years of their live into actively creating peaceful/better societies. Snowden is a whistleblower and a man of great courage/integrity. But he isn't the next Gandhi.
That said, he definitely deserves it more than Obama did.
While I don't argue with Svallfors on the Nomination per se and his initial stetement as to his reasons, I do not think he should get the price. While what he has done is very courageous, there are some problems. The Nobel peace price seems to be some sort of political instrument these days. He even says it himself, "Svallfors also believes this will help the Peace Prize regain some of respect it lost after prematurely awarding Barack Obama the award in 2009". In my humble opinion, the price should re-focus on other social heroics rather then high-life politics. It's just stupid. Sure being spied on is dumb, but what of it? It's not like we have insane secrets. And assigned and educated personel should be able to handle it (much like psychologists in that regard). So in the end my point is: Give the price more a humanitarian, rather then a political focus
Honestly if Snowden really is only leaking the immoral shit the US of A is doing, then he deserves it. Mother of god, he deserves it. He sacrificed everything to do what he did. Few people can say as much.
I don't see it either... he revealed things that generated a shit storm, tensions across the world between a LOT of countries. How is this peace ?
Ok he revealed bad things about the us (but.. maybe i don't know all he revealed) but every country is spying on everyone (or i really would hope so. Because you never know what/who can hit you). So i don't see all the fuss. Maybe because i'm not american or maybe i didn't get all of what he did...
But really... for me he genereted tensions between countries. And that is no peace for me.
On July 15 2013 23:39 Vivax wrote: I don't even understand how the disclosed information surprised so many people, it was pretty obvious already that secret services collected information without consent, you just had to look at Echelon, and media wrote of a NSA supercomputer being activated a few years ago, what were they supposed to do with such capacities if they only could handpick a few suspects with a legal permission? (the NSA lol)
The difference now is that you are able to write or say something like that and people wont tell you to take your tinfoil hat and to seek help in the mental institution near you.
On July 15 2013 23:54 FFW_Rude wrote: I don't see it either... he revealed things that generated a shit storm, tensions across the world between a LOT of countries. How is this peace ?
Ok he revealed bad things about the us (but.. maybe i don't know all he revealed) but every country is spying on everyone (or i really would hope so. Because you never know what/who can hit you). So i don't see all the fuss. Maybe because i'm not american or maybe i didn't get all of what he did...
But really... for me he genereted tensions between countries. And that is no peace for me.
In the american eye, his contribution is much more about the fact he uncovered a network spying on Americans, not so much about the foreign implications.
I don't really see how he would really deserve a "peace Nobel prize" but the again I don't really see how he can be treated as a traitor either.
On July 15 2013 23:39 Vivax wrote: I don't even understand how the disclosed information surprised so many people, it was pretty obvious already that secret services collected information without consent, you just had to look at Echelon, and media wrote of a NSA supercomputer being activated a few years ago, what were they supposed to do with such capacities if they only could handpick a few suspects with a legal permission? (the NSA lol)
The difference now is that you are able to write or say something like that and people wont tell you to take your tinfoil hat and to seek help in the mental institution near you.
Exactly, there was a very funny Jon Stewart (actually John Oliver) bit called "good news! you're not paranoid" after this scandal was unraveled
On July 15 2013 23:39 Vivax wrote: I don't even understand how the disclosed information surprised so many people, it was pretty obvious already that secret services collected information without consent, you just had to look at Echelon, and media wrote of a NSA supercomputer being activated a few years ago, what were they supposed to do with such capacities if they only could handpick a few suspects with a legal permission? (the NSA lol)
The difference now is that you are able to write or say something like that and people wont tell you to take your tinfoil hat and to seek help in the mental institution near you.
On July 16 2013 00:00 Diavlo wrote: In the american eye, his contribution is much more about the fact he uncovered a network spying on Americans, not so much about the foreign implications.
Oh ok I did not know that. Thanks for the clarification.
If Obama can get a Nobel Peace Prize, then sure, everybody can. But I honestly dont think snowden deserves it. Im stuck in between he gave the public knowledge that the gov is watching them, but at the same time, gave headups to anybody planning to commit acts of terrorism.
On July 15 2013 23:39 Vivax wrote: I don't even understand how the disclosed information surprised so many people, it was pretty obvious already that secret services collected information without consent, you just had to look at Echelon, and media wrote of a NSA supercomputer being activated a few years ago, what were they supposed to do with such capacities if they only could handpick a few suspects with a legal permission? (the NSA lol)
The difference now is that you are able to write or say something like that and people wont tell you to take your tinfoil hat and to seek help in the mental institution near you.
Haha, spot on! I'm totally stealing this comment for all the future discussion where people bring this up
I would say he should get it. His insane level of sacrifice in the name of others' rights is an incredibly rare thing. I also like the political statement of this.
I'm probably one of the only people who thinks this, but I think Snowden should have stood trial for treason. As a US citizen, he is entitled to a fair trial at risk of the ruling being overturned.
The Latin American nations that offer asylum do so as a "screw you" to the US rather than because they support transparency in government. What really happened was a guy stole and revealed important details of a government program. PRISM isn't bad, but if he has the "insurance" files he claims he has, then revealing those is straight up treason. So no, he doesn't deserve any awards. Not that the Peace Prize is anything but a farce anymore.
I don't really think Snowden is Nobel Prize material, but after the joke with Obama in 2009 I should have lowered my requirements of the prize winner a long time ago.
...So the guy who thinks he should get it compares the US spying to Nazi atrocities, and jail to the murder of not only yourself but also the likely enslavement of your family. What? Snowden didn't do **** for peace, just look at his second leak about spying on Europe.
The nomination is absolutely pointless. Countless people can nominate anyone. And they do: Assange was nominated in the past. Bradley Manning was nominated. Practically every US president ever was nominated. And so was Stalin. And I bet that the NSA director is going to be nominated, too.
On July 16 2013 00:55 Conti wrote: And I bet that the NSA director is going to be nominated, too.
With all the terrorism the NSA prevented and deterred, I'd say he's done more for peace than Snowden.
I can't say I agree with the nomination, though I get that people are objecting to the secret programs where countries collect data. If they were public programs and the governments just said "look the internet is huge and sometimes we need to back and review something as it was at the time , so we have these data bases for that," people might be less upset.
Initially I would say no because the information doesn't (in short term) create peace it would only further encourage nations to do more cyber warfare. If the information released about the NSA actually helped stop this kind of stuff happening (which I don't think it did, it only escalated it) I think he might of deserved the nobel peace prize.
Although it seems like nobel peace prize is more about intentions than actual actions and what came of it.
On July 16 2013 00:55 Conti wrote: The nomination is absolutely pointless. Countless people can nominate anyone. And they do: Assange was nominated in the past. Bradley Manning was nominated. Practically every US president ever was nominated. And so was Stalin. And I bet that the NSA director is going to be nominated, too.
On July 16 2013 00:55 Conti wrote: And I bet that the NSA director is going to be nominated, too.
With all the terrorism the NSA prevented and deterred, I'd say he's done more for peace than Snowden.
I can't say I agree with the nomination, though I get that people are objecting to the secret programs where countries collect data. If they were public programs and the governments just said "look the internet is huge and sometimes we need to back and review something as it was at the time , so we have these data bases for that," people might be less upset.
I personally think that NSA-obtained data simply shouldn't be admissible as evidence for any crime other than those that it seeks to prevent. That would ease a lot of the important concerns.
On July 16 2013 00:55 Conti wrote: And I bet that the NSA director is going to be nominated, too.
With all the terrorism the NSA prevented and deterred, I'd say he's done more for peace than Snowden.
I can't say I agree with the nomination, though I get that people are objecting to the secret programs where countries collect data. If they were public programs and the governments just said "look the internet is huge and sometimes we need to back and review something as it was at the time , so we have these data bases for that," people might be less upset.
I personally think that NSA-obtained data simply shouldn't be admissible as evidence for any crime other than those that it seeks to prevent. That would ease a lot of the important concerns.
The problem with that is that any further evidence gained is not admissible as well, if it is obtained due to the non-admissible evidence(fruit from the poison tree rule). It is a huge problem with the internet and evidence(in a long string of huge problems with the internet and evidence) that needs to be dealt with. But making the nature and ways the database works public would go a long way to changing opinion on it.
And the poster above is correct that Hitler also was nominated for the peace prize. Oh how we forget.
On July 16 2013 01:13 Plansix wrote: And the poster above is correct that Hitler also was nominated for the peace prize. Oh how we forget.
Though the Hitler nomination was actually an ironic nomination, as far as I know. Still, it was a legitimate nomination, and it was ignored like all the other nominations that always get published widely.
On July 16 2013 01:13 Plansix wrote: And the poster above is correct that Hitler also was nominated for the peace prize. Oh how we forget.
Though the Hitler nomination was actually an ironic nomination, as far as I know. Still, it was a legitimate nomination, and it was ignored like all the other nominations that always get published widely.
I don't think they had hipster level ironic humor in 1939, but I can't remember the exact reason why he was nominated. But it should be pointed out that until Snowden wins, people should just ignore the nomination process.
On July 16 2013 01:13 Plansix wrote: And the poster above is correct that Hitler also was nominated for the peace prize. Oh how we forget.
Though the Hitler nomination was actually an ironic nomination, as far as I know. Still, it was a legitimate nomination, and it was ignored like all the other nominations that always get published widely.
I don't think they had hipster level ironic humor in 1939, but I can't remember the exact reason why he was nominated. But it should be pointed out that until Snowden wins, people should just ignore the nomination process.
Adolf Hitler was nominated once in 1939. Incredulous though it may seem today, the Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1939, by a member of the Swedish parliament, an E.G.C. Brandt. Apparently though, Brandt never intended the nomination to be taken seriously. Brandt was to all intents and purposes a dedicated antifascist, and had intended this nomination more as a satiric criticism of the current political debate in Sweden. ( At the time, a number of Swedish parliamentarians had nominated then British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlin for the Nobel Peace Prize, a nomination which Brandt viewed with great skepticism. ) However, Brandt's satirical intentions were not well received at all and the nomination was swiftly withdrawn in a letter dated 1 February 1939.
I am not really sure, it is makes more sense when the government of the NSA gets the "Nobel War Prize". Damn I meant the government of the USA. And they should deprive obama of the nobel peace price.
In my eyes it is evil to spy on allied governments, on its own people and the people of allied governments. The government should secure its people freedoms not take them away one by one.
Obamas change ... yeah and what a change it was. "The more things change, the more they stay the same" is a saying. Well applied to Obama, things must have change so horrendously much that they stayed exactly the same or got way worse.
With the internet data, you can make educated guesses on ones religion, political alignment, sexual interests and alignment and what not. Its just crazy not even the soviet union was that efficient, gods damn it, maybe we slaughtered the wrong pig oO.
On July 16 2013 01:13 Plansix wrote: And the poster above is correct that Hitler also was nominated for the peace prize. Oh how we forget.
Though the Hitler nomination was actually an ironic nomination, as far as I know. Still, it was a legitimate nomination, and it was ignored like all the other nominations that always get published widely.
I don't think they had hipster level ironic humor in 1939, but I can't remember the exact reason why he was nominated. But it should be pointed out that until Snowden wins, people should just ignore the nomination process.
Adolf Hitler was nominated once in 1939. Incredulous though it may seem today, the Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1939, by a member of the Swedish parliament, an E.G.C. Brandt. Apparently though, Brandt never intended the nomination to be taken seriously. Brandt was to all intents and purposes a dedicated antifascist, and had intended this nomination more as a satiric criticism of the current political debate in Sweden. ( At the time, a number of Swedish parliamentarians had nominated then British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlin for the Nobel Peace Prize, a nomination which Brandt viewed with great skepticism. ) However, Brandt's satirical intentions were not well received at all and the nomination was swiftly withdrawn in a letter dated 1 February 1939.
And I absolutely agree with the Snowden part.
All right then, I was not aware they issued nominations for "satiric criticism", though I don't think they make a habit of it.
All the more reason to ignore this until they issue the prize.
On July 16 2013 00:55 Conti wrote: And I bet that the NSA director is going to be nominated, too.
With all the terrorism the NSA prevented and deterred, I'd say he's done more for peace than Snowden.
I can't say I agree with the nomination, though I get that people are objecting to the secret programs where countries collect data. If they were public programs and the governments just said "look the internet is huge and sometimes we need to back and review something as it was at the time , so we have these data bases for that," people might be less upset.
I personally think that NSA-obtained data simply shouldn't be admissible as evidence for any crime other than those that it seeks to prevent. That would ease a lot of the important concerns.
The problem with that is that any further evidence gained is not admissible as well, if it is obtained due to the non-admissible evidence(fruit from the poison tree rule). It is a huge problem with the internet and evidence(in a long string of huge problems with the internet and evidence) that needs to be dealt with. But making the nature and ways the database works public would go a long way to changing opinion on it.
Nevertheless, I think it's a better solution than either crippling the NSA's ability to prevent domestic threats or allowing them to unfairly prosecute for crimes they shouldn't be able to know about. It's a legal mess, yes, but so is everything important enough to matter.
On July 15 2013 23:22 jello_biafra wrote: If Obama was awarded it I don't see any reason why Snowden shouldn't get it too, I doubt he would be able to attend the ceremony but it would be funny to see Obama's reaction.
Maybe the committee should convince Obama to pass down his prize to Snowden. Otherwise, it might look a little dumb in the history books:
2009: Nobel Peace Prize for the regime leader 2013: Nobel Peace Prize for the regime opponent
On July 16 2013 00:55 Conti wrote: And I bet that the NSA director is going to be nominated, too.
With all the terrorism the NSA prevented and deterred, I'd say he's done more for peace than Snowden.
I can't say I agree with the nomination, though I get that people are objecting to the secret programs where countries collect data. If they were public programs and the governments just said "look the internet is huge and sometimes we need to back and review something as it was at the time , so we have these data bases for that," people might be less upset.
The difference is that you're talking about looking at the public internet. These guys aren't just looking at the public internet, they're looking at very private things, too.
And because I wish the Peace Prize had higher standards, I'd have to say no to Snowden, although the does deserve to be commended.
Before I thought the Nobel had some prestige but after seeing who got them I realized it's a fantasy. That's for peace prize though, the one for the sciences is still somewhat credible and holds weight, no?
OT: If Snowden did something for peace than maybe, but what he really did was uncover a secret. The world isn't closer to achieving some kind of a peace thanks to him. That's why I voted, no.
Maybe Snowden should be commended for his efforts in the name of freedom, but I don't see how what he did has anything to do with "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."
One could say that after 2009 the nobel peace prize was reduced to a popularity contest.
That's pretty much what the poll in the OP indicates. "Does Snowden deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?" should mean "Has Snowden done the most for peace?" Instead, most of the people voting in the poll seem to believe that it reads, "Do you think Snowden did a noble thing?" which is irrelevant to the actual question.
Probably many others deserve this price more. BUT many many many others deserved it more than the EU or Barack Obama.
So I would like the statement, the Nobel Price Jury could send, if the give Snowden the Peace Price. He risks everything to reveal the unjustified undercover actions by an organisation that can only be described as uncontrolable. Even the government statement regarding the issue says that there may be an investigation, but the result will not be made public. What sense does this make? Will the USA stop spying on their own citizen? no. Will they stop spying on their "friends" and ally? no. It`s the other way around - the NSA just opened a new complex, which will allow them to spy better and more.
Wasn`t the american idial "bravery" once? Well, now it is power! How it is achieved does not matter. "Human rights" seem to be something one can ignore if you are powerful enough. It`s true. It`s also scary. This develoment heads towards a future written down in many stories - in all of them people fight against such a system. Even in reality: does eastern germany`s "Stasi" ring a bell? A government spying on their citizen is so unbelieveable dangerous, because it puts everybody under general suspicion and leaves room for interpretation in almost every case. I assume I could make a case against almost anybody if I had knowledge about everything that person ever wrote down, said on skype or telephone, what article he/she reads, what he/she looks for in the internet, whom he meets, etc. etc.
Snowden did something brave and therefore he should be protected by the people he did a service. Give him the damn price and hopefully start some kind of controversity. It`s about time!
On July 15 2013 23:34 -Archangel- wrote: Nobel prize lost all value after giving one to Arafat so nobody cares who gets it anymore. But if my vote counted for anything I say Yes.
On July 15 2013 23:28 Nub4ever wrote: I can't say I follow matters regarding the nobel peace prize very closely and really what goes into choosing a recipient but I personally would based on my currently not entirely well-informed knowledge agree that snowden should get it.
One could say that after 2009 the nobel peace prize was reduced to a popularity contest.
More like 1906. Several controversial picks throughout history: 1906, T Roosevelt and 1913, E Root were occupying several territories like Panama and Cuba because the people there were "uncivilized". 1951 Léon Jouhaux and 1969 ILO for workers right organisation? 1973 Henry Kissinger as a central brain behind the Vietnam war and the resolution even though he had to change side politically. 2 members of the committee left their position in protest against Kissinger (and the north korean Tho who refused to recieve the price)... 1974 Sean MacBride, a fine french-born chap taking to arms on the side of IRA! 1978 Al-Sadat making peace with Israel after starting the october war and later signing peace with Israel. Ultimately the same year Begin got it for the same treaty after being one of the people behind the six days war. This year the protests in Norway against especially Begin were so massive that they had to change venue... 1994 Arafat the leader of the armed guerilla organisations under PLO (long before terrorism was codified internationaly) and Perez, the man responsible for making Israel a nuclear power, made a weak peace treaty with the less undeserving Rabin as the third wheel on the gig. 2007 IPCC for political awareness of environmental protection (Al Gore was a coreciever of the price this year)? 2009 Obama was nominated before he was actually elected as president and he had no previously laudable achievements... 2012 The lukewarm political EU won in a time where the union is severely shrieking.
Those are just some of the worst. There are several other controversial picks if you dig deeper.
As for Snowden it is generally not a good thing to bring information to the table and it is also very strongly against the tradition to choose anyone with significant opposition in the western political sphere except when they are party to a peace treaty. Since Snowden is not part of politics and could even be painted as an enemy of some politicians (as opposed to rival or opponent), it is a pipe-dream to hope for a nobel peace price for him. Since he has actually engaged in political dealings, Assange is a better bet, but having a rape-case waiting is probably a deal-killer for him.
dotn really see how a rape case shuold effect elligability for peace prize - they ar eunreleated matters.
I think they should award it to the most openly militant terrorist group going ... give it to obama again for his great work in eradicating through any means deemed necessary those who are against back door anarchist opportunists (They have no value for law and will do anything they like to further their own agendas)
On July 16 2013 02:14 MrTortoise wrote: dotn really see how a rape case shuold effect elligability for peace prize - they ar eunreleated matters.
I think they should award it to the most openly militant terrorist group going ... give it to obama again for his great work in eradicating through any means deemed necessary those who are against back door anarchist opportunists (They have no value for law and will do anything they like to further their own agendas)
Um...wrong person. Snowden is not the head of wikileaks, who was accused of rape.
Also, the rest of your statement doesn't make a lot of sense.
On July 16 2013 01:55 farvacola wrote: Nope, he'll get what he deserves, and that isn't the Nobel Peace Prize.
For all the (american) people with a pitchfork in the one hand and a torch in the other, demanding that ES is prosecuted and lynched as a traitor, take a step back and look on how your great country started out and more importantly who the men and women were who founded it. I'm not sure, but I guess they were called traitors as well... If your are a traitor or a fighter for freedom always depends on the side you're standing on... "the land of the free and the home of the brave..." How free can you really be when your government knows literally everything about you and is able to violate your most fundamental rights without even being required to give a reason to anyone? Is it 1984 again? As for "home of the brave": ES definitely is brave, and probably loves his country and the principles it was founded on more than most of the people who now demand his head. Maybe he just couldn't stand what his country (or government) has become, but what do I know... maybe he just wanted to immortalize himself in the history books.
On July 16 2013 02:14 MrTortoise wrote: dotn really see how a rape case shuold effect elligability for peace prize - they ar eunreleated matters.
I think they should award it to the most openly militant terrorist group going ... give it to obama again for his great work in eradicating through any means deemed necessary those who are against back door anarchist opportunists (They have no value for law and will do anything they like to further their own agendas)
Um...wrong person. Snowden is not the head of wikileaks, who was accused of rape.
Also, the rest of your statement doesn't make a lot of sense.
I think he was replying to my comment.
The rest seems like sarcasm. He is appearantly not too happy about the hipocrisy in the history of the prize based on my admittedly biased examples.
On July 15 2013 23:15 Whitewing wrote: If he'd stuck it out at home as an act of civil disobedience so he could actually have his day in court I'd say yes.
agreed, although most of what he "leaked" was shit the media knew about since 2006 all it did was get media attention because there were leaks and now it became sexy to report on it.
Still it's not a protest to just call someone out then run the fuck away it takes much more courage to stand up and stand your ground on what you believe in then it is to just flee. Especially when it comes to matters of the state to which you live in, if your act of civil disobedience is to change the place to live for the better what's the point if you leave.
On July 15 2013 23:15 Whitewing wrote: If he'd stuck it out at home as an act of civil disobedience so he could actually have his day in court I'd say yes.
He'd have disappeared from the face of the Earth had he stayed in the US one second longer that he did.
Yeah, he would have a fate much worse than the guy who leaked info to wikileaks.
You likely to receive life in a federal prison(considering his trail is still going on but you probably didn't give a shit). Btw they never sough the death penalty for manning. Whoop de do, what do you expect when you do shit like that.
Yes he does. He is an incredible hero, not just for american citizens but for everyone around the world. Anyone that gives up their entire life to stop Tyranny is a hero in my books.
I voted "no" even though I wholeheartedly agree with Snowden's actions. In a sense, it would be a nice way to legitimize what he did. On the other hand, I don't know how his actions are worthy of any sort of "peace" prize.
There should be a nobel prize for people who put themselves in danger by standing up against the dirty actions of rich democracies which should handle their shit with more finesse.
If somehow, some sort of peace emerges from his work, then sure, give him peace nobels. But I don't see any fucking peace.
On July 16 2013 02:49 AnomalySC2 wrote: Yes he does. He is an incredible hero, not just for american citizens but for everyone around the world. Anyone that gives up their entire life to stop Tyranny is a hero in my books.
We will see, the public knew about the majority of the programs he released and they already had oversite. I'm not really impressed with the Tyranny argument, as I am not really being oppressed at this time.
I mean, I'm sure you could find a 100 other people who did reasonable cool thing you could award it to
but if he got it, it would bring plenty attention and symbolism to the whole surveillance issue, that seems like a favorable outcome to me. I think most people in the world would agree.
this thread is kind of laughable. Its not like hes the person who is leading the charge for greater privacy protections or actively protesting the usfg's policies. All he did was confirm that they do it, which is something that most people kind of knew already.
On July 16 2013 02:49 AnomalySC2 wrote: Yes he does. He is an incredible hero, not just for american citizens but for everyone around the world. Anyone that gives up their entire life to stop Tyranny is a hero in my books.
We will see, the public knew about the majority of the programs he released and they already had oversite. I'm not really impressed with the Tyranny argument, as I am not really being oppressed at this time.
Just because you aren't being oppressed at this time doesn't mean millions of others aren't in secret (it's very hard to prove at this point in time because everything is still being done in secret). It will continue to get worse as time goes on. If the NSA is left to grow it won't be long before the laws they're currently breaking will simply be removed and then everyone will know how it feels to be ruled under pure tyranny. They won't have to hide and lie at that point in time.
On July 16 2013 02:49 AnomalySC2 wrote: Yes he does. He is an incredible hero, not just for american citizens but for everyone around the world. Anyone that gives up their entire life to stop Tyranny is a hero in my books.
We will see, the public knew about the majority of the programs he released and they already had oversite. I'm not really impressed with the Tyranny argument, as I am not really being oppressed at this time.
Just because you aren't being oppressed at this time doesn't mean millions of others aren't in secret (it's very hard to prove at this point in time because everything is still being done in secret). It will continue to get worse as time goes on. If the NSA is left to grow it won't be long before the laws they're currently breaking will simply be removed and then everyone will know how it feels to be ruled under pure tyranny. They won't have to hide and lie at that point in time.
We could have said the exact thing about the CIA in the 50s and at any other point in history. Unless they have mind control, I'm not really into the whole "secret oppression" theory right now.
1. the Nobel peace prize is a joke, given who it was awarded to (especially lately) and for what reasons 2. Snowden did nothing to help with peace, instead he stirred up quite a ton of political trouble (airplane in Austria, US-Europe relations, US-Russian relations). For basically no practical gain for most people. 3. ??? 4. profit
I don't really care for it. Just like I don't really care for so many things that get overhyped by the attention-whoring media. Would have liked to be able to vote for "I don't really care for neither the prize nor the guy"
On July 16 2013 02:49 AnomalySC2 wrote: Yes he does. He is an incredible hero, not just for american citizens but for everyone around the world. Anyone that gives up their entire life to stop Tyranny is a hero in my books.
We will see, the public knew about the majority of the programs he released and they already had oversite. I'm not really impressed with the Tyranny argument, as I am not really being oppressed at this time.
Just because you aren't being oppressed at this time doesn't mean millions of others aren't in secret (it's very hard to prove at this point in time because everything is still being done in secret). It will continue to get worse as time goes on. If the NSA is left to grow it won't be long before the laws they're currently breaking will simply be removed and then everyone will know how it feels to be ruled under pure tyranny. They won't have to hide and lie at that point in time.
We could have said the exact thing about the CIA in the 50s and at any other point in history. Unless they have mind control, I'm not really into the whole "secret oppression" theory right now.
I don't even consider it a theory, that's how positive I am about it. But to each his own. I don't envy the people in power that have to make the big decisions, ignorance is definitely bliss.
On July 16 2013 02:49 AnomalySC2 wrote: Yes he does. He is an incredible hero, not just for american citizens but for everyone around the world. Anyone that gives up their entire life to stop Tyranny is a hero in my books.
We will see, the public knew about the majority of the programs he released and they already had oversite. I'm not really impressed with the Tyranny argument, as I am not really being oppressed at this time.
Just because you aren't being oppressed at this time doesn't mean millions of others aren't in secret (it's very hard to prove at this point in time because everything is still being done in secret). It will continue to get worse as time goes on. If the NSA is left to grow it won't be long before the laws they're currently breaking will simply be removed and then everyone will know how it feels to be ruled under pure tyranny. They won't have to hide and lie at that point in time.
We could have said the exact thing about the CIA in the 50s and at any other point in history. Unless they have mind control, I'm not really into the whole "secret oppression" theory right now.
Yeah, although i am kind of miffed about privacy invasions, at the end of the day its not really that harmful.
On July 16 2013 02:49 AnomalySC2 wrote: Yes he does. He is an incredible hero, not just for american citizens but for everyone around the world. Anyone that gives up their entire life to stop Tyranny is a hero in my books.
We will see, the public knew about the majority of the programs he released and they already had oversite. I'm not really impressed with the Tyranny argument, as I am not really being oppressed at this time.
Just because you aren't being oppressed at this time doesn't mean millions of others aren't in secret (it's very hard to prove at this point in time because everything is still being done in secret). It will continue to get worse as time goes on. If the NSA is left to grow it won't be long before the laws they're currently breaking will simply be removed and then everyone will know how it feels to be ruled under pure tyranny. They won't have to hide and lie at that point in time.
We could have said the exact thing about the CIA in the 50s and at any other point in history. Unless they have mind control, I'm not really into the whole "secret oppression" theory right now.
Yeah, although i am kind of miffed about privacy invasions, at the end of the day its not really that harmful.
I think you have more to fear from a random Microsoft tech snooping your skype calls than you do from the NSA. Its good to be aware of this stuff, but it is not the largest problem out there right now.
On July 15 2013 23:15 Whitewing wrote: If he'd stuck it out at home as an act of civil disobedience so he could actually have his day in court I'd say yes.
He'd have disappeared from the face of the Earth had he stayed in the US one second longer that he did.
On July 15 2013 23:15 Whitewing wrote: If he'd stuck it out at home as an act of civil disobedience so he could actually have his day in court I'd say yes.
He'd have disappeared from the face of the Earth had he stayed in the US one second longer that he did.
Touche.
Not really. We tend to try even state criminals here. When was the last time a US defector "disappeared from the face of the Earth"?
On July 16 2013 03:05 Kleinmuuhg wrote: Did this guy contribute to peace in the world?
As far as I see it, he fights for human rights, especially privacy, but not for peace.
Fighting for Human rights aganist the Earth powerhouse is enough fighting for the peace for a single human.
Mother Theresa won the same prize for doing humanitary work. Did she archieve "peace"? Sure she didn't. But she did more than enough for a single person.
On July 15 2013 23:15 Whitewing wrote: If he'd stuck it out at home as an act of civil disobedience so he could actually have his day in court I'd say yes.
He'd have disappeared from the face of the Earth had he stayed in the US one second longer that he did.
Touche.
Not really. We tend to try even state criminals here. When was the last time a US defector "disappeared from the face of the Earth"?
Please all he has to do is make himself known and then he's protected against disappearing off the face of the earth, running away made it so much more possible for him to just disappear. All the US would do would gum up his trail till people lost interest then try to get him to give up anything information he has then just put him up for trial going for sentencing him to life in prison; just like they did with manning.
On July 16 2013 02:49 AnomalySC2 wrote: Yes he does. He is an incredible hero, not just for american citizens but for everyone around the world. Anyone that gives up their entire life to stop Tyranny is a hero in my books.
We will see, the public knew about the majority of the programs he released and they already had oversite. I'm not really impressed with the Tyranny argument, as I am not really being oppressed at this time.
Just because you aren't being oppressed at this time doesn't mean millions of others aren't in secret (it's very hard to prove at this point in time because everything is still being done in secret). It will continue to get worse as time goes on. If the NSA is left to grow it won't be long before the laws they're currently breaking will simply be removed and then everyone will know how it feels to be ruled under pure tyranny. They won't have to hide and lie at that point in time.
We could have said the exact thing about the CIA in the 50s and at any other point in history. Unless they have mind control, I'm not really into the whole "secret oppression" theory right now.
He obviously doesn't know the FBI under the first director of the FBI far more violating of rights.
On July 15 2013 23:15 Whitewing wrote: If he'd stuck it out at home as an act of civil disobedience so he could actually have his day in court I'd say yes.
He'd have disappeared from the face of the Earth had he stayed in the US one second longer that he did.
Touche.
Not really. We tend to try even state criminals here. When was the last time a US defector "disappeared from the face of the Earth"?
We have openly put spies on trial before, including the two russian spies who stole the atomic bomb plans. There is no reason to believe that we wouldn't have put Snowden on trial.
On July 15 2013 23:15 Whitewing wrote: If he'd stuck it out at home as an act of civil disobedience so he could actually have his day in court I'd say yes.
He'd have disappeared from the face of the Earth had he stayed in the US one second longer that he did.
Touche.
Not really. We tend to try even state criminals here. When was the last time a US defector "disappeared from the face of the Earth"?
We have openly put spies on trial before, including the two russian spies who stole the atomic bomb plans. There is no reason to believe that we wouldn't have put Snowden on trial.
Do you consider Snowden a spy? And if so, a spy for whom exactly.
On July 15 2013 23:15 Whitewing wrote: If he'd stuck it out at home as an act of civil disobedience so he could actually have his day in court I'd say yes.
He'd have disappeared from the face of the Earth had he stayed in the US one second longer that he did.
Touche.
Not really. We tend to try even state criminals here. When was the last time a US defector "disappeared from the face of the Earth"?
We have openly put spies on trial before, including the two russian spies who stole the atomic bomb plans. There is no reason to believe that we wouldn't have put Snowden on trial.
Do you consider Snowden a spy? And if so, a spy for whom exactly.
That is not the point. The point is we have put real spies on open trial, so there is no reason why Snowden wouldn't be give a public trial as well.
On July 15 2013 23:15 Whitewing wrote: If he'd stuck it out at home as an act of civil disobedience so he could actually have his day in court I'd say yes.
He'd have disappeared from the face of the Earth had he stayed in the US one second longer that he did.
Touche.
Not really. We tend to try even state criminals here. When was the last time a US defector "disappeared from the face of the Earth"?
We have openly put spies on trial before, including the two russian spies who stole the atomic bomb plans. There is no reason to believe that we wouldn't have put Snowden on trial.
That's what I was trying to say. yOngKIN made it sound like we would secretly detain him, and I was trying to say that that has never been the case in the past.
On July 15 2013 23:15 Whitewing wrote: If he'd stuck it out at home as an act of civil disobedience so he could actually have his day in court I'd say yes.
He'd have disappeared from the face of the Earth had he stayed in the US one second longer that he did.
Touche.
Not really. We tend to try even state criminals here. When was the last time a US defector "disappeared from the face of the Earth"?
We have openly put spies on trial before, including the two russian spies who stole the atomic bomb plans. There is no reason to believe that we wouldn't have put Snowden on trial.
Do you consider Snowden a spy? And if so, a spy for whom exactly.
That is not the point. The point is we have put real spies on open trial, so there is no reason why Snowden wouldn't be give a public trial as well.
But do you consider him a spy? I'm just asking what it is you think he would be tried for if they got a hold of him.
On July 16 2013 02:58 packrat386 wrote: this thread is kind of laughable. Its not like hes the person who is leading the charge for greater privacy protections or actively protesting the usfg's policies. All he did was confirm that they do it, which is something that most people kind of knew already.
I agree in general, but to be fair he has put his life in danger and has basically become a martyr. A lot different than people trying to change things within the system.
On July 15 2013 23:15 Whitewing wrote: If he'd stuck it out at home as an act of civil disobedience so he could actually have his day in court I'd say yes.
He'd have disappeared from the face of the Earth had he stayed in the US one second longer that he did.
Touche.
Not really. We tend to try even state criminals here. When was the last time a US defector "disappeared from the face of the Earth"?
We have openly put spies on trial before, including the two russian spies who stole the atomic bomb plans. There is no reason to believe that we wouldn't have put Snowden on trial.
Do you consider Snowden a spy? And if so, a spy for whom exactly.
That is not the point. The point is we have put real spies on open trial, so there is no reason why Snowden wouldn't be give a public trial as well.
But do you consider him a spy? I'm just asking what it is you think he would be tried for if they got a hold of him.
No, I do not think he is a spy, as he does not work for another country. And you are misreading my statement. I am pointing out that people who steal secrets for other countries still get trials in open court. They don't disappear. There is no reason to believe that they wouldn't do the same for Snowden and he would face trial for whatever crimes they would charge him with.
On July 15 2013 23:15 Whitewing wrote: If he'd stuck it out at home as an act of civil disobedience so he could actually have his day in court I'd say yes.
He'd have disappeared from the face of the Earth had he stayed in the US one second longer that he did.
Touche.
Not really. We tend to try even state criminals here. When was the last time a US defector "disappeared from the face of the Earth"?
We have openly put spies on trial before, including the two russian spies who stole the atomic bomb plans. There is no reason to believe that we wouldn't have put Snowden on trial.
Do you consider Snowden a spy? And if so, a spy for whom exactly.
That is not the point. The point is we have put real spies on open trial, so there is no reason why Snowden wouldn't be give a public trial as well.
But do you consider him a spy? I'm just asking what it is you think he would be tried for if they got a hold of him.
while I wouldn't consider him a spy per se, they would almost certainly try him under the Espionage Act.
On July 15 2013 23:15 Whitewing wrote: If he'd stuck it out at home as an act of civil disobedience so he could actually have his day in court I'd say yes.
He'd have disappeared from the face of the Earth had he stayed in the US one second longer that he did.
Touche.
Not really. We tend to try even state criminals here. When was the last time a US defector "disappeared from the face of the Earth"?
We have openly put spies on trial before, including the two russian spies who stole the atomic bomb plans. There is no reason to believe that we wouldn't have put Snowden on trial.
Do you consider Snowden a spy? And if so, a spy for whom exactly.
That is not the point. The point is we have put real spies on open trial, so there is no reason why Snowden wouldn't be give a public trial as well.
But do you consider him a spy? I'm just asking what it is you think he would be tried for if they got a hold of him.
No, I do not think he is a spy, as he does not work for another country. And you are misreading my statement. I am pointing out that people who steal secrets for other countries still get trials in open court. They don't disappear. There is no reason to believe that they wouldn't do the same for Snowden and he would face trial for whatever crimes they would charge him with.
Spies for other countries get public trials because that way you can call that other country out. Someone who doesn't work for another country or relevant other party doesn't have this advantage; such affairs would be treated as silently as possible.
On July 15 2013 23:15 Whitewing wrote: If he'd stuck it out at home as an act of civil disobedience so he could actually have his day in court I'd say yes.
He'd have disappeared from the face of the Earth had he stayed in the US one second longer that he did.
Touche.
Not really. We tend to try even state criminals here. When was the last time a US defector "disappeared from the face of the Earth"?
We have openly put spies on trial before, including the two russian spies who stole the atomic bomb plans. There is no reason to believe that we wouldn't have put Snowden on trial.
Do you consider Snowden a spy? And if so, a spy for whom exactly.
That is not the point. The point is we have put real spies on open trial, so there is no reason why Snowden wouldn't be give a public trial as well.
But do you consider him a spy? I'm just asking what it is you think he would be tried for if they got a hold of him.
No, I do not think he is a spy, as he does not work for another country. And you are misreading my statement. I am pointing out that people who steal secrets for other countries still get trials in open court. They don't disappear. There is no reason to believe that they wouldn't do the same for Snowden and he would face trial for whatever crimes they would charge him with.
Spies for other countries get public trials because that way you can call that other country out. Someone who doesn't work for another country or relevant other party doesn't have this advantage; such affairs would be treated as silently as possible.
Except we currently have Manning on trial, who leaked documents in much the same way. There is no reason to believe that Snowden would not be tried in open court.
I just had this image in my head of Bob Barker on the set of "The Price is Right" yelling "Edward Snowden, COME ON DOWN!!" and Snowden is all excited and goes up to the podium and bids on the Nobel Prize for like $5,000 and then Obama bids $5,001 and gets it
I'm also confused as to how the nobel peace prize applies here. The government isn't really at war with its own citizens, all its doing is collecting information - apparently based mostly on its own judgement of what is appropriate to collect.
You would have to argue that he's preventing a future tyranny from occurring, and that that threat is more significant than the immediate threat from terrorist groups. But it just seems like too much of a stretch. If those were the standards you could apply, then virtually everyone could be nominated for a nobel peace prize. Climate scientists should be nominated, because through their awareness raising they are helping humanity react to climate change before it gets to a point where resources (wheat, fresh water) will run low, leading to war.
Not to detract from the obvious bravery it took for him to stand up to the government and reveal their secrets, but that's basically treason and betraying the trust they gave him.
How would you feel if you told your friend your biggest secret, and he went out and told everyone else?
I'm sure most people would feel it was "right" to reveal this, but on principle he should still be punished.
On July 16 2013 04:38 killa_robot wrote: Not to detract from the obvious bravery it took for him to stand up to the government and reveal their secrets, but that's basically treason and betraying the trust they gave him.
How would you feel if you told your friend your biggest secret, and he went out and told everyone else?
I'm sure most people would feel it was "right" to reveal this, but on principle he should still be punished.
That's backwards, since the government should be transparent, not individuals. It's more like how would you feel if you hid a camera in the girls' bathroom and your friend ratted you out?
On July 16 2013 04:38 killa_robot wrote: Not to detract from the obvious bravery it took for him to stand up to the government and reveal their secrets, but that's basically treason and betraying the trust they gave him.
How would you feel if you told your friend your biggest secret, and he went out and told everyone else?
I'm sure most people would feel it was "right" to reveal this, but on principle he should still be punished.
That's backwards, since the government should be transparent, not individuals. It's more like how would you feel if you hid a camera in the girls' bathroom and your friend ratted you out?
Then I'd hate and want to beat that friend, lol.
Still missing the principle though. The point is they trusted him with the info, and he betrayed their trust.
On July 16 2013 04:38 killa_robot wrote: Not to detract from the obvious bravery it took for him to stand up to the government and reveal their secrets, but that's basically treason and betraying the trust they gave him.
How would you feel if you told your friend your biggest secret, and he went out and told everyone else?
I'm sure most people would feel it was "right" to reveal this, but on principle he should still be punished.
That's backwards, since the government should be transparent, not individuals. It's more like how would you feel if you hid a camera in the girls' bathroom and your friend ratted you out?
Then I'd hate and want to beat that friend, lol.
Still missing the principle though. The point is they trusted him with the info, and he betrayed their trust.
Yeah, it's the difference between a rat and an informant. The single act is totally different from different views. In the end I think it's something along the line of the victors write history.
On July 16 2013 04:38 killa_robot wrote: Not to detract from the obvious bravery it took for him to stand up to the government and reveal their secrets, but that's basically treason and betraying the trust they gave him.
How would you feel if you told your friend your biggest secret, and he went out and told everyone else?
I'm sure most people would feel it was "right" to reveal this, but on principle he should still be punished.
If i had stolen something or murdered someone or if i did something else that's pretty bad i'd say he did the right thing. If you have to break the law to reveal much bigger shit there's no reason he needs to be punished. In the end governments are there to protect the citizens, not to spy on on them.
On July 15 2013 23:22 jello_biafra wrote: If Obama was awarded it I don't see any reason why Snowden shouldn't get it too, I doubt he would be able to attend the ceremony but it would be funny to see Obama's reaction.
I think I should get one too. I haven't killed any children with drone strikes so I'm already way ahead of Obama when it comes to peace
On July 16 2013 04:38 killa_robot wrote: Not to detract from the obvious bravery it took for him to stand up to the government and reveal their secrets, but that's basically treason and betraying the trust they gave him.
How would you feel if you told your friend your biggest secret, and he went out and told everyone else?
I'm sure most people would feel it was "right" to reveal this, but on principle he should still be punished.
If i had stolen something or murdered someone or if i did something else that's pretty bad i'd say he did the right thing. If you have to break the law to reveal much bigger shit there's no reason he needs to be punished. In the end governments are there to protect the citizens, not to spy on on them.
And if you truly believe that the act you committed was just then you stick around and tell the people your reasons for doing so and have your day in court. Not run away to an obvious rival (and an even much worse violator of said injustices) of a country you purportedly love in hopes of selling the information for big bucks.
And of course let's remember that currently, whether right or wrong, it is legal for the US governement to spy on its citizens. If Snowden truly didn't like it he should have tried to get the Patriot act revoked, not steal sensitive US information that other countries can greatly benefit from.
Ordinarily, I'd say definitely not. Is what he did good? Yes. Did it take a lot of courage and effort? Yes. But I don't think it qualifies for the Nobel Peace Prize.
But then again, given questionable winners recently, the criteria seem to have gone out the window. So whatever.
On July 16 2013 04:38 killa_robot wrote: Not to detract from the obvious bravery it took for him to stand up to the government and reveal their secrets, but that's basically treason and betraying the trust they gave him.
How would you feel if you told your friend your biggest secret, and he went out and told everyone else?
I'm sure most people would feel it was "right" to reveal this, but on principle he should still be punished.
If i had stolen something or murdered someone or if i did something else that's pretty bad i'd say he did the right thing. If you have to break the law to reveal much bigger shit there's no reason he needs to be punished. In the end governments are there to protect the citizens, not to spy on on them.
And if you truly believe that the act you committed was just then you stick around and tell the people your reasons for doing so and have your day in court. Not run away to an obvious rival (and an even much worse violator of said injustices) of a country you purportedly love in hopes of selling the information for big bucks.
And of course let's remember that currently, whether right or wrong, it is legal for the US governement to spy on its citizens. If Snowden truly didn't like it he should have tried to get the Patriot act revoked, not steal sensitive US information that other countries can greatly benefit from.
and people in nazi germany should have tried to change the laws that allowed hitler to be a dictator, right?
obviously there's about a 0% chance of him changing the patriot act.
On July 16 2013 04:38 killa_robot wrote: Not to detract from the obvious bravery it took for him to stand up to the government and reveal their secrets, but that's basically treason and betraying the trust they gave him.
How would you feel if you told your friend your biggest secret, and he went out and told everyone else?
I'm sure most people would feel it was "right" to reveal this, but on principle he should still be punished.
If i had stolen something or murdered someone or if i did something else that's pretty bad i'd say he did the right thing. If you have to break the law to reveal much bigger shit there's no reason he needs to be punished. In the end governments are there to protect the citizens, not to spy on on them.
And if you truly believe that the act you committed was just then you stick around and tell the people your reasons for doing so and have your day in court. Not run away to an obvious rival (and an even much worse violator of said injustices) of a country you purportedly love in hopes of selling the information for big bucks.
And of course let's remember that currently, whether right or wrong, it is legal for the US governement to spy on its citizens. If Snowden truly didn't like it he should have tried to get the Patriot act revoked, not steal sensitive US information that other countries can greatly benefit from.
and people in nazi germany should have tried to change the laws that allowed hitler to be a dictator, right?
obviously there's about a 0% chance of him changing the patriot act.
Yep the US and Nazi Germany are exactly the same government regimes.
The patriot act is unconstitutional and all one needs to do is bring evidence of the unconstitutionality of it to court. He had this information and could have worked with it confidentially in closed court sessions to start a case. Much more effective and he get to stay in the US without having to get assylum in Russia, Venezuela, or Bolivia, places where the human rights abuses by the governement are magnitudes of order worse then the US. Him running away to China (and yes HK is now China no matter what anyone says) of all the places kind of tipped his hand as to what his actual plans were.
On July 16 2013 04:38 killa_robot wrote: Not to detract from the obvious bravery it took for him to stand up to the government and reveal their secrets, but that's basically treason and betraying the trust they gave him.
How would you feel if you told your friend your biggest secret, and he went out and told everyone else?
I'm sure most people would feel it was "right" to reveal this, but on principle he should still be punished.
If i had stolen something or murdered someone or if i did something else that's pretty bad i'd say he did the right thing. If you have to break the law to reveal much bigger shit there's no reason he needs to be punished. In the end governments are there to protect the citizens, not to spy on on them.
And if you truly believe that the act you committed was just then you stick around and tell the people your reasons for doing so and have your day in court. Not run away to an obvious rival (and an even much worse violator of said injustices) of a country you purportedly love in hopes of selling the information for big bucks.
And of course let's remember that currently, whether right or wrong, it is legal for the US governement to spy on its citizens. If Snowden truly didn't like it he should have tried to get the Patriot act revoked, not steal sensitive US information that other countries can greatly benefit from.
and people in nazi germany should have tried to change the laws that allowed hitler to be a dictator, right?
obviously there's about a 0% chance of him changing the patriot act.
Yep the US and Nazi Germany are exactly the same government regimes.
The patriot act is unconstitutional and all one needs to do is bring evidence of the unconstitutionality of it to court. He had this information and could have worked with it confidentially in closed court sessions to start a case. Much more effective and he get to stay in the US without having to get assylum in Russia, Venezuela, or Bolivia, places where the human rights abuses by the governement are magnitudes of order worse then the US. Him running away to China (and yes HK is now China no matter what anyone says) of all the places kind of tipped his hand as to what his actual plans were.
If you read about the 3 other whistleblowers from NSA the last decade, you will see why he may have had far worse problems, had he stayed in USA. That is no excuse for visiting China and Russia, though. If he wanted a chance, he should have moved to southern america. The current situation is a mess.
Does it REALLY matter, though? Obama won it and that didn't really matter much, did it? I think it's just something that passerbys can site but there isn't much real merit to winning one?
The only thing i can think of is that other people who see it being awarded might want to support him more or something *shrug*
Seems like nowadays anyone can get a Nobel peace prize -_- it used to be so much more prestigious. So based on current society I would say he probably would deserve to get one.
The Noble peace prize given to "those who have '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.'" If anything, what Snowden is doing is the complete opposite.
On July 16 2013 09:32 papapanda wrote: The Noble peace prize given to "those who have '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.'" If anything, what Snowden is doing is the complete opposite.
How do you figure? Are you blaming HIM for the U.S. government spying on everybody???
On July 15 2013 23:17 yOngKIN wrote: [quote] He'd have disappeared from the face of the Earth had he stayed in the US one second longer that he did.
Touche.
Not really. We tend to try even state criminals here. When was the last time a US defector "disappeared from the face of the Earth"?
We have openly put spies on trial before, including the two russian spies who stole the atomic bomb plans. There is no reason to believe that we wouldn't have put Snowden on trial.
Do you consider Snowden a spy? And if so, a spy for whom exactly.
That is not the point. The point is we have put real spies on open trial, so there is no reason why Snowden wouldn't be give a public trial as well.
But do you consider him a spy? I'm just asking what it is you think he would be tried for if they got a hold of him.
No, I do not think he is a spy, as he does not work for another country. And you are misreading my statement. I am pointing out that people who steal secrets for other countries still get trials in open court. They don't disappear. There is no reason to believe that they wouldn't do the same for Snowden and he would face trial for whatever crimes they would charge him with.
Spies for other countries get public trials because that way you can call that other country out. Someone who doesn't work for another country or relevant other party doesn't have this advantage; such affairs would be treated as silently as possible.
Except we currently have Manning on trial, who leaked documents in much the same way. There is no reason to believe that Snowden would not be tried in open court.
Actually, there's no chance in hell he wouldn't get a trial, can you imagine the riots and protests if they didn't give him one?
On July 16 2013 09:32 papapanda wrote: The Noble peace prize given to "those who have '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.'" If anything, what Snowden is doing is the complete opposite.
How do you figure? Are you blaming HIM for the U.S. government spying on everybody???
No but officially exposing the shit does increase the tensions more than it reduces them. Exposing a government's authoritarian practices doesn't create peace, it creates unrest. At least over the short term.
But in a few months people will have stopped caring, and the government will continue to remove our rights and liberties. And when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown.
On July 15 2013 23:34 -Archangel- wrote: Nobel prize lost all value after giving one to Obama so nobody cares who gets it anymore. But if my vote counted for anything I say Yes.
I agree. I used to think that the nobel peace prize was the greatest honor in the world :/
On July 16 2013 08:48 tshi wrote: Does it REALLY matter, though? Obama won it and that didn't really matter much, did it? I think it's just something that passerbys can site but there isn't much real merit to winning one?
The only thing i can think of is that other people who see it being awarded might want to support him more or something *shrug*
I think the Nobel peace prize is more a lobbying effort from Stockholm that is legitimized in the eyes of the world by the other prizes. Obama got the nobel prize because the committee has very strong opinions regarding nuclear proliferation and, as the first American president in a long time with international credibility, giving Obama such well publicized recognition for his anti-nuclear proliferation views basically locks him into advocating that position forever.
Snowden will only get the prize if it aligns with their interests and he somehow gains the power to affect real change.
On July 15 2013 23:34 -Archangel- wrote: Nobel prize lost all value after giving one to Obama so nobody cares who gets it anymore. But if my vote counted for anything I say Yes.
I agree. I used to think that the nobel peace prize was the greatest honor in the world :/
Then you haven't been paying attention, there have been far worse choices than Obama during its history
On July 15 2013 23:34 -Archangel- wrote: Nobel prize lost all value after giving one to Obama so nobody cares who gets it anymore. But if my vote counted for anything I say Yes.
I agree. I used to think that the nobel peace prize was the greatest honor in the world :/
Then you haven't been paying attention, there have been far worse choices than Obama during its history
There are quite a few terrible choices but Obama certainly is in the running for the worst.
On July 15 2013 23:34 -Archangel- wrote: Nobel prize lost all value after giving one to Obama so nobody cares who gets it anymore. But if my vote counted for anything I say Yes.
I agree. I used to think that the nobel peace prize was the greatest honor in the world :/
Then you haven't been paying attention, there have been far worse choices than Obama during its history
There are quite a few terrible choices but Obama certainly is in the running for the worst.
I think the terrorists that received the award are a far worse choice than Obama (Arafat in particular).
On July 15 2013 23:34 -Archangel- wrote: Nobel prize lost all value after giving one to Obama so nobody cares who gets it anymore. But if my vote counted for anything I say Yes.
I agree. I used to think that the nobel peace prize was the greatest honor in the world :/
Then you haven't been paying attention, there have been far worse choices than Obama during its history
you're right, I haven't been paying attention to who wins the nobel peace prize so much, who else comes to mind? other than al gore
On July 15 2013 23:34 -Archangel- wrote: Nobel prize lost all value after giving one to Obama so nobody cares who gets it anymore. But if my vote counted for anything I say Yes.
I agree. I used to think that the nobel peace prize was the greatest honor in the world :/
Then you haven't been paying attention, there have been far worse choices than Obama during its history
There are quite a few terrible choices but Obama certainly is in the running for the worst.
I think the terrorists that received the award are a far worse choice than Obama (Arafat in particular).
Obama is responsible for bombing far more innocent civilians than Arafat. He is out terroristing the terrorists.
On July 15 2013 23:34 -Archangel- wrote: Nobel prize lost all value after giving one to Obama so nobody cares who gets it anymore. But if my vote counted for anything I say Yes.
I agree. I used to think that the nobel peace prize was the greatest honor in the world :/
Then you haven't been paying attention, there have been far worse choices than Obama during its history
There are quite a few terrible choices but Obama certainly is in the running for the worst.
I think the terrorists that received the award are a far worse choice than Obama (Arafat in particular).
Obama is responsible for bombing far more innocent civilians than Arafat. He is out terroristing the terrorists.
Terrorism is called collateral when you're winning.
On July 15 2013 23:22 jello_biafra wrote: If Obama was awarded it I don't see any reason why Snowden shouldn't get it too, I doubt he would be able to attend the ceremony but it would be funny to see Obama's reaction.
hahaha wow I didn't even think of this. Yes please
When they gave Obama the prize they were giving it out to snub the United States as they perceived it. Also to signal support for Obama who they thought was going to change the US into something more acceptable to them.
So I don't see why they shouldn't give Snowden the Peace Prize as he has so many similarities to Obama. His nomination alone is a deliberate insult to the bad United States. It sends a strong signal of support for the nominee's perceived political opinions. It is advocacy. The world will be safer if we support Barack Obama. The world will be safer if we support Edward Snowden. Also, America is bad and people like Barack and Edward will make it civilized again.
That is what the Peace Prize has been for a long time, the advocacy part. Perceived anti-Americanism is a relatively new (middle of the Cold War) addition to the criteria for nomination.
Another similarity is that just like Barack, Snowden's actions make a United States more acceptable to the left wing of the left wing of the Swedish parliament more of an impossibility.
Barack overseas is Bush on steroids except he doesn't stick around to at least try to fix the mess he made.
Snowden is more likely to strengthen Russia and China vis-a-vis the US and make the US more secretive and paranoid than achieve anything else, those 3 things hardly likely to make the world more stable.
So yes he should get the Peace Prize, another winner who did far more to increase the likelihood of instability and war than stability and peace. Also, America needs to change to be more like Europe in foreign affairs (weak and ineffectual any time guns are involved, except for France and former French colonies). That seems to be what wins you the prize these days, and Snowden definitely fits as much as Barack has shown himself to.
On July 15 2013 23:34 -Archangel- wrote: Nobel prize lost all value after giving one to Obama so nobody cares who gets it anymore. But if my vote counted for anything I say Yes.
I agree. I used to think that the nobel peace prize was the greatest honor in the world :/
Then you haven't been paying attention, there have been far worse choices than Obama during its history
There are quite a few terrible choices but Obama certainly is in the running for the worst.
I think the terrorists that received the award are a far worse choice than Obama (Arafat in particular).
Obama is responsible for bombing far more innocent civilians than Arafat. He is out terroristing the terrorists.
Henry Kissinger is responsible for more deaths than anyone on that list. Obama is NOT THAT BAD jesus christ you guys.
while i dont doubt the selection group takes a certain amount of pride in poking the united states of fucking freedom in the eye at any chance, snowden legitimately did something genuinely courageous to earn it. obama just was not bush, and was black. whoopie.
you can debate whehter or not what he did is deserving of it, but i do think it isn't very fair to compare snowden to obama.
On July 15 2013 23:34 -Archangel- wrote: Nobel prize lost all value after giving one to Obama so nobody cares who gets it anymore. But if my vote counted for anything I say Yes.
I agree. I used to think that the nobel peace prize was the greatest honor in the world :/
Then you haven't been paying attention, there have been far worse choices than Obama during its history
There are quite a few terrible choices but Obama certainly is in the running for the worst.
I think the terrorists that received the award are a far worse choice than Obama (Arafat in particular).
Obama is responsible for bombing far more innocent civilians than Arafat. He is out terroristing the terrorists.
Henry Kissinger is responsible for more deaths than anyone on that list. Obama is NOT THAT BAD jesus christ you guys.
On July 15 2013 23:34 -Archangel- wrote: Nobel prize lost all value after giving one to Obama so nobody cares who gets it anymore. But if my vote counted for anything I say Yes.
I agree. I used to think that the nobel peace prize was the greatest honor in the world :/
Then you haven't been paying attention, there have been far worse choices than Obama during its history
There are quite a few terrible choices but Obama certainly is in the running for the worst.
I think the terrorists that received the award are a far worse choice than Obama (Arafat in particular).
Obama is responsible for bombing far more innocent civilians than Arafat. He is out terroristing the terrorists.
Henry Kissinger is responsible for more deaths than anyone on that list. Obama is NOT THAT BAD jesus christ you guys.
Not even close
Give me a break. Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, East Timor, Obama can't compete with that death toll.
On July 15 2013 23:34 -Archangel- wrote: Nobel prize lost all value after giving one to Obama so nobody cares who gets it anymore. But if my vote counted for anything I say Yes.
I agree. I used to think that the nobel peace prize was the greatest honor in the world :/
Then you haven't been paying attention, there have been far worse choices than Obama during its history
There are quite a few terrible choices but Obama certainly is in the running for the worst.
I think the terrorists that received the award are a far worse choice than Obama (Arafat in particular).
Obama is responsible for bombing far more innocent civilians than Arafat. He is out terroristing the terrorists.
Henry Kissinger is responsible for more deaths than anyone on that list. Obama is NOT THAT BAD jesus christ you guys.
Not even close
Give me a break. Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, East Timor, Obama can't compete with that death toll.
Theres quite a large break between the more direct and indirect responsibility of the deaths in those conflicts.
On July 15 2013 23:34 -Archangel- wrote: Nobel prize lost all value after giving one to Obama so nobody cares who gets it anymore. But if my vote counted for anything I say Yes.
I agree. I used to think that the nobel peace prize was the greatest honor in the world :/
Then you haven't been paying attention, there have been far worse choices than Obama during its history
There are quite a few terrible choices but Obama certainly is in the running for the worst.
I think the terrorists that received the award are a far worse choice than Obama (Arafat in particular).
Obama is responsible for bombing far more innocent civilians than Arafat. He is out terroristing the terrorists.
Henry Kissinger is responsible for more deaths than anyone on that list. Obama is NOT THAT BAD jesus christ you guys.
Not even close
Give me a break. Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, East Timor, Obama can't compete with that death toll.
Theres quite a large break between the more direct and indirect responsibility of the deaths in those conflicts.
Kissinger was directly responsible for bombing Cambodia and Laos, personally sabotaged the peace talks in France during the Vietnam war. He also was responsible for assassinating elected leaders and putting people like Pinochet into power for flimsier reasons than Obama. I would say a large number of those deaths are on his head.
None of you (or I) would have the balls of screwing up an amazing salary and career (and life..) to speak against your employer that is violating the rights of every citizens.
He hasn't compromised the life of anyone `(he could have given the names of spies or other things). For all of this, I believe this man deserves all the respect we can give him.
And for those who dare speak against him, I'll just tell you that you deserve all the slavery and oppression you can get. If we were in the 1700s, you would deserve to be in the fields.
Nobel peace prize however? kind of irrelevant to peace if you ask me. However this man has sacrificed so much to simply tell the truth that the Americans are supposed to have, so he deserves recognition, whatever it is.
What happened to the Nobel Peace Prize, it used to be awarded to outstanding individuals after years of grueling work. Take Matti Ahtisaari as an example. He led several high stakes, high profile peace negotations. The IRA weapons dump, the peace between the Free Aceh movement and the Indonesian government, and, he spent nearly 4 years in Kosovo, negotiating the eventual independence of Kosovo. All of these positions were very dangerous hotspots which had a long history of armed conflict. Yet, he managed to successfully conclude all of his aims. With the independence of Kosovo achieved, he received the piece prize.
And now people want to give the Peace Prize to another whistleblower who has not brought any peace, just revealed privacy concerns and spying. Nothing has changed, and his best friends are the very Peace-loving Russia, China and Venezuela...
On July 16 2013 14:39 DeepElemBlues wrote: When they gave Obama the prize they were giving it out to snub the United States as they perceived it. Also to signal support for Obama who they thought was going to change the US into something more acceptable to them.
So I don't see why they shouldn't give Snowden the Peace Prize as he has so many similarities to Obama. His nomination alone is a deliberate insult to the bad United States. It sends a strong signal of support for the nominee's perceived political opinions. It is advocacy. The world will be safer if we support Barack Obama. The world will be safer if we support Edward Snowden. Also, America is bad and people like Barack and Edward will make it civilized again.
That is what the Peace Prize has been for a long time, the advocacy part. Perceived anti-Americanism is a relatively new (middle of the Cold War) addition to the criteria for nomination.
Another similarity is that just like Barack, Snowden's actions make a United States more acceptable to the left wing of the left wing of the Swedish parliament more of an impossibility.
Barack overseas is Bush on steroids except he doesn't stick around to at least try to fix the mess he made.
Snowden is more likely to strengthen Russia and China vis-a-vis the US and make the US more secretive and paranoid than achieve anything else, those 3 things hardly likely to make the world more stable.
So yes he should get the Peace Prize, another winner who did far more to increase the likelihood of instability and war than stability and peace. Also, America needs to change to be more like Europe in foreign affairs (weak and ineffectual any time guns are involved, except for France and former French colonies). That seems to be what wins you the prize these days, and Snowden definitely fits as much as Barack has shown himself to.
Those darn anti-american aliens! It is very cute. I wonder where you get those talking points from? They clearly know more about USA than EU, or at least I hope they do...
On July 16 2013 00:51 LegalLord wrote: I'm probably one of the only people who thinks this, but I think Snowden should have stood trial for treason. As a US citizen, he is entitled to a fair trial at risk of the ruling being overturned.
The Latin American nations that offer asylum do so as a "screw you" to the US rather than because they support transparency in government. What really happened was a guy stole and revealed important details of a government program. PRISM isn't bad, but if he has the "insurance" files he claims he has, then revealing those is straight up treason. So no, he doesn't deserve any awards. Not that the Peace Prize is anything but a farce anymore.
No he really shoudn't have. You did see what happened in the other big case of US wehistleblowing. This Bradley Manning guy, who disclosed some war crimes from Irak did not have the sense to flee as fast as possible. Result - he gets put in prison for about three years before the trial even starts, under questionable circumstances. The court will pledge him guilty, he's awaiting something like 16-20 years of jail. His life is fucking wasted!
In such a case you can expect a fair court trial, sure. I accept that everything went according to law. But the problem is that the laws itself are not fair in this case, so it would be idiotic to let yourself be condemned by unrightful laws for doing a good thing for humanity.
And for those who dare speak against him, I'll just tell you that you deserve all the slavery and oppression you can get. If we were in the 1700s, you would deserve to be in the fields. .
Good God man, you make him sound like some sort of Deity. I support what he did, but when people talk like this it seems very overzealous.
On July 16 2013 15:28 Ghanburighan wrote: What happened to the Nobel Peace Prize, it used to be awarded to outstanding individuals after years of grueling work. Take Matti Ahtisaari as an example. He led several high stakes, high profile peace negotations. The IRA weapons dump, the peace between the Free Aceh movement and the Indonesian government, and, he spent nearly 4 years in Kosovo, negotiating the eventual independence of Kosovo. All of these positions were very dangerous hotspots which had a long history of armed conflict. Yet, he managed to successfully conclude all of his aims. With the independence of Kosovo achieved, he received the piece prize.
And now people want to give the Peace Prize to another whistleblower who has not brought any peace, just revealed privacy concerns and spying. Nothing has changed, and his best friends are the very Peace-loving Russia, China and Venezuela...
Compared to USA, yes they are peace loving. How many wars have they started since the cold war ended? How many people outside their territory did they kill?
On July 16 2013 00:51 LegalLord wrote: I'm probably one of the only people who thinks this, but I think Snowden should have stood trial for treason. As a US citizen, he is entitled to a fair trial at risk of the ruling being overturned.
The Latin American nations that offer asylum do so as a "screw you" to the US rather than because they support transparency in government. What really happened was a guy stole and revealed important details of a government program. PRISM isn't bad, but if he has the "insurance" files he claims he has, then revealing those is straight up treason. So no, he doesn't deserve any awards. Not that the Peace Prize is anything but a farce anymore.
No he really shoudn't have. You did see what happened in the other big case of US wehistleblowing. This Bradley Manning guy, who disclosed some war crimes from Irak did not have the sense to flee as fast as possible. Result - he gets put in prison for about three years before the trial even starts, under questionable circumstances. The court will pledge him guilty, he's awaiting something like 16-20 years of jail. His life is fucking wasted!
In such a case you can expect a fair court trial, sure. I accept that everything went according to law. But the problem is that the laws itself are not fair in this case, so it would be idiotic to let yourself be condemned by unrightful laws for doing a good thing for humanity.
The circumstances for Manning are different. His leaks were far more extensive and he leaked as a soldier and therefore goes through military court.
Snowden is a civilian. That gets prosecuted differently. Military and civilian courts don't work the same way.
On July 16 2013 15:28 Ghanburighan wrote: What happened to the Nobel Peace Prize, it used to be awarded to outstanding individuals after years of grueling work. Take Matti Ahtisaari as an example. He led several high stakes, high profile peace negotations. The IRA weapons dump, the peace between the Free Aceh movement and the Indonesian government, and, he spent nearly 4 years in Kosovo, negotiating the eventual independence of Kosovo. All of these positions were very dangerous hotspots which had a long history of armed conflict. Yet, he managed to successfully conclude all of his aims. With the independence of Kosovo achieved, he received the piece prize.
And now people want to give the Peace Prize to another whistleblower who has not brought any peace, just revealed privacy concerns and spying. Nothing has changed, and his best friends are the very Peace-loving Russia, China and Venezuela...
Compared to USA, yes they are peace loving. How many wars have they started since the cold war ended? How many people outside their territory did they kill?
Right, they are known for their human rights records.
Apparently you are free to abuse your own citizens so long as you don't touch anyone else. North Korea is really peaceful as well, they barely even talk to anyone outside of their territory!
On July 16 2013 15:28 Ghanburighan wrote: What happened to the Nobel Peace Prize, it used to be awarded to outstanding individuals after years of grueling work. Take Matti Ahtisaari as an example. He led several high stakes, high profile peace negotations. The IRA weapons dump, the peace between the Free Aceh movement and the Indonesian government, and, he spent nearly 4 years in Kosovo, negotiating the eventual independence of Kosovo. All of these positions were very dangerous hotspots which had a long history of armed conflict. Yet, he managed to successfully conclude all of his aims. With the independence of Kosovo achieved, he received the piece prize.
And now people want to give the Peace Prize to another whistleblower who has not brought any peace, just revealed privacy concerns and spying. Nothing has changed, and his best friends are the very Peace-loving Russia, China and Venezuela...
Compared to USA, yes they are peace loving. How many wars have they started since the cold war ended? How many people outside their territory did they kill?
Calling Russia peace-loving is a bit heavy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechnya. When it comes to killing people China may not do as well, but chinese Taipei and the trade war in africa as well as economic speculation is hurting internationally. I do not know enough about Venezuela.
On July 16 2013 15:28 Ghanburighan wrote: What happened to the Nobel Peace Prize, it used to be awarded to outstanding individuals after years of grueling work. Take Matti Ahtisaari as an example. He led several high stakes, high profile peace negotations. The IRA weapons dump, the peace between the Free Aceh movement and the Indonesian government, and, he spent nearly 4 years in Kosovo, negotiating the eventual independence of Kosovo. All of these positions were very dangerous hotspots which had a long history of armed conflict. Yet, he managed to successfully conclude all of his aims. With the independence of Kosovo achieved, he received the piece prize.
And now people want to give the Peace Prize to another whistleblower who has not brought any peace, just revealed privacy concerns and spying. Nothing has changed, and his best friends are the very Peace-loving Russia, China and Venezuela...
Compared to USA, yes they are peace loving. How many wars have they started since the cold war ended? How many people outside their territory did they kill?
And for those who dare speak against him, I'll just tell you that you deserve all the slavery and oppression you can get. If we were in the 1700s, you would deserve to be in the fields. .
Good God man, you make him sound like some sort of Deity. I support what he did, but when people talk like this it seems very overzealous.
Well that has nothing to do with him, it has more to do about Americans' tendancy of never questioning their government. Since 2001, the amount of brainwashing has been incredible. in the name of national security, Americans have accepted ( read encouraged) the constant reduction of their rights and privileges. What's wrong with a man saying " I'm bringing this to the public to start a debate whether the NSA should do these kinds of things".?
On July 16 2013 15:28 Ghanburighan wrote: What happened to the Nobel Peace Prize, it used to be awarded to outstanding individuals after years of grueling work. Take Matti Ahtisaari as an example. He led several high stakes, high profile peace negotations. The IRA weapons dump, the peace between the Free Aceh movement and the Indonesian government, and, he spent nearly 4 years in Kosovo, negotiating the eventual independence of Kosovo. All of these positions were very dangerous hotspots which had a long history of armed conflict. Yet, he managed to successfully conclude all of his aims. With the independence of Kosovo achieved, he received the piece prize.
And now people want to give the Peace Prize to another whistleblower who has not brought any peace, just revealed privacy concerns and spying. Nothing has changed, and his best friends are the very Peace-loving Russia, China and Venezuela...
Compared to USA, yes they are peace loving. How many wars have they started since the cold war ended? How many people outside their territory did they kill?
Russia's involvement in Chechnya is entirely justified. It invaded to keep the peace and prevent terrorism. Done a fine job of it I might add.
While Chechnya is more of a terrorist threat than let's say Afghanistan, it sure doesn't help to send troops there to rape and pillage. Russia's involvement there has been very questionable.
And for those who dare speak against him, I'll just tell you that you deserve all the slavery and oppression you can get. If we were in the 1700s, you would deserve to be in the fields. .
Good God man, you make him sound like some sort of Deity. I support what he did, but when people talk like this it seems very overzealous.
Well that has nothing to do with him, it has more to do about Americans' tendancy of never questioning their government. Since 2001, the amount of brainwashing has been incredible. in the name of national security, Americans have accepted ( read encouraged) the constant reduction of their rights and privileges. What's wrong with a man saying " I'm bringing this to the public to start a debate whether the NSA should do these kinds of things".?
Absolutely nothing wrong. It's just that saying "Those who dare speak against him...deserve all the slavery and oppression you can get" seems entirely against what people like Snowden represent. If someone wants to decry his efforts, then they have the right to do so. To claim that such people deserve slavery is as bad, if not worse than the United States' "oppression."
a islamsitic terrorist in palestina got it, i dont know if snowden deserves it BUT he deserves it100% more then arrafat i mean even obama got it for ... well to be honest i like him but he not rly did anything did he ?
On July 16 2013 16:12 SkelA wrote: If Obama could get a nobel peace prize then i wouldnt be surprised that Snowden or even Kim Jong-un to get one.
This thing lost all credibility in my eyes long time ago.
I agree, how people like Obama get ranked along side Martin Luther King Jr and Mother Teresa is baffling
The fact that you rank Mother Teresa with Martin Luther King Jr is baffling
I suppose it depends on a persons values. Obama to me is just a guy a politician who wants to win votes, by any means necessary. What sacrifice has he ever made personal or otherwise , if order to improve life for a people on this planet?
As to Snowden in my opinion no he does not deserve a Nobel, but what he has done is very brave based off the facts i have seen so far
No, but those who created the DHS, those who currently run it and all those who had part in the spying deserve to be in jail for the rest of their miserable lives.
Barack Obama deserves to at least be impeached for signing the Patriot Act into law twice, starting a war in Libya without congress declaring a war under the command of NATO, for signing the NDAA into law, for outside of law passing carbon taxes, for signing the repeal of the US propaganda ban domestically, for Fast and Furious, etc....
Snowden should get it so that the history books can record the day the USA convicted a nobel peace prize winner with spying or whatever it is. Because they will probably get him one way or another.
Peace award? For saying a country is using the internet and programs to spy on people. Someone tell me a government across the world that isn't doing so? This is just the norm, people need to get used to it instead of moaning about it. If the Governments get so much pressure to stop, it just means it would be easier for other worst groups of people to spy on the information and get hold of it. I'd much rather the Government look at the information rather than some other groups who would actually use the information and steal it for identity theft through to emptying my bank account...Or even worst those dreaded phone calls you get where you can't understand the person on the other end and they are telling you they owe you money >.<
Anyway back to the point. A peace award for spouting something i knew about and everyone did at heart..no he doesn't deserve one
On July 16 2013 00:51 LegalLord wrote: I'm probably one of the only people who thinks this, but I think Snowden should have stood trial for treason. As a US citizen, he is entitled to a fair trial at risk of the ruling being overturned.
The Latin American nations that offer asylum do so as a "screw you" to the US rather than because they support transparency in government. What really happened was a guy stole and revealed important details of a government program. PRISM isn't bad, but if he has the "insurance" files he claims he has, then revealing those is straight up treason. So no, he doesn't deserve any awards. Not that the Peace Prize is anything but a farce anymore.
Just quoting this to let LegalLord and others of such mind know that they're not alone in this thought. Snowden should be tried for treason. Dissemination of classified material isn't permissible... should Julian Assange get a Nobel Peace Prize as well?
The NPP has been degraded over the years to a shadow of its former intent. For those not in the know, it was created by the guy that invented dynamite as a way to promote peace and atone for single-handedly revolutionizing the scale of war. Now it's merely the world's version of "+1".
On July 16 2013 00:51 LegalLord wrote: I'm probably one of the only people who thinks this, but I think Snowden should have stood trial for treason. As a US citizen, he is entitled to a fair trial at risk of the ruling being overturned.
The Latin American nations that offer asylum do so as a "screw you" to the US rather than because they support transparency in government. What really happened was a guy stole and revealed important details of a government program. PRISM isn't bad, but if he has the "insurance" files he claims he has, then revealing those is straight up treason. So no, he doesn't deserve any awards. Not that the Peace Prize is anything but a farce anymore.
Just quoting this to let LegalLord and others of such mind know that they're not alone in this thought. Snowden should be tried for treason. Dissemination of classified material isn't permissible... should Julian Assange get a Nobel Peace Prize as well?
The NPP has been degraded over the years to a shadow of its former intent. For those not in the know, it was created by the guy that invented dynamite as a way to promote peace and atone for single-handedly revolutionizing the scale of war. Now it's merely the world's version of "+1".
Just quoting the following to once again make my point about treason:
On July 16 2013 02:42 dr.fahrenheit wrote: For all the (american) people with a pitchfork in the one hand and a torch in the other, demanding that ES is prosecuted and lynched as a traitor, take a step back and look on how your great country started out and more importantly who the men and women were who founded it. I'm not sure, but I guess they were called traitors as well... If your are a traitor or a fighter for freedom always depends on the side you're standing on... "the land of the free and the home of the brave..." How free can you really be when your government knows literally everything about you and is able to violate your most fundamental rights without even being required to give a reason to anyone? Is it 1984 again? As for "home of the brave": ES definitely is brave, and probably loves his country and the principles it was founded on more than most of the people who now demand his head. Maybe he just couldn't stand what his country (or government) has become, but what do I know... maybe he just wanted to immortalize himself in the history books.
On July 16 2013 15:28 Ghanburighan wrote: What happened to the Nobel Peace Prize, it used to be awarded to outstanding individuals after years of grueling work. Take Matti Ahtisaari as an example. He led several high stakes, high profile peace negotations. The IRA weapons dump, the peace between the Free Aceh movement and the Indonesian government, and, he spent nearly 4 years in Kosovo, negotiating the eventual independence of Kosovo. All of these positions were very dangerous hotspots which had a long history of armed conflict. Yet, he managed to successfully conclude all of his aims. With the independence of Kosovo achieved, he received the piece prize.
And now people want to give the Peace Prize to another whistleblower who has not brought any peace, just revealed privacy concerns and spying. Nothing has changed, and his best friends are the very Peace-loving Russia, China and Venezuela...
Compared to USA, yes they are peace loving. How many wars have they started since the cold war ended? How many people outside their territory did they kill?
Russia's involvement in Chechnya is entirely justified. It invaded to keep the peace and prevent terrorism. Done a fine job of it I might add.
To the same degree are the american wars! Libya wasn't an american war, but rather a french/european war, the war in Iraq was justified by fears of possible upcoming state terrorism, the Afghanistan war was exactly to quell terrorists, the war in Kosovo was a "humanitarian war" to keep genocides from occuring, the Gulf war was an invasion war from Iraqi forces and thus legitimate oldschool target of war. The rest of what USA has done is negligible in scope compared to russias involvement in the former soviet block.
I do not think that Russia and USA are that different in terms of their military actions. The only difference is that Russia is operating in only the former east-block while USA is acting in the rest of the word + Russia and media coverage of wars is... While USA has had journalists in larger warzones ever since the Gulf War.
On July 15 2013 23:25 Arnstein wrote: He deserves it as much as anyone else. It's just a shitty gimmick, it doesn't really mean anything. But, if he wins it will certainly get more attention to the NSA thing and internet freedom, which is a good thing.
So what you say is that it doesn't mean anything, but if Snowden win it will mean something?
On July 15 2013 23:39 Vivax wrote: The last to get it were Obama and the European Union. I don't see how this prize still holds any value, it's more of a political instrument and even if it wasn't I don't think Snowden promotes peace in any way with his actions.
I don't even understand how the disclosed information surprised so many people, it was pretty obvious already that secret services collected information without consent, you just had to look at Echelon, and media wrote of a NSA supercomputer being activated a few years ago, what were they supposed to do with such capacities if they only could handpick a few suspects with a legal permission? (the NSA lol)
I think there are different aspects to why people reacted that disgusted. People who were interested always knew that the NSA is a huge criminal shithole which doesnt care about human rights and among the criminal organizations with the highest budget. It's nice for them to see it proven though, because so far it was more a theory made up of interviews, budget and a lot of conspiracy theories. People who were not interested or turned a blind eye to it just can't ignore sth that became so popular anymore.
I agree that the price really lost its impact, but it would be a nice gesture.
On the other hand it was always more of a political tool in the first place. Ghandi was mentioned several times in this thread, but he didnt do anything for peace, in fact he revolted. He just did it peacefully. But there were lots of sacrifices in the Inian-British-conflict, and Ghandi couldnt have not see that coming, he was part of revolts in Africa as well. Essentially Ghandi got it when he was popular because he was popular and an inspiring example in terms of morale and courage. I dont see how Snowden differs except for the fact that he is a single person and not leader/face of an organized movement.
@Traitorship: I dont see how showing others a crime you are part of is treason, unless you feel associated with the criminals. That's like saying "this minister is corrupt and i know it because i was working for him" is treason. Wrong can only happen as long as we tolerate it and Snowden didnt.
@supervision is nothing harmful: The normal chain of reasoning for this point is that the collection of information would be only harmful if the information got into the wrong hands. As long as the moral integer government has them, they are only going to use it against the bad guys.
But breaking human rights by supervising is a crime. The way this was organized also shows that this is nothing which they feel bad about or are doing just in one special case, but that they apparently dont feel any regret about organizing and committing crimes. Moral integrity of the government? The government is on its best way to become what it is supposed to fight.
Now that snowden has exposed the spying, did the spying stop or is it still going on? To say every country does this is bs btw, am pretty sure the secret services of europe dont read all the emails of every congresman and senator in the usa, maybe the nsa does but europe definatly does not. There is no other reason for this spying then to control and possibly blackmail people,and to identify thoose politicians who might not agree with the american way of international politics and get info wich could help fighting them. Its exactly the same spying on own citizens as the former east block did , or nixon during watergate. And its goal is control ,not to counter terrorism. Cant believe that people still justify this with the terrorism argument, you been brainwashed completely and are probably to young to know what it means to be free. It is a verry dangerous situation when a government gets full control over all its citizens.
Edward snowden should definatly get the noble peace price, if only to make up for the mistake of giving obama one.
Snowden wont get it though i am afraid, and there are other decent candidates. Maybe merkel or putin could get one, merkel for keeping the european union intact and sacrificing german national interest to do so, or putin for having kept peace (more or less) in the former ussr wich no doubt is no easy task.
On July 16 2013 15:28 Ghanburighan wrote: What happened to the Nobel Peace Prize, it used to be awarded to outstanding individuals after years of grueling work. Take Matti Ahtisaari as an example. He led several high stakes, high profile peace negotations. The IRA weapons dump, the peace between the Free Aceh movement and the Indonesian government, and, he spent nearly 4 years in Kosovo, negotiating the eventual independence of Kosovo. All of these positions were very dangerous hotspots which had a long history of armed conflict. Yet, he managed to successfully conclude all of his aims. With the independence of Kosovo achieved, he received the piece prize.
And now people want to give the Peace Prize to another whistleblower who has not brought any peace, just revealed privacy concerns and spying. Nothing has changed, and his best friends are the very Peace-loving Russia, China and Venezuela...
Compared to USA, yes they are peace loving. How many wars have they started since the cold war ended? How many people outside their territory did they kill?
Russia's involvement in Chechnya is entirely justified. It invaded to keep the peace and prevent terrorism. Done a fine job of it I might add.
To the same degree are the american wars! Libya wasn't an american war, but rather a french/european war, the war in Iraq was justified by fears of possible upcoming state terrorism, the Afghanistan war was exactly to quell terrorists, the war in Kosovo was a "humanitarian war" to keep genocides from occuring, the Gulf war was an invasion war from Iraqi forces and thus legitimate oldschool target of war. The rest of what USA has done is negligible in scope compared to russias involvement in the former soviet block.
I do not think that Russia and USA are that different in terms of their military actions. The only difference is that Russia is operating in only the former east-block while USA is acting in the rest of the word + Russia and media coverage of wars is... While USA has had journalists in larger warzones ever since the Gulf War.
that's a really bad comparison. chechnya is INSIDE russian territority, last time i checked libya, iraq, afghanistan wasn't US territority. iraq was a war based on faked evidence and therefore illegal and the first one was to take saddam the weapons US gave him to fight iran... russia behaves much more polite outside their territority then the US ever did... also: integrated journalists for war propagande are not exactly a GOOD thing to have... last time i read an article of an embedded journalist in syria (in german SPIEGEL) he was talking about how the group of rebels he was part of (which were all chechyans btw...) rallied under an Al-Quaeda flag (that's the GOOD side in syria according to the West) and was bombarding a village. the article went on about some whine that they badly need more weapons... that's so fucking absurd to read and just plain wrong.
On July 16 2013 17:37 radiatoren wrote: I do not think that Russia and USA are that different in terms of their military actions.
Agreed. Both are/were imperialists denounced by the former imperialists of Europe.
Well, what is Europe and who is denouncing? I think I stated the american reasons jovially. The Kosovo war and the war in Libya were europeans dragging USA into a war, so it is not like europe is a beacon for all that is just. USA is doing a lot of the dirty work europe could have been forced to do otherwise.
If you are implying that Russia is somewhat better than both USA and Europe, I do not agree. Russia has used quite some force in Gergia (protect a minority), Tajikistan (protect allies) and Chechen (fight terrorism) as the larger official "wars". A lot of smaller skirmishes with the anti-terrorist reason has been fought too, but again, the media coverage is so weak compared to Europe and USA.
On July 16 2013 15:28 Ghanburighan wrote: What happened to the Nobel Peace Prize, it used to be awarded to outstanding individuals after years of grueling work. Take Matti Ahtisaari as an example. He led several high stakes, high profile peace negotations. The IRA weapons dump, the peace between the Free Aceh movement and the Indonesian government, and, he spent nearly 4 years in Kosovo, negotiating the eventual independence of Kosovo. All of these positions were very dangerous hotspots which had a long history of armed conflict. Yet, he managed to successfully conclude all of his aims. With the independence of Kosovo achieved, he received the piece prize.
And now people want to give the Peace Prize to another whistleblower who has not brought any peace, just revealed privacy concerns and spying. Nothing has changed, and his best friends are the very Peace-loving Russia, China and Venezuela...
Compared to USA, yes they are peace loving. How many wars have they started since the cold war ended? How many people outside their territory did they kill?
Russia's involvement in Chechnya is entirely justified. It invaded to keep the peace and prevent terrorism. Done a fine job of it I might add.
To the same degree are the american wars! Libya wasn't an american war, but rather a french/european war, the war in Iraq was justified by fears of possible upcoming state terrorism, the Afghanistan war was exactly to quell terrorists, the war in Kosovo was a "humanitarian war" to keep genocides from occuring, the Gulf war was an invasion war from Iraqi forces and thus legitimate oldschool target of war. The rest of what USA has done is negligible in scope compared to russias involvement in the former soviet block.
I do not think that Russia and USA are that different in terms of their military actions. The only difference is that Russia is operating in only the former east-block while USA is acting in the rest of the word + Russia and media coverage of wars is... While USA has had journalists in larger warzones ever since the Gulf War.
that's a really bad comparison. chechnya is INSIDE russian territority, last time i checked libya, iraq, afghanistan wasn't US territority. iraq was a war based on faked evidence and therefore illegal and the first one was to take saddam the weapons US gave him to fight iran... russia behaves much more polite outside their territority then the US ever did... also: integrated journalists for war propagande are not exactly a GOOD thing to have... last time i read an article of an embedded journalist in syria (in german SPIEGEL) he was talking about how the group of rebels he was part of (which were all chechyans btw...) rallied under an Al-Quaeda flag (that's the GOOD side in syria according to the West) and was bombarding a village. the article went on about some whine that they badly need more weapons... that's so fucking absurd to read and just plain wrong.
Chechnya had independence. between the wars and was reoccupied by Russia because of the terrorists and the lack of official Chechen actions against them. As I mentioned above, France dragged USA into the Libyan war. Iraq was not USAs finest moment in history. Russia is not waging direct war against its former USSR allies, but they are definately not all friendly towards them! As for integrated journalism I agree that some, if not a majority of journalists are getting into some very concerning situations, but if you had to choose, would you honestly not want to know that the west is supporting al-quaeda affiliated fractions (and the "experts" agree that islamic extremists are a strong part of the war against Assad, so it is not only a journalist finding bad company with insignificant elements)?
On July 16 2013 17:37 radiatoren wrote: I do not think that Russia and USA are that different in terms of their military actions.
Agreed. Both are/were imperialists denounced by the former imperialists of Europe.
Well, what is Europe and who is denouncing? I think I stated the american reasons jovially. The Kosovo war and the war in Libya were europeans dragging USA into a war, so it is not like europe is a beacon for all that is just. USA is doing a lot of the dirty work europe could have been forced to do otherwise.
If you are implying that Russia is somewhat better than both USA and Europe, I do not agree. Russia has used quite some force in Gergia (protect a minority), Tajikistan (protect allies) and Chechen (fight terrorism) as the larger official "wars". A lot of smaller skirmishes with the anti-terrorist reason has been fought too, but again, the media coverage is so weak compared to Europe and USA.
Oh please, you really think Kosovo and Yugoslavian break up wasn't in United States interest? And Europe dragged them to war!? Any European country could have done what US did, but they didn't. Ask your self why.
You need to realize that no one will go to war if there is no benefits in it, alliances between governments don't exist, only same interests.
On July 16 2013 17:37 radiatoren wrote: I do not think that Russia and USA are that different in terms of their military actions.
Agreed. Both are/were imperialists denounced by the former imperialists of Europe.
Well, what is Europe and who is denouncing? I think I stated the american reasons jovially. The Kosovo war and the war in Libya were europeans dragging USA into a war, so it is not like europe is a beacon for all that is just. USA is doing a lot of the dirty work europe could have been forced to do otherwise.
If you are implying that Russia is somewhat better than both USA and Europe, I do not agree. Russia has used quite some force in Gergia (protect a minority), Tajikistan (protect allies) and Chechen (fight terrorism) as the larger official "wars". A lot of smaller skirmishes with the anti-terrorist reason has been fought too, but again, the media coverage is so weak compared to Europe and USA.
the russian have "wars" on right on their borders... that's totally different from the US which fights against terrorism on other CONTINENTS. also the georgia case had much to do with the US, if i have to remind you...
On July 16 2013 15:28 Ghanburighan wrote: What happened to the Nobel Peace Prize, it used to be awarded to outstanding individuals after years of grueling work. Take Matti Ahtisaari as an example. He led several high stakes, high profile peace negotations. The IRA weapons dump, the peace between the Free Aceh movement and the Indonesian government, and, he spent nearly 4 years in Kosovo, negotiating the eventual independence of Kosovo. All of these positions were very dangerous hotspots which had a long history of armed conflict. Yet, he managed to successfully conclude all of his aims. With the independence of Kosovo achieved, he received the piece prize.
And now people want to give the Peace Prize to another whistleblower who has not brought any peace, just revealed privacy concerns and spying. Nothing has changed, and his best friends are the very Peace-loving Russia, China and Venezuela...
Compared to USA, yes they are peace loving. How many wars have they started since the cold war ended? How many people outside their territory did they kill?
Russia's involvement in Chechnya is entirely justified. It invaded to keep the peace and prevent terrorism. Done a fine job of it I might add.
To the same degree are the american wars! Libya wasn't an american war, but rather a french/european war, the war in Iraq was justified by fears of possible upcoming state terrorism, the Afghanistan war was exactly to quell terrorists, the war in Kosovo was a "humanitarian war" to keep genocides from occuring, the Gulf war was an invasion war from Iraqi forces and thus legitimate oldschool target of war. The rest of what USA has done is negligible in scope compared to russias involvement in the former soviet block.
I do not think that Russia and USA are that different in terms of their military actions. The only difference is that Russia is operating in only the former east-block while USA is acting in the rest of the word + Russia and media coverage of wars is... While USA has had journalists in larger warzones ever since the Gulf War.
that's a really bad comparison. chechnya is INSIDE russian territority, last time i checked libya, iraq, afghanistan wasn't US territority. iraq was a war based on faked evidence and therefore illegal and the first one was to take saddam the weapons US gave him to fight iran... russia behaves much more polite outside their territority then the US ever did... also: integrated journalists for war propagande are not exactly a GOOD thing to have... last time i read an article of an embedded journalist in syria (in german SPIEGEL) he was talking about how the group of rebels he was part of (which were all chechyans btw...) rallied under an Al-Quaeda flag (that's the GOOD side in syria according to the West) and was bombarding a village. the article went on about some whine that they badly need more weapons... that's so fucking absurd to read and just plain wrong.
Chechnya had independence. between the wars and was reoccupied by Russia because of the terrorists and the lack of official Chechen actions against them. As I mentioned above, France dragged USA into the Libyan war. Iraq was not USAs finest moment in history. Russia is not waging direct war against its former USSR allies, but they are definately not all friendly towards them! As for integrated journalism I agree that some, if not a majority of journalists are getting into some very concerning situations, but if you had to choose, would you honestly not want to know that the west is supporting al-quaeda affiliated fractions (and the "experts" agree that islamic extremists are a strong part of the war against Assad, so it is not only a journalist finding bad company with insignificant elements)?
i never said russia was "friendly" to ex-USSR countries. but those countries are directly on their own borders and so they have legitimate interests in the stability of the region. with threats like chechnya and al-quaeda. in syria case every person that wants a secular state HAS to side with assad at least in THIS conflict. supporting al-quaeda with weapons (like the US wants) is as dumb and stupid as you can be. there really are no words for the bullshit that is happening with the media propaganda that wants to present giving weapons to so called "rebels" which are in fact al-quaeda terrorists as the right thing to do. history repeating itself again. reading up about iran/iraq in the '80s should disqualify any discussion about supplying terrorists with weapons.
I'm really surprised by the amount of Yes answers tbh.
I thought the information Snowden leaked was really obvious (and had been leaked in parts before). We already knew the US was having ISPs and major online companies store up to 2 years of information for government requests. We knew all 9 of those companies were complying with US information requests.
It's not remotely surprising (to me anyway) that they also had backend access to collect metadata.
On July 16 2013 19:12 dcemuser wrote: I'm really surprised by the amount of Yes answers tbh.
I thought the information Snowden leaked was really obvious (and had been leaked in parts before). We already knew the US was having ISPs and major online companies store up to 2 years of information for government requests. We knew all 9 of those companies were complying with US information requests.
It's not remotely surprising (to me anyway) that they also had backend access to collect metadata.
hey, captain hindsight. good to have you here. could you reveal your prove that you obviously have been holding on for such a long time of the amount of data the NSA saves in your and also other countries? not "surprising" is quite different from "proven guilty".
On July 15 2013 23:48 Silvanel wrote: Imagine the shitstorm. Obama would probably gave his own award back. Not that this award holds much prestige....
If Obama gave his award back then we might be able to see the award in a somewhat positive light once more. Giving it to Obama was ridiculous, it now means far less than it ever did.
As for Snowden... meh. I don't think he deserves it. Leaking that information was probably the right thing to do but the information itself is used to try and prevent terrorism/promote peace. Yes well done, no it's not the most important issue in the world right now.
On July 16 2013 19:27 Geefking wrote: Doesn't anyone else consider him well disloyal to his country. I would never do something like that for mine and im Australian
You have it backwards. Being loyal means having the courage to stand up for your country and against the government when it steps out of line, especially when it violates the constitution. In this line, Snowden is very loyal to his country.
On July 16 2013 20:03 Joedaddy wrote: I think the USA should get a nobel peace prize because it does so much to keep and make peace around the world. I'm not sure Snowden should though.
I am about as pro-american as they come but this is a troll right? Or am I missing a joke?
On July 16 2013 20:03 Joedaddy wrote: I think the USA should get a nobel peace prize because it does so much to keep and make peace around the world. I'm not sure Snowden should though.
what world are you living in, because in this one, the usa certainly does not keep and make peace around the world. or are you sarcastic? for snowden, he deserves a prize, but not the nobel peace prize.
He is not wrong, per se. US is currently involved in 15 peace-keeping operations:
- Western Sahara - Mali - Haiti - Congo - Darfur - Israel-Syria border - Cyprus - Lebanon - Abyei - South Sudan - Cote d'Ivoire - Kosovo - Liberia - India-Pakistan - And the general Middle-Eastern Truce observation operation.
I see why people might not think of the US as a particularly peaceful nation at the moment (having engaged in 2 wars, and also Libya and Syria in more or less extent) but one cannot just ignore the genuine efforts and casualties on the US side.
On July 16 2013 20:03 Joedaddy wrote: I think the USA should get a nobel peace prize because it does so much to keep and make peace around the world. I'm not sure Snowden should though.
what world are you living in, because in this one, the usa certainly does not keep and make peace around the world. or are you sarcastic? for snowden, he deserves a prize, but not the nobel peace prize.
I genuinely believe that the world would be more war ridden if it wasn't for the U.S. current status as hegemon.
I think he doesn't deserve it, simply because he didn't do anything for peace's sake. I know the Nobel Peace Prize to have lost a good part of its original meaning, but still.
Even if I admire this kind of whistleblower and I really appreciate what he did, it didn't prevent wars or anything like that. That's the point.
I voted No, I believe that the Snowden affair has brought more tension globally instead of promoting peace. If this scandal results into better regulation on Internet privacy he might deserve a spot on the short list but the way it seems now his actions are admirable but no where close to Nobel price worthy.
On July 16 2013 17:54 Rassy wrote: Now that snowden has exposed the spying, did the spying stop or is it still going on? To say every country does this is bs btw, am pretty sure the secret services of europe dont read all the emails of every congresman and senator in the usa, maybe the nsa does but europe definatly does not. There is no other reason for this spying then to control and possibly blackmail people,and to identify thoose politicians who might not agree with the american way of international politics and get info wich could help fighting them. Its exactly the same spying on own citizens as the former east block did , or nixon during watergate. And its goal is control ,not to counter terrorism. Cant believe that people still justify this with the terrorism argument, you been brainwashed completely and are probably to young to know what it means to be free. It is a verry dangerous situation when a government gets full control over all its citizens.
Edward snowden should definatly get the noble peace price, if only to make up for the mistake of giving obama one.
Snowden wont get it though i am afraid, and there are other decent candidates. Maybe merkel or putin could get one, merkel for keeping the european union intact and sacrificing german national interest to do so, or putin for having kept peace (more or less) in the former ussr wich no doubt is no easy task.
You obviously haven't kept up on Dutch news. Are you aware the Netherlands has the highest amount of phone taps per capita in the world. xs4all, one of the smaller providers has had 500 request for data this year. etc etc. Saying the NSA does this but Europe doesn't is technically correct because we don't have a well funded European intelligence bureau.On nation level though... Only difference so far is that we don't have a whistle blower coming out and no public debate about this topic.
I'm not sure why he deserves a peace prize for revealing information that most people already assumed was true of every government. It isn't even that big of a story in my opinion. Governments have always trampled on the rights of their citizens and always will, so what makes him even noteworthy? Because he confirmed it?
On July 16 2013 20:45 Redox wrote: Serious question:
Are the people that press yes in this vote trolling, or are they serious?
Just read the comments. Personally i think that what Snowden did is very inspiring, he gave up his whole life to show us that the western nations secret services have more criminal energy than every criminal organization they are supposed to fight.
On July 16 2013 20:48 hifriend wrote: I don't think he'll be awarded any peace prize simply for the fact that his leaks won't do anything for peace.
The Nobel Peace Prize was always more of an acknowledgement of great ethical deeds than going by the definition. Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Therese, UNICEF, Nelson Mandela are examples where that definition fits way better than the original one. I think he simply wont be awarded because it would be too much of an affront. It would mean going against the government of the USA and the European governments.
On July 16 2013 21:06 NoobSkills wrote: I'm not sure why he deserves a peace prize for revealing information that most people already assumed was true of every government. It isn't even that big of a story in my opinion. Governments have always trampled on the rights of their citizens and always will, so what makes him even noteworthy? Because he confirmed it?
Yes, exactly that he confirmed it. You cant fight that the "government tramples on the rights of their citizens" with the judiciary unless you have evidence.
On July 16 2013 20:03 Joedaddy wrote: I think the USA should get a nobel peace prize because it does so much to keep and make peace around the world. I'm not sure Snowden should though.
what world are you living in, because in this one, the usa certainly does not keep and make peace around the world. or are you sarcastic? for snowden, he deserves a prize, but not the nobel peace prize.
I genuinely believe that the world would be more war ridden if it wasn't for the U.S. current status as hegemon.
I agree, but i believe that the world would be a better place if the USA couldnt just do whatever they want.
On July 16 2013 20:45 Redox wrote: Serious question:
Are the people that press yes in this vote trolling, or are they serious?
Just read the comments. Personally i think that what Snowden did is very inspiring, he gave up his whole life to show us that the western nations secret services have more criminal energy than every criminal organization they are supposed to fight.
On July 16 2013 20:48 hifriend wrote: I don't think he'll be awarded any peace prize simply for the fact that his leaks won't do anything for peace.
The Nobel Peace Prize was always more of an acknowledgement of great ethical deeds than going by the definition. Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Therese, UNICEF, Nelson Mandela are examples where that definition fits way better than the original one.
On July 16 2013 21:06 NoobSkills wrote: I'm not sure why he deserves a peace prize for revealing information that most people already assumed was true of every government. It isn't even that big of a story in my opinion. Governments have always trampled on the rights of their citizens and always will, so what makes him even noteworthy? Because he confirmed it?
Yes, exactly that he confirmed it. You cant fight that the "government tramples on the rights of their citizens" with the judiciary unless you have evidence.
Sorry, but nothing will come of this at least not in any serious nature. They're doing the same thing they were doing right now and they will still be doing it 10 years from now. No major official will take a serious charge. Not saying I want to be right, but I probably will be.
On July 16 2013 20:20 Ghanburighan wrote: He is not wrong, per se. US is currently involved in 15 peace-keeping operations:
- Western Sahara - Mali - Haiti - Congo - Darfur - Israel-Syria border - Cyprus - Lebanon - Abyei - South Sudan - Cote d'Ivoire - Kosovo - Liberia - India-Pakistan - And the general Middle-Eastern Truce observation operation.
I see why people might not think of the US as a particularly peaceful nation at the moment (having engaged in 2 wars, and also Libya and Syria in more or less extent) but one cannot just ignore the genuine efforts and casualties on the US side.
Peacekeeping? Ahahahahaahha, what a joke, you man gotta become a comedian this is pure gold. Read state department memorandum 200. Peace missions, give me a break, give me a break.
Just the US government planing endless war and to steal resources from Asia, Africa and 3rd world countries to prevent their population from increasing, including covert and overt operations.
what makes thomas payne or martin luther or anyone else who speaks up noteworthy? what would drive you to overlook people who try to curb systematic abuse at their own risk? no, not everyone assumed western governments were changing legislation to monitor anyone at any time or were straightup conducting illegal surveillance activity. if that were the case, snowden wouldn't be fearful for his life and the well-being of his loved ones. the US government wouldn't be united to bring him to "justice" if the average US citizen knew these things. to answer your last question, confirming things and removing assumption/guesswork is important.
why wouldn't his leaks do anything for peace? what is everyone's definition of peace? do you think obama made this world more peaceful thus far (drones, gitmo, etc)?
On July 16 2013 20:45 Redox wrote: Serious question:
Are the people that press yes in this vote trolling, or are they serious?
Just read the comments. Personally i think that what Snowden did is very inspiring, he gave up his whole life to show us that the western nations secret services have more criminal energy than every criminal organization they are supposed to fight.
On July 16 2013 20:48 hifriend wrote: I don't think he'll be awarded any peace prize simply for the fact that his leaks won't do anything for peace.
The Nobel Peace Prize was always more of an acknowledgement of great ethical deeds than going by the definition. Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Therese, UNICEF, Nelson Mandela are examples where that definition fits way better than the original one.
On July 16 2013 21:06 NoobSkills wrote: I'm not sure why he deserves a peace prize for revealing information that most people already assumed was true of every government. It isn't even that big of a story in my opinion. Governments have always trampled on the rights of their citizens and always will, so what makes him even noteworthy? Because he confirmed it?
Yes, exactly that he confirmed it. You cant fight that the "government tramples on the rights of their citizens" with the judiciary unless you have evidence.
Sorry, but nothing will come of this at least not in any serious nature. They're doing the same thing they were doing right now and they will still be doing it 10 years from now. No major official will take a serious charge. Not saying I want to be right, but I probably will be.
Yes, i agree. But i think that the fact that most people would agree perfectly describes the problem of this generation (which i am part of). Which is that we dont fight for our right. In theory we should be all demonstrating, but we are way to cynic and lazy, the average person of my generation is about as political as my pet. If this goes on 1984 might really come true in a hundred years and it's our fault.
On July 16 2013 21:32 taintmachine wrote: what makes thomas payne or martin luther or anyone else who speaks up noteworthy? what would drive you to overlook people who try to curb systematic abuse at their own risk? no, not everyone assumed western governments were changing legislation to monitor anyone at any time or were straightup conducting illegal surveillance activity. if that were the case, snowden wouldn't be fearful for his life and the well-being of his loved ones. the US government wouldn't be united to bring him to "justice" if the average US citizen knew these things. to answer your last question, confirming things and removing assumption/guesswork is important.
why wouldn't his leaks do anything for peace? what is everyone's definition of peace? do you think obama made this world more peaceful thus far (drones, gitmo, etc)?
and peace and tension are not opposites, henkel.
Snowden is fearful because he committed treason I don't think that after he told the world what is up that our government is seriously going to have him killed. Why bother? The information is already out. Confirming things is necessary if something is going to be done about those things, but nothing will be done. Otherwise knowing factually what is going on only serves to piss people off because nothing will be done to stop this and even if something was done, would you believe them if they told you so?
On July 16 2013 20:45 Redox wrote: Serious question:
Are the people that press yes in this vote trolling, or are they serious?
Just read the comments. Personally i think that what Snowden did is very inspiring, he gave up his whole life to show us that the western nations secret services have more criminal energy than every criminal organization they are supposed to fight.
On July 16 2013 20:48 hifriend wrote: I don't think he'll be awarded any peace prize simply for the fact that his leaks won't do anything for peace.
The Nobel Peace Prize was always more of an acknowledgement of great ethical deeds than going by the definition. Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Therese, UNICEF, Nelson Mandela are examples where that definition fits way better than the original one.
On July 16 2013 21:06 NoobSkills wrote: I'm not sure why he deserves a peace prize for revealing information that most people already assumed was true of every government. It isn't even that big of a story in my opinion. Governments have always trampled on the rights of their citizens and always will, so what makes him even noteworthy? Because he confirmed it?
Yes, exactly that he confirmed it. You cant fight that the "government tramples on the rights of their citizens" with the judiciary unless you have evidence.
Sorry, but nothing will come of this at least not in any serious nature. They're doing the same thing they were doing right now and they will still be doing it 10 years from now. No major official will take a serious charge. Not saying I want to be right, but I probably will be.
Yes, i agree. But i think that the fact that most people would agree perfectly describes the problem of this generation (which i am part of). Which is that we dont fight for our right. In theory we should be all demonstrating, but we are way to cynic and lazy, the average person of my generation is about as political as my pet. If this goes on 1984 might really come true in a hundred years and it's our fault.
Honestly you can motivate those who live mostly good lives to go all out for something like this. Maybe it should piss more people off, but at this moment while we're all doing what we're doing nobody cares if the government is listening into the phone call because they have most everything they need, so why go against the system when everything is good, not perfect, but good.
On July 15 2013 23:34 -Archangel- wrote: Nobel prize lost all value after giving one to Obama so nobody cares who gets it anymore. But if my vote counted for anything I say Yes.
On July 16 2013 20:03 Joedaddy wrote: I think the USA should get a nobel peace prize because it does so much to keep and make peace around the world. I'm not sure Snowden should though.
On July 15 2013 23:28 Nub4ever wrote: I can't say I follow matters regarding the nobel peace prize very closely and really what goes into choosing a recipient but I personally would based on my currently not entirely well-informed knowledge agree that snowden should get it.
One could say that after 2009 the nobel peace prize was reduced to a popularity contest.
The Nobel peace price has always been sketchy, but you can start as early as you want, really: T. Roosevelt, E. Root, H. Kissinger, A. Sadat & M. Begin, A. Gonxha Bojaxhiu, N. Mandela, Y. Arafat, S. Peres & Y. Rabin, B. Obama,...
On July 16 2013 21:32 taintmachine wrote: what makes thomas payne or martin luther or anyone else who speaks up noteworthy? what would drive you to overlook people who try to curb systematic abuse at their own risk? no, not everyone assumed western governments were changing legislation to monitor anyone at any time or were straightup conducting illegal surveillance activity. if that were the case, snowden wouldn't be fearful for his life and the well-being of his loved ones. the US government wouldn't be united to bring him to "justice" if the average US citizen knew these things. to answer your last question, confirming things and removing assumption/guesswork is important.
why wouldn't his leaks do anything for peace? what is everyone's definition of peace? do you think obama made this world more peaceful thus far (drones, gitmo, etc)?
and peace and tension are not opposites, henkel.
Snowden is fearful because he committed treason I don't think that after he told the world what is up that our government is seriously going to have him killed. Why bother? The information is already out. Confirming things is necessary if something is going to be done about those things, but nothing will be done. Otherwise knowing factually what is going on only serves to piss people off because nothing will be done to stop this and even if something was done, would you believe them if they told you so?
On July 16 2013 20:45 Redox wrote: Serious question:
Are the people that press yes in this vote trolling, or are they serious?
Just read the comments. Personally i think that what Snowden did is very inspiring, he gave up his whole life to show us that the western nations secret services have more criminal energy than every criminal organization they are supposed to fight.
On July 16 2013 20:48 hifriend wrote: I don't think he'll be awarded any peace prize simply for the fact that his leaks won't do anything for peace.
The Nobel Peace Prize was always more of an acknowledgement of great ethical deeds than going by the definition. Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Therese, UNICEF, Nelson Mandela are examples where that definition fits way better than the original one.
On July 16 2013 21:06 NoobSkills wrote: I'm not sure why he deserves a peace prize for revealing information that most people already assumed was true of every government. It isn't even that big of a story in my opinion. Governments have always trampled on the rights of their citizens and always will, so what makes him even noteworthy? Because he confirmed it?
Yes, exactly that he confirmed it. You cant fight that the "government tramples on the rights of their citizens" with the judiciary unless you have evidence.
Sorry, but nothing will come of this at least not in any serious nature. They're doing the same thing they were doing right now and they will still be doing it 10 years from now. No major official will take a serious charge. Not saying I want to be right, but I probably will be.
Yes, i agree. But i think that the fact that most people would agree perfectly describes the problem of this generation (which i am part of). Which is that we dont fight for our right. In theory we should be all demonstrating, but we are way to cynic and lazy, the average person of my generation is about as political as my pet. If this goes on 1984 might really come true in a hundred years and it's our fault.
Honestly you can motivate those who live mostly good lives to go all out for something like this. Maybe it should piss more people off, but at this moment while we're all doing what we're doing nobody cares if the government is listening into the phone call because they have most everything they need, so why go against the system when everything is good, not perfect, but good.
Yes, i agree about the having it to good to move part. But i cant accept a government that is doing stuff that is fundamentally wrong on a big scale, I have seen how state security prisons and concentration camps look like (just the "ruins"). I doubt that the hippie generation (which had it good too, let's be honest) would have acted the same way, we have just grown to spoiled. I think we are on the best way to a two class system of servants of the state who can do whatever they want and normal person who ends up without basic human rights. And if the government knows everything about everyone they can just blackmail people who could lead a protest movement.
I disagree on the part with Snowden though, they will kill him just to make an example. At the moment they have to many employees who are leaking informations and i cant imagine that they are happy about that.
I do think that Snowden did a good thing. Isn't it a good indication that he had to flee his own country in fear of prosecution by the government, yet the countries he flees to don't feel the necessity to deliver him? I think in a decade or two history will smile upon him.
At this point, the Nobel Peace Prize is garbage and mostly given out to political figures with risky positions favoring peace but generally obnoxious, self-serving, and megalomaniacal positions otherwise. If you win the Nobel Peace Prize, you mostly stand among a spotty crowd. A few, however, are individuals deserving of reward and receive the Peace Prize, but I don't think that's what the prize is really aimed at.
I think he's pretty awesome for his actions, but no, giving him the peace prize would be silly. Though not as silly as giving it to Obama...so...errr.....
On July 16 2013 21:32 taintmachine wrote: what makes thomas payne or martin luther or anyone else who speaks up noteworthy? what would drive you to overlook people who try to curb systematic abuse at their own risk? no, not everyone assumed western governments were changing legislation to monitor anyone at any time or were straightup conducting illegal surveillance activity. if that were the case, snowden wouldn't be fearful for his life and the well-being of his loved ones. the US government wouldn't be united to bring him to "justice" if the average US citizen knew these things. to answer your last question, confirming things and removing assumption/guesswork is important.
why wouldn't his leaks do anything for peace? what is everyone's definition of peace? do you think obama made this world more peaceful thus far (drones, gitmo, etc)?
and peace and tension are not opposites, henkel.
Snowden is fearful because he committed treason I don't think that after he told the world what is up that our government is seriously going to have him killed. Why bother? The information is already out. Confirming things is necessary if something is going to be done about those things, but nothing will be done. Otherwise knowing factually what is going on only serves to piss people off because nothing will be done to stop this and even if something was done, would you believe them if they told you so?
On July 16 2013 20:45 Redox wrote: Serious question:
Are the people that press yes in this vote trolling, or are they serious?
Just read the comments. Personally i think that what Snowden did is very inspiring, he gave up his whole life to show us that the western nations secret services have more criminal energy than every criminal organization they are supposed to fight.
On July 16 2013 20:48 hifriend wrote: I don't think he'll be awarded any peace prize simply for the fact that his leaks won't do anything for peace.
The Nobel Peace Prize was always more of an acknowledgement of great ethical deeds than going by the definition. Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Therese, UNICEF, Nelson Mandela are examples where that definition fits way better than the original one.
On July 16 2013 21:06 NoobSkills wrote: I'm not sure why he deserves a peace prize for revealing information that most people already assumed was true of every government. It isn't even that big of a story in my opinion. Governments have always trampled on the rights of their citizens and always will, so what makes him even noteworthy? Because he confirmed it?
Yes, exactly that he confirmed it. You cant fight that the "government tramples on the rights of their citizens" with the judiciary unless you have evidence.
Sorry, but nothing will come of this at least not in any serious nature. They're doing the same thing they were doing right now and they will still be doing it 10 years from now. No major official will take a serious charge. Not saying I want to be right, but I probably will be.
Yes, i agree. But i think that the fact that most people would agree perfectly describes the problem of this generation (which i am part of). Which is that we dont fight for our right. In theory we should be all demonstrating, but we are way to cynic and lazy, the average person of my generation is about as political as my pet. If this goes on 1984 might really come true in a hundred years and it's our fault.
Honestly you can motivate those who live mostly good lives to go all out for something like this. Maybe it should piss more people off, but at this moment while we're all doing what we're doing nobody cares if the government is listening into the phone call because they have most everything they need, so why go against the system when everything is good, not perfect, but good.
your argument about the government doing it anyway is completely nonconstructive and isn't in line with how the government or a lawbreaking party thinks and acts, by the way. dems and repubs wanted this kind of surveillance to be legal and pushed for it. they could have just kept up the surveillance illegally, but they saw the value in making their formerly illegal activity legal. why don't you see the value in something that they are very intent on protecting?
what do you mean would i believe them if they told me? if they repealed the patriot act, would i believe that they'd (the govt) stop breaking the law? no, but i'd know that the govt would lose the control it has over private parties like google. would google stop spying for the govt? i don't know, but it wouldn't be forced to like it is now.
On July 16 2013 22:54 Iyerbeth wrote: I think he's pretty awesome for his actions, but no, giving him the peace prize would be silly. Though not as silly as giving it to Obama...so...errr.....
Well, indeed, none of them made a distinct contribution to world peace, hell I don't even recall what Obama accomplished that he deserved that "lol prize", as for Snowden, the jury is still out. It's way too premature for such thing as the outcome of his whistle-blowing just tingled what might be known into the history as the next US"SR" (admittedly less belligerent, but sorry, that's where US is heading)
In all seriousness though Snowden isn't a hero, were he a hero he would've stayed to face the music and stood up to the US. Instead he fled, casting doubt on his intentions.
On July 16 2013 23:09 adwodon wrote: If Obama can get one why the hell not.
In all seriousness though Snowden isn't a hero, were he a hero he would've stayed to face the music and stood up to the US. Instead he fled, casting doubt on his intentions.
You already know (quite easy to guess) the fate of him if he stayed in US
lol @ this thread. Really? He is promoting peace? I would bet everything I own that the information gained from spying has preventing far more conflicts than this traitor ever will. You guys are funny.
On July 16 2013 23:13 jeremycafe wrote: lol @ this thread. Really? He is promoting peace? I would bet everything I own that the information gained from spying has preventing far more conflicts than this traitor ever will. You guys are funny.
First while the definition states so, the prize never was about peace anyways. Most prize winners have nothing to do with peace, but did something special that was honorable, like giving up one's life to prove that the governments are systematically committing crimes.
I am not sure that the spying has prevented any conflict, as every open conflict is benefitting the superpower USA in their role as the great raider.
From an american perspective, it's better that this spying information came out now rather than later. If left alone, this thing could have gone further and the diplomatic backlash could have been worse than it was. I'd say the timing was as good as it could have been for preventing future conflicts.
You have it backwards. Being loyal means having the courage to stand up for your country and against the government when it steps out of line, especially when it violates the constitution. In this line, Snowden is very loyal to his country.
As a blanket response to everybody who's defending and hailing Snowden as somebody that revealed this supposed information (and the endless 'acting contrary to national interests = standing up for the country' mantra being parroted), I'll ask you: What civil rights were violated? What human rights were violated?
Assuming of course this is all true and there are no more leaks, show me where the US Constitution guarantees or implies these expectations of privacy.
Oh. They don't? They only cover search and seizure in instances not relating to national security, imminent threat, or individuals of non-citizens where 1.) Majority needs overrule 2.) You're not a US citizen so the Constitution doesn't apply to you? Huh. Go figure. People don't have the right to know everything, nor do I believe that governments SHOULD let their people know everything. The state of ... well, states, has been this way since the first governments.
Javy_'s second half about bravery? Betraying your country's secrets because you think you know better than the entire government isn't brave, it's treason. It's aiding and abetting the enemy. It's also, when the government you're betraying is the United State's government, very stupid.
For the topic on hand: Snowden doesn't deserve a Nobel Peace Prize or anything of the sort. Ever.
On July 16 2013 23:13 jeremycafe wrote: lol @ this thread. Really? He is promoting peace? I would bet everything I own that the information gained from spying has preventing far more conflicts than this traitor ever will. You guys are funny.
People who think Snowden is a traitor could be argued to be traitors, by defending despicable actions from the US government from benevolent actions from men who want the country to get back on the right tracks. How can people still brag about how important freedom is to Americans when a bunch of you clearly don't give a shit about freedom?
That said, the question is does Snowden *deserve* the peace Nobel. The answer is now. But since the prize is already kind of a joke, give it to him anyway because why the fuck not.
On July 16 2013 23:13 jeremycafe wrote: lol @ this thread. Really? He is promoting peace? I would bet everything I own that the information gained from spying has preventing far more conflicts than this traitor ever will. You guys are funny.
You can prevent conflicts by threatening people that you'll butcher their entire family if they do anything bad. People sometimes stay very calm under authoritarian governments. That's what you're fighting for... Nice populations of submissive people who walk around with their heads down. So peaceful and quiet.
On July 16 2013 23:09 adwodon wrote: If Obama can get one why the hell not.
In all seriousness though Snowden isn't a hero, were he a hero he would've stayed to face the music and stood up to the US. Instead he fled, casting doubt on his intentions.
You already know (quite easy to guess) the fate of him if he stayed in US
Possibly. However, going to China and Russia to escape the US is not exactly the most well thought out plan and potentially brings into question his intentions. Should' have picked more neutral countries with no extradition treaties with the US.
I find it extremely hard to believe they haven't taken whatever data he has on his person, as some reports have claimed (if the details are true).
On July 16 2013 23:09 adwodon wrote: If Obama can get one why the hell not.
In all seriousness though Snowden isn't a hero, were he a hero he would've stayed to face the music and stood up to the US. Instead he fled, casting doubt on his intentions.
You already know (quite easy to guess) the fate of him if he stayed in US
Possibly. However, going to China and Russia to escape the US is not exactly the most well thought out plan and potentially brings into question his intentions. Should' have picked more neutral countries with no extradition treaties with the US.
I find it extremely hard to believe they haven't taken whatever data he has on his person, as some reports have claimed (if the details are true).
one of the most stupid statements in this thread. inform yourself, then post and maybe you don't look like an idiot.
every news article clearly states he seeks asylum in south america (which fits your "no extradition treaty" definition). he is in russia because he can't get anywhere else without getting caught by the US. if he could get to south america, he would do it obviously as he clearly stated when he asked russia for asylum.
On July 16 2013 23:09 adwodon wrote: If Obama can get one why the hell not.
In all seriousness though Snowden isn't a hero, were he a hero he would've stayed to face the music and stood up to the US. Instead he fled, casting doubt on his intentions.
You already know (quite easy to guess) the fate of him if he stayed in US
Possibly. However, going to China and Russia to escape the US is not exactly the most well thought out plan and potentially brings into question his intentions. Should' have picked more neutral countries with no extradition treaties with the US.
I find it extremely hard to believe they haven't taken whatever data he has on his person, as some reports have claimed (if the details are true).
one of the most stupid statements in this thread. inform yourself, then post and maybe you don't look like an idiot.
every news article clearly states he seeks asylum in south america (which fits your "no extradition treaty" definition). he is in russia because he can't get anywhere else without getting caught by the US. if he could get to south america, he would do it obviously as he clearly stated when he asked russia for asylum.
Then why did he go to China first? Why did he go to Russia next? He could've flown straight to South America first from Hawaii before all of this was released.
I would not go as far as awarding the man a Nobel Peace Prize.
It is expected for nations to spy on one another, and on citizens. I do not condone such behaviour, and I have read interesting publications on the subject. There is a lot of information that suggestions in the ineffectiveness of spying in the first place. We can possibly open up a discussion on the merits and effectiveness of the act.
Regardless, I believe this behaviour has to be changed - and not only for the United States of America. However, Snowden did not accomplish anything significant. Again, it can be safely assumed that all countries conduct espionage.
And yes, some action is needed... Snowden did something. I get it. But, his actions were pointless. It's like massing supply depots in SC2. You won't win that way.
On July 16 2013 23:09 adwodon wrote: If Obama can get one why the hell not.
In all seriousness though Snowden isn't a hero, were he a hero he would've stayed to face the music and stood up to the US. Instead he fled, casting doubt on his intentions.
You already know (quite easy to guess) the fate of him if he stayed in US
Possibly. However, going to China and Russia to escape the US is not exactly the most well thought out plan and potentially brings into question his intentions. Should' have picked more neutral countries with no extradition treaties with the US.
I find it extremely hard to believe they haven't taken whatever data he has on his person, as some reports have claimed (if the details are true).
one of the most stupid statements in this thread. inform yourself, then post and maybe you don't look like an idiot.
every news article clearly states he seeks asylum in south america (which fits your "no extradition treaty" definition). he is in russia because he can't get anywhere else without getting caught by the US. if he could get to south america, he would do it obviously as he clearly stated when he asked russia for asylum.
Then why did he go to China first? Why did he go to Russia next? He could've flown straight to South America first from Hawaii before all of this was released.
We can only suppose. Maybe he wanted guarantees he wouldn't be extradited before he went to one of these countries (a country doesn't have a treaty to extradite someone; it can do it willingly if the right incentives are given). Maybe he wanted to gauge the US public opinion and, depending on the case, return to the US. Maybe he thought Hong Kong was a better platform to communicate to the international media than Caracas or whatever.
I find it very plausible that he would consider Hong Kong safer given he simply wasn't sure how things would go down. Heck, it would probably have been safer to go to Beijing instead of Hong Kong, but he chose not to. If he actually went there to sell state secrets (which seems to be what you're infering, or at least something along those lines), why would he reveal anything to the world press afterwards, calling attention to himself? The only thing I can think of is that he attempted to blackmail the NSA and they called his bluff, but that sounds like a wild conspiracy theory.
Whatever his motives for picking where he went, there is one thing for sure, China and Russia would never willingly give him over. That's something you probably can't feel so sure about with almost any other nation.
On July 17 2013 02:25 Fusa wrote: I am just curious how you could try to nominate someone who has caused much turmoil. The whole ordeal with him doesn't sound to peaceful
he did what had to be done. the reason it causes so mcuh turmoil is because ppl know that what the us governemnt does is wrong.
On July 15 2013 23:48 Vanimar wrote: While I don't argue with Svallfors on the Nomination per se and his initial stetement as to his reasons, I do not think he should get the price. While what he has done is very courageous, there are some problems. The Nobel peace price seems to be some sort of political instrument these days. He even says it himself, "Svallfors also believes this will help the Peace Prize regain some of respect it lost after prematurely awarding Barack Obama the award in 2009". In my humble opinion, the price should re-focus on other social heroics rather then high-life politics. It's just stupid. Sure being spied on is dumb, but what of it? It's not like we have insane secrets. And assigned and educated personel should be able to handle it (much like psychologists in that regard). So in the end my point is: Give the price more a humanitarian, rather then a political focus
so what you are saying is that it is no big deal or ok for the US to spy on the EU? imagine if chinese or russian attempts of espionage vs the US had been uncoverd... I don't even really wanna know what would have happend.
and while I agree with you that the price would do well in the hands of a humanitarian I think that it would be a great sign to show that giving the peace prize to any president of the US was a mistake there will simply not be an american president that will be able to act in a way that makes him deserve that prize it just isn't possible just look at the elections... almost 50% voted for Romney and if you ask yourself how likely it is that HE will ever get a prize for anything related to peace... well you get what I'm saying Giving the prize to someone like Snowden would certainly help to push the image of the prize in another direction (one that I certainly like better than the old one to be completely honest)
On July 17 2013 02:15 LegalLord wrote: None of these countries shield him because they believe he did the right thing. They shield him to spite the US.
that doesn't mean that they think that what he did was wrong
On July 17 2013 02:15 LegalLord wrote: None of these countries shield him because they believe he did the right thing. They shield him to spite the US.
that doesn't mean that they think that what he did was wrong
I am certain that these countries do the exact same thing (China obviously does, and the USSR did it so Russia almost certainly does). They do not support Snowden for any reason other than because they don't like the US.
On July 17 2013 02:59 sva wrote: More then Obama did....
And it hardly matters anymore, but I think he just needs our support not an award.
Indeed. Though, it will be sad if no change is brought about from his sacrifice. Our government will do anything it can to keep it's NSA surveillance weapon in working order, and it seems like we're all pretty powerless vs such a powerful entity.
On July 17 2013 02:15 LegalLord wrote: None of these countries shield him because they believe he did the right thing. They shield him to spite the US.
that doesn't mean that they think that what he did was wrong
I am certain that these countries do the exact same thing (China obviously does, and the USSR did it so Russia almost certainly does). They do not support Snowden for any reason other than because they don't like the US.
oh didn't realize that you were talking about russia and china only ^^ nvm then
Well, the award has become a sham because they began giving it out for purely political and symbolic reasons and not just to people who actually did great things.
I mean them giving it to Obama was just one of many ridiculous things they've done.
Them giving it to Snowden would be a good way to say "oops" for that though.
On July 15 2013 23:50 JustPassingBy wrote: Depends, on what basis is the Nobel peace prize handed out for? I mean, lately I've seen it handed out for everything but keeping peace.
That's the thing, it's given out by a panel of 5 people, appointed by the Norway parliament. As such the winner is highly ridiculously subjective with that small of a group.
I'm not sure why the award is considered so prestigious anyway, it really is just a big dog and pony show.
On July 17 2013 02:15 LegalLord wrote: None of these countries shield him because they believe he did the right thing. They shield him to spite the US.
that doesn't mean that they think that what he did was wrong
I am certain that these countries do the exact same thing (China obviously does, and the USSR did it so Russia almost certainly does). They do not support Snowden for any reason other than because they don't like the US.
And the US has been very, very vocal about how wrong those other countries doing it is. Much like how very supportive they are of dissidents from there. But now the shoe is on the other foot, isn't it?
He should get it imo, because it did cost him to expose this travesty and we do need a signal that this growing worldwide trend of invading the lives of everyone in trade for a pinky promise that all will be well is not something that should just be accepted.
On July 17 2013 02:59 sva wrote: More then Obama did....
And it hardly matters anymore, but I think he just needs our support not an award.
Indeed. Though, it will be sad if no change is brought about from his sacrifice. Our government will do anything it can to keep it's NSA surveillance weapon in working order, and it seems like we're all pretty powerless vs such a powerful entity.
Lol, what changes ? Look how they react to this. Instead of apologizing for all this shit, they want to capture the guy that exposed them and then kill him. EU(biggest ally) told the US gov. that what they did is not good and they are not happy about it, to say the least... What was the reaction ? Not a single word. US government does whatever it wants and I'm wondering why the people - free citizens - are doing nothing about it. Why there are no protests, riots etc ? For example in Luxembourg the prime minister Jean-Claude Juncker resigned for similar reasons last week.
On July 17 2013 02:15 LegalLord wrote: None of these countries shield him because they believe he did the right thing. They shield him to spite the US.
that doesn't mean that they think that what he did was wrong
I am certain that these countries do the exact same thing (China obviously does, and the USSR did it so Russia almost certainly does). They do not support Snowden for any reason other than because they don't like the US.
And the US has been very, very vocal about how wrong those other countries doing it is. Much like how very supportive they are of dissidents from there. But now the shoe is on the other foot, isn't it?
He should get it imo, because it did cost him to expose this travesty and we do need a signal that this growing worldwide trend of invading the lives of everyone in trade for a pinky promise that all will be well is not something that should just be accepted.
But he probably won't.
Spying is what spies do. The NSA is an organization of spies. I see nothing wrong with that.
Leaking important documents vital to the function of that organization, on the other hand, is treason.
this peace nobel price thing is retarded. the people who deserve this price are al lthe normal people who didn't wish for these stupid corporative oriented politics that leads to war. like peace is something accomplished by a sole individual or government. peace will come when the people will turn against their leaders and make the revolution we all have been waiting for.
On July 17 2013 02:15 LegalLord wrote: None of these countries shield him because they believe he did the right thing. They shield him to spite the US.
that doesn't mean that they think that what he did was wrong
I am certain that these countries do the exact same thing (China obviously does, and the USSR did it so Russia almost certainly does). They do not support Snowden for any reason other than because they don't like the US.
And the US has been very, very vocal about how wrong those other countries doing it is. Much like how very supportive they are of dissidents from there. But now the shoe is on the other foot, isn't it?
He should get it imo, because it did cost him to expose this travesty and we do need a signal that this growing worldwide trend of invading the lives of everyone in trade for a pinky promise that all will be well is not something that should just be accepted.
But he probably won't.
Spying is what spies do. The NSA is an organization of spies. I see nothing wrong with that.
Leaking important documents vital to the function of that organization, on the other hand, is treason.
so if the government uses its army to kill citizens that are protesting it's okay because it's the army's job to kill people but if a soldier says: "no I won't kill these people" he should be killed because he is not obeying orders? I'm grateful that there are so few people with this point of view over here... jeez
On July 17 2013 02:59 sva wrote: More then Obama did....
And it hardly matters anymore, but I think he just needs our support not an award.
Indeed. Though, it will be sad if no change is brought about from his sacrifice. Our government will do anything it can to keep it's NSA surveillance weapon in working order, and it seems like we're all pretty powerless vs such a powerful entity.
Lol, what changes ? Look how they react to this. Instead of apologizing for all this shit, they want to capture the guy that exposed them and then kill him. EU(biggest ally) told the US gov. that what they did is not good and they are not happy about it, to say the least... What was the reaction ? Not a single word. US government does whatever it wants and I'm wondering why the people - free citizens - are doing nothing about it. Why there are no protests, riots etc ? For example in Luxembourg the prime minister Jean-Claude Juncker resigned for similar reasons last week.
I think people are just scared and or don't care. If you've experienced first hand just how powerful of a weapon the NSA/FBI alliance can be at oppression/life ruination, then you will probably feel hopeless about the entire situation. I imagine people that aren't fully aware just how shady/powerful and deep the rabbit hole at the NSA truly goes, you likely don't care.
On July 17 2013 02:15 LegalLord wrote: None of these countries shield him because they believe he did the right thing. They shield him to spite the US.
that doesn't mean that they think that what he did was wrong
I am certain that these countries do the exact same thing (China obviously does, and the USSR did it so Russia almost certainly does). They do not support Snowden for any reason other than because they don't like the US.
And the US has been very, very vocal about how wrong those other countries doing it is. Much like how very supportive they are of dissidents from there. But now the shoe is on the other foot, isn't it?
He should get it imo, because it did cost him to expose this travesty and we do need a signal that this growing worldwide trend of invading the lives of everyone in trade for a pinky promise that all will be well is not something that should just be accepted.
But he probably won't.
Spying is what spies do. The NSA is an organization of spies. I see nothing wrong with that.
Leaking important documents vital to the function of that organization, on the other hand, is treason.
so if the government uses its army to kill citizens that are protesting it's okay because it's the army's job to kill people but if a soldier says: "no I won't kill these people" he should be killed because he is not obeying orders? I'm grateful that there are so few people with this point of view over here... jeez
Given that the US military doesn't have authority in the country its not the best comparison, but besides that, I think there is a big difference. There is a good argument to be made that the information that the NSA and our other intelligence agencies gather is worth the slight invasion of privacy. AS Plansix said somewhere earlier, you probably ought to be more worried about microsoft employees "monitoring" your skype calls than the NSA.
On July 17 2013 02:15 LegalLord wrote: None of these countries shield him because they believe he did the right thing. They shield him to spite the US.
that doesn't mean that they think that what he did was wrong
I am certain that these countries do the exact same thing (China obviously does, and the USSR did it so Russia almost certainly does). They do not support Snowden for any reason other than because they don't like the US.
And the US has been very, very vocal about how wrong those other countries doing it is. Much like how very supportive they are of dissidents from there. But now the shoe is on the other foot, isn't it?
He should get it imo, because it did cost him to expose this travesty and we do need a signal that this growing worldwide trend of invading the lives of everyone in trade for a pinky promise that all will be well is not something that should just be accepted.
But he probably won't.
Spying is what spies do. The NSA is an organization of spies. I see nothing wrong with that.
Leaking important documents vital to the function of that organization, on the other hand, is treason.
so if the government uses its army to kill citizens that are protesting it's okay because it's the army's job to kill people but if a soldier says: "no I won't kill these people" he should be killed because he is not obeying orders? I'm grateful that there are so few people with this point of view over here... jeez
The army's job is to maintain stability, not kill people. Very much a strawman argument.
Desertion, by the way, is a crime for which you can be shot.
On July 17 2013 02:59 sva wrote: More then Obama did....
And it hardly matters anymore, but I think he just needs our support not an award.
Indeed. Though, it will be sad if no change is brought about from his sacrifice. Our government will do anything it can to keep it's NSA surveillance weapon in working order, and it seems like we're all pretty powerless vs such a powerful entity.
Lol, what changes ? Look how they react to this. Instead of apologizing for all this shit, they want to capture the guy that exposed them and then kill him. EU(biggest ally) told the US gov. that what they did is not good and they are not happy about it, to say the least... What was the reaction ? Not a single word. US government does whatever it wants and I'm wondering why the people - free citizens - are doing nothing about it. Why there are no protests, riots etc ? For example in Luxembourg the prime minister Jean-Claude Juncker resigned for similar reasons last week.
I think people are just scared and or don't care. If you've experienced first hand just how powerful of a weapon the NSA/FBI alliance can be at oppression/life ruination, then you will probably feel hopeless about the entire situation. I imagine people that aren't fully aware just how shady/powerful and deep the rabbit hole at the NSA truly goes, you likely don't care.
You keep posting this kind of stuff. What are these weapons of "oppression/life ruination" that you're talking about, and could we please get some sources? I agree that invasions of privacy are bad, but its a far stretch to say that the NSA listening to my personal calls is going to ruin my life.
On July 17 2013 02:59 sva wrote: More then Obama did....
And it hardly matters anymore, but I think he just needs our support not an award.
Indeed. Though, it will be sad if no change is brought about from his sacrifice. Our government will do anything it can to keep it's NSA surveillance weapon in working order, and it seems like we're all pretty powerless vs such a powerful entity.
Lol, what changes ? Look how they react to this. Instead of apologizing for all this shit, they want to capture the guy that exposed them and then kill him. EU(biggest ally) told the US gov. that what they did is not good and they are not happy about it, to say the least... What was the reaction ? Not a single word. US government does whatever it wants and I'm wondering why the people - free citizens - are doing nothing about it. Why there are no protests, riots etc ? For example in Luxembourg the prime minister Jean-Claude Juncker resigned for similar reasons last week.
I think people are just scared and or don't care. If you've experienced first hand just how powerful of a weapon the NSA/FBI alliance can be at oppression/life ruination, then you will probably feel hopeless about the entire situation. I imagine people that aren't fully aware just how shady/powerful and deep the rabbit hole at the NSA truly goes, you likely don't care.
You keep posting this kind of stuff. What are these weapons of "oppression/life ruination" that you're talking about, and could we please get some sources? I agree that invasions of privacy are bad, but its a far stretch to say that the NSA listening to my personal calls is going to ruin my life.
You can't get solid sources, that's the entire point. You think they will just let that type of stuff out into the public willingly? I think if you're going to hear about it from anyone, it will be from mr. Snowden himself considering he has eluded towards seeing incredibly abusive and disturbing examples in some of his interviews before he finally decided to make the entire program public.
I pray and also hope he does talk about some of the more extreme abuses the NSA/FBI combo have done to US citizens. Whether you believe me or not, which you won't, doesn't really matter. We will all have to wait and see if these types of stories come to the surface or not....I have no reason to be making stuff up about this btw, I don't have some sort of agenda or whatever drives people to try and manipulate opinions. Just someone that knows he has been a target by this god awful program over the past 3 or so years. Hint, when you find out something about a multibillion dollar tech focused company that could ultimately cost them a lot of money if people learned about it, well that alone is enough of a reason for these guys to oppress you.
On July 17 2013 02:59 sva wrote: More then Obama did....
And it hardly matters anymore, but I think he just needs our support not an award.
Indeed. Though, it will be sad if no change is brought about from his sacrifice. Our government will do anything it can to keep it's NSA surveillance weapon in working order, and it seems like we're all pretty powerless vs such a powerful entity.
Lol, what changes ? Look how they react to this. Instead of apologizing for all this shit, they want to capture the guy that exposed them and then kill him. EU(biggest ally) told the US gov. that what they did is not good and they are not happy about it, to say the least... What was the reaction ? Not a single word. US government does whatever it wants and I'm wondering why the people - free citizens - are doing nothing about it. Why there are no protests, riots etc ? For example in Luxembourg the prime minister Jean-Claude Juncker resigned for similar reasons last week.
I think people are just scared and or don't care. If you've experienced first hand just how powerful of a weapon the NSA/FBI alliance can be at oppression/life ruination, then you will probably feel hopeless about the entire situation. I imagine people that aren't fully aware just how shady/powerful and deep the rabbit hole at the NSA truly goes, you likely don't care.
You keep posting this kind of stuff. What are these weapons of "oppression/life ruination" that you're talking about, and could we please get some sources? I agree that invasions of privacy are bad, but its a far stretch to say that the NSA listening to my personal calls is going to ruin my life.
You can't get solid sources, that's the entire point. You think they will just let that type of stuff out into the public willingly? I think if you're going to hear about it from anyone, it will be from mr. Snowden himself considering he has eluded towards seeing incredibly abusive and disturbing examples in some of his interviews before he finally decided to make the entire program public.
I pray and also hope he does talk about some of the more extreme abuses the NSA/FBI combo have done to US citizens. Whether you believe me or not, which you won't, doesn't really matter. We will all have to wait and see if these types of stories come to the surface or not....I have no reason to be making stuff up about this btw, I don't have some sort of agenda or whatever drives people to try and manipulate opinions. Just someone that knows he has been a target by this god awful program over the past 3 or so years. Hint, when you find out something about a multibillion dollar tech focused company that could ultimately cost them a lot of money if people learned about it, well that alone is enough of a reason for these guys to oppress you.
This is ridiculous. You have a totally non-falsifiable argument because all of the bad stuff that's supposedly happening is "secret" and yet you want other people to believe it. You really think that in this day and age of viral videos and such that the FBI could run a secret torture regime and nobody would notice and tell people? Don't drink the kool-aid.
On July 17 2013 02:59 sva wrote: More then Obama did....
And it hardly matters anymore, but I think he just needs our support not an award.
Indeed. Though, it will be sad if no change is brought about from his sacrifice. Our government will do anything it can to keep it's NSA surveillance weapon in working order, and it seems like we're all pretty powerless vs such a powerful entity.
Lol, what changes ? Look how they react to this. Instead of apologizing for all this shit, they want to capture the guy that exposed them and then kill him. EU(biggest ally) told the US gov. that what they did is not good and they are not happy about it, to say the least... What was the reaction ? Not a single word. US government does whatever it wants and I'm wondering why the people - free citizens - are doing nothing about it. Why there are no protests, riots etc ? For example in Luxembourg the prime minister Jean-Claude Juncker resigned for similar reasons last week.
I think people are just scared and or don't care. If you've experienced first hand just how powerful of a weapon the NSA/FBI alliance can be at oppression/life ruination, then you will probably feel hopeless about the entire situation. I imagine people that aren't fully aware just how shady/powerful and deep the rabbit hole at the NSA truly goes, you likely don't care.
You keep posting this kind of stuff. What are these weapons of "oppression/life ruination" that you're talking about, and could we please get some sources? I agree that invasions of privacy are bad, but its a far stretch to say that the NSA listening to my personal calls is going to ruin my life.
You can't get solid sources, that's the entire point. You think they will just let that type of stuff out into the public willingly? I think if you're going to hear about it from anyone, it will be from mr. Snowden himself considering he has eluded towards seeing incredibly abusive and disturbing examples in some of his interviews before he finally decided to make the entire program public.
I pray and also hope he does talk about some of the more extreme abuses the NSA/FBI combo have done to US citizens. Whether you believe me or not, which you won't, doesn't really matter. We will all have to wait and see if these types of stories come to the surface or not....I have no reason to be making stuff up about this btw, I don't have some sort of agenda or whatever drives people to try and manipulate opinions. Just someone that knows he has been a target by this god awful program over the past 3 or so years. Hint, when you find out something about a multibillion dollar tech focused company that could ultimately cost them a lot of money if people learned about it, well that alone is enough of a reason for these guys to oppress you.
This is ridiculous. You have a totally non-falsifiable argument because all of the bad stuff that's supposedly happening is "secret" and yet you want other people to believe it. You really think that in this day and age of viral videos and such that the FBI could run a secret torture regime and nobody would notice and tell people? Don't drink the kool-aid.
While the mass conspiracy BS may be a stretch, controlling cell phone videos is not. Its common practice to ban cellphones from secure areas and sneaking one in is pretty difficult given metal detectors and x ray machines.
On July 17 2013 02:59 sva wrote: More then Obama did....
And it hardly matters anymore, but I think he just needs our support not an award.
Indeed. Though, it will be sad if no change is brought about from his sacrifice. Our government will do anything it can to keep it's NSA surveillance weapon in working order, and it seems like we're all pretty powerless vs such a powerful entity.
Lol, what changes ? Look how they react to this. Instead of apologizing for all this shit, they want to capture the guy that exposed them and then kill him. EU(biggest ally) told the US gov. that what they did is not good and they are not happy about it, to say the least... What was the reaction ? Not a single word. US government does whatever it wants and I'm wondering why the people - free citizens - are doing nothing about it. Why there are no protests, riots etc ? For example in Luxembourg the prime minister Jean-Claude Juncker resigned for similar reasons last week.
I think people are just scared and or don't care. If you've experienced first hand just how powerful of a weapon the NSA/FBI alliance can be at oppression/life ruination, then you will probably feel hopeless about the entire situation. I imagine people that aren't fully aware just how shady/powerful and deep the rabbit hole at the NSA truly goes, you likely don't care.
You keep posting this kind of stuff. What are these weapons of "oppression/life ruination" that you're talking about, and could we please get some sources? I agree that invasions of privacy are bad, but its a far stretch to say that the NSA listening to my personal calls is going to ruin my life.
You can't get solid sources, that's the entire point. You think they will just let that type of stuff out into the public willingly? I think if you're going to hear about it from anyone, it will be from mr. Snowden himself considering he has eluded towards seeing incredibly abusive and disturbing examples in some of his interviews before he finally decided to make the entire program public.
I pray and also hope he does talk about some of the more extreme abuses the NSA/FBI combo have done to US citizens. Whether you believe me or not, which you won't, doesn't really matter. We will all have to wait and see if these types of stories come to the surface or not....I have no reason to be making stuff up about this btw, I don't have some sort of agenda or whatever drives people to try and manipulate opinions. Just someone that knows he has been a target by this god awful program over the past 3 or so years. Hint, when you find out something about a multibillion dollar tech focused company that could ultimately cost them a lot of money if people learned about it, well that alone is enough of a reason for these guys to oppress you.
This is ridiculous. You have a totally non-falsifiable argument because all of the bad stuff that's supposedly happening is "secret" and yet you want other people to believe it. You really think that in this day and age of viral videos and such that the FBI could run a secret torture regime and nobody would notice and tell people? Don't drink the kool-aid.
well, they did (do) run a sick surveillance program until snowden revealed it, didnt they?
no?
where were all the viral videos revealing this?
probably almost every country has similar shit running... thousands of thousands of people involved. where are the viral videos?
On July 17 2013 02:59 sva wrote: More then Obama did....
And it hardly matters anymore, but I think he just needs our support not an award.
Indeed. Though, it will be sad if no change is brought about from his sacrifice. Our government will do anything it can to keep it's NSA surveillance weapon in working order, and it seems like we're all pretty powerless vs such a powerful entity.
Lol, what changes ? Look how they react to this. Instead of apologizing for all this shit, they want to capture the guy that exposed them and then kill him. EU(biggest ally) told the US gov. that what they did is not good and they are not happy about it, to say the least... What was the reaction ? Not a single word. US government does whatever it wants and I'm wondering why the people - free citizens - are doing nothing about it. Why there are no protests, riots etc ? For example in Luxembourg the prime minister Jean-Claude Juncker resigned for similar reasons last week.
I think people are just scared and or don't care. If you've experienced first hand just how powerful of a weapon the NSA/FBI alliance can be at oppression/life ruination, then you will probably feel hopeless about the entire situation. I imagine people that aren't fully aware just how shady/powerful and deep the rabbit hole at the NSA truly goes, you likely don't care.
You keep posting this kind of stuff. What are these weapons of "oppression/life ruination" that you're talking about, and could we please get some sources? I agree that invasions of privacy are bad, but its a far stretch to say that the NSA listening to my personal calls is going to ruin my life.
You can't get solid sources, that's the entire point. You think they will just let that type of stuff out into the public willingly? I think if you're going to hear about it from anyone, it will be from mr. Snowden himself considering he has eluded towards seeing incredibly abusive and disturbing examples in some of his interviews before he finally decided to make the entire program public.
I pray and also hope he does talk about some of the more extreme abuses the NSA/FBI combo have done to US citizens. Whether you believe me or not, which you won't, doesn't really matter. We will all have to wait and see if these types of stories come to the surface or not....I have no reason to be making stuff up about this btw, I don't have some sort of agenda or whatever drives people to try and manipulate opinions. Just someone that knows he has been a target by this god awful program over the past 3 or so years. Hint, when you find out something about a multibillion dollar tech focused company that could ultimately cost them a lot of money if people learned about it, well that alone is enough of a reason for these guys to oppress you.
This is ridiculous. You have a totally non-falsifiable argument because all of the bad stuff that's supposedly happening is "secret" and yet you want other people to believe it. You really think that in this day and age of viral videos and such that the FBI could run a secret torture regime and nobody would notice and tell people? Don't drink the kool-aid.
While the mass conspiracy BS may be a stretch, controlling cell phone videos is not. Its common practice to ban cellphones from secure areas and sneaking one in is pretty difficult given metal detectors and x ray machines.
I agree, that there is tight security, but you would think if this kind of shit was happening on any kind of scale somebody would have gone to the local news or something like that. Also I was just trying to point out that the way he sets up the argument its impossible to prove him wrong.
On July 17 2013 02:59 sva wrote: More then Obama did....
And it hardly matters anymore, but I think he just needs our support not an award.
Indeed. Though, it will be sad if no change is brought about from his sacrifice. Our government will do anything it can to keep it's NSA surveillance weapon in working order, and it seems like we're all pretty powerless vs such a powerful entity.
Lol, what changes ? Look how they react to this. Instead of apologizing for all this shit, they want to capture the guy that exposed them and then kill him. EU(biggest ally) told the US gov. that what they did is not good and they are not happy about it, to say the least... What was the reaction ? Not a single word. US government does whatever it wants and I'm wondering why the people - free citizens - are doing nothing about it. Why there are no protests, riots etc ? For example in Luxembourg the prime minister Jean-Claude Juncker resigned for similar reasons last week.
I think people are just scared and or don't care. If you've experienced first hand just how powerful of a weapon the NSA/FBI alliance can be at oppression/life ruination, then you will probably feel hopeless about the entire situation. I imagine people that aren't fully aware just how shady/powerful and deep the rabbit hole at the NSA truly goes, you likely don't care.
You keep posting this kind of stuff. What are these weapons of "oppression/life ruination" that you're talking about, and could we please get some sources? I agree that invasions of privacy are bad, but its a far stretch to say that the NSA listening to my personal calls is going to ruin my life.
You can't get solid sources, that's the entire point. You think they will just let that type of stuff out into the public willingly? I think if you're going to hear about it from anyone, it will be from mr. Snowden himself considering he has eluded towards seeing incredibly abusive and disturbing examples in some of his interviews before he finally decided to make the entire program public.
I pray and also hope he does talk about some of the more extreme abuses the NSA/FBI combo have done to US citizens. Whether you believe me or not, which you won't, doesn't really matter. We will all have to wait and see if these types of stories come to the surface or not....I have no reason to be making stuff up about this btw, I don't have some sort of agenda or whatever drives people to try and manipulate opinions. Just someone that knows he has been a target by this god awful program over the past 3 or so years. Hint, when you find out something about a multibillion dollar tech focused company that could ultimately cost them a lot of money if people learned about it, well that alone is enough of a reason for these guys to oppress you.
This is ridiculous. You have a totally non-falsifiable argument because all of the bad stuff that's supposedly happening is "secret" and yet you want other people to believe it. You really think that in this day and age of viral videos and such that the FBI could run a secret torture regime and nobody would notice and tell people? Don't drink the kool-aid.
well, they did (do) run a sick surveillance program until snowden revealed it, didnt they?
no?
where were all the viral videos revealing this?
As noted earlier in this thread, people knew that sort of thing was going on anyway, and snowden is certainly not the first to leak secret US info. Also wiretapping is a far cry from secret torture/oppression.
On July 17 2013 02:59 sva wrote: More then Obama did....
And it hardly matters anymore, but I think he just needs our support not an award.
Indeed. Though, it will be sad if no change is brought about from his sacrifice. Our government will do anything it can to keep it's NSA surveillance weapon in working order, and it seems like we're all pretty powerless vs such a powerful entity.
Lol, what changes ? Look how they react to this. Instead of apologizing for all this shit, they want to capture the guy that exposed them and then kill him. EU(biggest ally) told the US gov. that what they did is not good and they are not happy about it, to say the least... What was the reaction ? Not a single word. US government does whatever it wants and I'm wondering why the people - free citizens - are doing nothing about it. Why there are no protests, riots etc ? For example in Luxembourg the prime minister Jean-Claude Juncker resigned for similar reasons last week.
I think people are just scared and or don't care. If you've experienced first hand just how powerful of a weapon the NSA/FBI alliance can be at oppression/life ruination, then you will probably feel hopeless about the entire situation. I imagine people that aren't fully aware just how shady/powerful and deep the rabbit hole at the NSA truly goes, you likely don't care.
You keep posting this kind of stuff. What are these weapons of "oppression/life ruination" that you're talking about, and could we please get some sources? I agree that invasions of privacy are bad, but its a far stretch to say that the NSA listening to my personal calls is going to ruin my life.
You can't get solid sources, that's the entire point. You think they will just let that type of stuff out into the public willingly? I think if you're going to hear about it from anyone, it will be from mr. Snowden himself considering he has eluded towards seeing incredibly abusive and disturbing examples in some of his interviews before he finally decided to make the entire program public.
I pray and also hope he does talk about some of the more extreme abuses the NSA/FBI combo have done to US citizens. Whether you believe me or not, which you won't, doesn't really matter. We will all have to wait and see if these types of stories come to the surface or not....I have no reason to be making stuff up about this btw, I don't have some sort of agenda or whatever drives people to try and manipulate opinions. Just someone that knows he has been a target by this god awful program over the past 3 or so years. Hint, when you find out something about a multibillion dollar tech focused company that could ultimately cost them a lot of money if people learned about it, well that alone is enough of a reason for these guys to oppress you.
This is ridiculous. You have a totally non-falsifiable argument because all of the bad stuff that's supposedly happening is "secret" and yet you want other people to believe it. You really think that in this day and age of viral videos and such that the FBI could run a secret torture regime and nobody would notice and tell people? Don't drink the kool-aid.
While the mass conspiracy BS may be a stretch, controlling cell phone videos is not. Its common practice to ban cellphones from secure areas and sneaking one in is pretty difficult given metal detectors and x ray machines.
I agree, that there is tight security, but you would think if this kind of shit was happening on any kind of scale somebody would have gone to the local news or something like that. Also I was just trying to point out that the way he sets up the argument its impossible to prove him wrong.
someone just did and you keep arguing. what the fuck?
On July 17 2013 02:59 sva wrote: More then Obama did....
And it hardly matters anymore, but I think he just needs our support not an award.
Indeed. Though, it will be sad if no change is brought about from his sacrifice. Our government will do anything it can to keep it's NSA surveillance weapon in working order, and it seems like we're all pretty powerless vs such a powerful entity.
Lol, what changes ? Look how they react to this. Instead of apologizing for all this shit, they want to capture the guy that exposed them and then kill him. EU(biggest ally) told the US gov. that what they did is not good and they are not happy about it, to say the least... What was the reaction ? Not a single word. US government does whatever it wants and I'm wondering why the people - free citizens - are doing nothing about it. Why there are no protests, riots etc ? For example in Luxembourg the prime minister Jean-Claude Juncker resigned for similar reasons last week.
I think people are just scared and or don't care. If you've experienced first hand just how powerful of a weapon the NSA/FBI alliance can be at oppression/life ruination, then you will probably feel hopeless about the entire situation. I imagine people that aren't fully aware just how shady/powerful and deep the rabbit hole at the NSA truly goes, you likely don't care.
You keep posting this kind of stuff. What are these weapons of "oppression/life ruination" that you're talking about, and could we please get some sources? I agree that invasions of privacy are bad, but its a far stretch to say that the NSA listening to my personal calls is going to ruin my life.
You can't get solid sources, that's the entire point. You think they will just let that type of stuff out into the public willingly? I think if you're going to hear about it from anyone, it will be from mr. Snowden himself considering he has eluded towards seeing incredibly abusive and disturbing examples in some of his interviews before he finally decided to make the entire program public.
I pray and also hope he does talk about some of the more extreme abuses the NSA/FBI combo have done to US citizens. Whether you believe me or not, which you won't, doesn't really matter. We will all have to wait and see if these types of stories come to the surface or not....I have no reason to be making stuff up about this btw, I don't have some sort of agenda or whatever drives people to try and manipulate opinions. Just someone that knows he has been a target by this god awful program over the past 3 or so years. Hint, when you find out something about a multibillion dollar tech focused company that could ultimately cost them a lot of money if people learned about it, well that alone is enough of a reason for these guys to oppress you.
This is ridiculous. You have a totally non-falsifiable argument because all of the bad stuff that's supposedly happening is "secret" and yet you want other people to believe it. You really think that in this day and age of viral videos and such that the FBI could run a secret torture regime and nobody would notice and tell people? Don't drink the kool-aid.
While the mass conspiracy BS may be a stretch, controlling cell phone videos is not. Its common practice to ban cellphones from secure areas and sneaking one in is pretty difficult given metal detectors and x ray machines.
I agree, that there is tight security, but you would think if this kind of shit was happening on any kind of scale somebody would have gone to the local news or something like that. Also I was just trying to point out that the way he sets up the argument its impossible to prove him wrong.
someone just did and you keep arguing. what the fuck?
snowden is not leaking evidence of a secret FBI apparatus of oppression. He's leaking evidence of wiretapping, like I said in response to your post. There is an immense difference.
On July 17 2013 02:59 sva wrote: More then Obama did....
And it hardly matters anymore, but I think he just needs our support not an award.
Indeed. Though, it will be sad if no change is brought about from his sacrifice. Our government will do anything it can to keep it's NSA surveillance weapon in working order, and it seems like we're all pretty powerless vs such a powerful entity.
Lol, what changes ? Look how they react to this. Instead of apologizing for all this shit, they want to capture the guy that exposed them and then kill him. EU(biggest ally) told the US gov. that what they did is not good and they are not happy about it, to say the least... What was the reaction ? Not a single word. US government does whatever it wants and I'm wondering why the people - free citizens - are doing nothing about it. Why there are no protests, riots etc ? For example in Luxembourg the prime minister Jean-Claude Juncker resigned for similar reasons last week.
I think people are just scared and or don't care. If you've experienced first hand just how powerful of a weapon the NSA/FBI alliance can be at oppression/life ruination, then you will probably feel hopeless about the entire situation. I imagine people that aren't fully aware just how shady/powerful and deep the rabbit hole at the NSA truly goes, you likely don't care.
You keep posting this kind of stuff. What are these weapons of "oppression/life ruination" that you're talking about, and could we please get some sources? I agree that invasions of privacy are bad, but its a far stretch to say that the NSA listening to my personal calls is going to ruin my life.
You can't get solid sources, that's the entire point. You think they will just let that type of stuff out into the public willingly? I think if you're going to hear about it from anyone, it will be from mr. Snowden himself considering he has eluded towards seeing incredibly abusive and disturbing examples in some of his interviews before he finally decided to make the entire program public.
I pray and also hope he does talk about some of the more extreme abuses the NSA/FBI combo have done to US citizens. Whether you believe me or not, which you won't, doesn't really matter. We will all have to wait and see if these types of stories come to the surface or not....I have no reason to be making stuff up about this btw, I don't have some sort of agenda or whatever drives people to try and manipulate opinions. Just someone that knows he has been a target by this god awful program over the past 3 or so years. Hint, when you find out something about a multibillion dollar tech focused company that could ultimately cost them a lot of money if people learned about it, well that alone is enough of a reason for these guys to oppress you.
This is ridiculous. You have a totally non-falsifiable argument because all of the bad stuff that's supposedly happening is "secret" and yet you want other people to believe it. You really think that in this day and age of viral videos and such that the FBI could run a secret torture regime and nobody would notice and tell people? Don't drink the kool-aid.
well, they did (do) run a sick surveillance program until snowden revealed it, didnt they?
no?
where were all the viral videos revealing this?
As noted earlier in this thread, people knew that sort of thing was going on anyway, and snowden is certainly not the first to leak secret US info. Also wiretapping is a far cry from secret torture/oppression.
people didnt know at all. people were afraid that this stuff might be happening, but being aware that all your skype calls are actually target of surveillance? people KNEW THAT? are you kidding me?
poeple DID NOT know that. people did not know the scale of this shit. they just didnt. yes, everyone was afraid, cause so many people didnt trust their governments anymore. NOW THEY HAVE PROOF: that's the whole point, ok?
Indeed. Though, it will be sad if no change is brought about from his sacrifice. Our government will do anything it can to keep it's NSA surveillance weapon in working order, and it seems like we're all pretty powerless vs such a powerful entity.
Lol, what changes ? Look how they react to this. Instead of apologizing for all this shit, they want to capture the guy that exposed them and then kill him. EU(biggest ally) told the US gov. that what they did is not good and they are not happy about it, to say the least... What was the reaction ? Not a single word. US government does whatever it wants and I'm wondering why the people - free citizens - are doing nothing about it. Why there are no protests, riots etc ? For example in Luxembourg the prime minister Jean-Claude Juncker resigned for similar reasons last week.
I think people are just scared and or don't care. If you've experienced first hand just how powerful of a weapon the NSA/FBI alliance can be at oppression/life ruination, then you will probably feel hopeless about the entire situation. I imagine people that aren't fully aware just how shady/powerful and deep the rabbit hole at the NSA truly goes, you likely don't care.
You keep posting this kind of stuff. What are these weapons of "oppression/life ruination" that you're talking about, and could we please get some sources? I agree that invasions of privacy are bad, but its a far stretch to say that the NSA listening to my personal calls is going to ruin my life.
You can't get solid sources, that's the entire point. You think they will just let that type of stuff out into the public willingly? I think if you're going to hear about it from anyone, it will be from mr. Snowden himself considering he has eluded towards seeing incredibly abusive and disturbing examples in some of his interviews before he finally decided to make the entire program public.
I pray and also hope he does talk about some of the more extreme abuses the NSA/FBI combo have done to US citizens. Whether you believe me or not, which you won't, doesn't really matter. We will all have to wait and see if these types of stories come to the surface or not....I have no reason to be making stuff up about this btw, I don't have some sort of agenda or whatever drives people to try and manipulate opinions. Just someone that knows he has been a target by this god awful program over the past 3 or so years. Hint, when you find out something about a multibillion dollar tech focused company that could ultimately cost them a lot of money if people learned about it, well that alone is enough of a reason for these guys to oppress you.
This is ridiculous. You have a totally non-falsifiable argument because all of the bad stuff that's supposedly happening is "secret" and yet you want other people to believe it. You really think that in this day and age of viral videos and such that the FBI could run a secret torture regime and nobody would notice and tell people? Don't drink the kool-aid.
While the mass conspiracy BS may be a stretch, controlling cell phone videos is not. Its common practice to ban cellphones from secure areas and sneaking one in is pretty difficult given metal detectors and x ray machines.
I agree, that there is tight security, but you would think if this kind of shit was happening on any kind of scale somebody would have gone to the local news or something like that. Also I was just trying to point out that the way he sets up the argument its impossible to prove him wrong.
someone just did and you keep arguing. what the fuck?
snowden is not leaking evidence of a secret FBI apparatus of oppression. He's leaking evidence of wiretapping, like I said in response to your post. There is an immense difference.
people didnt know that the systems needed for major scale oppression were running already. it's good snowden leaked this at an "early point". should he have waited any longer? maybe he should have waited till our internet in censored anyway?
On July 17 2013 02:59 sva wrote: More then Obama did....
And it hardly matters anymore, but I think he just needs our support not an award.
Indeed. Though, it will be sad if no change is brought about from his sacrifice. Our government will do anything it can to keep it's NSA surveillance weapon in working order, and it seems like we're all pretty powerless vs such a powerful entity.
Lol, what changes ? Look how they react to this. Instead of apologizing for all this shit, they want to capture the guy that exposed them and then kill him. EU(biggest ally) told the US gov. that what they did is not good and they are not happy about it, to say the least... What was the reaction ? Not a single word. US government does whatever it wants and I'm wondering why the people - free citizens - are doing nothing about it. Why there are no protests, riots etc ? For example in Luxembourg the prime minister Jean-Claude Juncker resigned for similar reasons last week.
I think people are just scared and or don't care. If you've experienced first hand just how powerful of a weapon the NSA/FBI alliance can be at oppression/life ruination, then you will probably feel hopeless about the entire situation. I imagine people that aren't fully aware just how shady/powerful and deep the rabbit hole at the NSA truly goes, you likely don't care.
You keep posting this kind of stuff. What are these weapons of "oppression/life ruination" that you're talking about, and could we please get some sources? I agree that invasions of privacy are bad, but its a far stretch to say that the NSA listening to my personal calls is going to ruin my life.
You can't get solid sources, that's the entire point. You think they will just let that type of stuff out into the public willingly? I think if you're going to hear about it from anyone, it will be from mr. Snowden himself considering he has eluded towards seeing incredibly abusive and disturbing examples in some of his interviews before he finally decided to make the entire program public.
I pray and also hope he does talk about some of the more extreme abuses the NSA/FBI combo have done to US citizens. Whether you believe me or not, which you won't, doesn't really matter. We will all have to wait and see if these types of stories come to the surface or not....I have no reason to be making stuff up about this btw, I don't have some sort of agenda or whatever drives people to try and manipulate opinions. Just someone that knows he has been a target by this god awful program over the past 3 or so years. Hint, when you find out something about a multibillion dollar tech focused company that could ultimately cost them a lot of money if people learned about it, well that alone is enough of a reason for these guys to oppress you.
This is ridiculous. You have a totally non-falsifiable argument because all of the bad stuff that's supposedly happening is "secret" and yet you want other people to believe it. You really think that in this day and age of viral videos and such that the FBI could run a secret torture regime and nobody would notice and tell people? Don't drink the kool-aid.
well, they did (do) run a sick surveillance program until snowden revealed it, didnt they?
no?
where were all the viral videos revealing this?
As noted earlier in this thread, people knew that sort of thing was going on anyway, and snowden is certainly not the first to leak secret US info. Also wiretapping is a far cry from secret torture/oppression.
people didnt know at all. people were afraid that this stuff might be happening, but being aware that all your skype calls are actually target of surveillance? people KNEW THAT? are you kidding me?
poeple DID NOT know that. people did not know the scale of this shit. they just didnt. yes, everyone was afraid, cause so many people didnt trust their governments anymore. NOW THEY HAVE PROOF: that's the whole point, ok?
You're missing the point. AnomalySC2 is arguing that there is a secret FBI apparatus of "oppression/life runiation" and that its secret so any evidence I bring up as to why it doesn't exist doesn't count. The argument is non-falsifiable and thus I reject it. I don't really have some point to prove about how important snowden's leaks are, but as said before, you should probably be more worried about microsoft monitoring your skype calls than the NSA.
Let me think; Obama, EU...yeah Snowden why not. I vote for Team Liquid, brings peace all day everyday among other things to so many nerds. TL.net Nobel Prize 2014?
Indeed. Though, it will be sad if no change is brought about from his sacrifice. Our government will do anything it can to keep it's NSA surveillance weapon in working order, and it seems like we're all pretty powerless vs such a powerful entity.
Lol, what changes ? Look how they react to this. Instead of apologizing for all this shit, they want to capture the guy that exposed them and then kill him. EU(biggest ally) told the US gov. that what they did is not good and they are not happy about it, to say the least... What was the reaction ? Not a single word. US government does whatever it wants and I'm wondering why the people - free citizens - are doing nothing about it. Why there are no protests, riots etc ? For example in Luxembourg the prime minister Jean-Claude Juncker resigned for similar reasons last week.
I think people are just scared and or don't care. If you've experienced first hand just how powerful of a weapon the NSA/FBI alliance can be at oppression/life ruination, then you will probably feel hopeless about the entire situation. I imagine people that aren't fully aware just how shady/powerful and deep the rabbit hole at the NSA truly goes, you likely don't care.
You keep posting this kind of stuff. What are these weapons of "oppression/life ruination" that you're talking about, and could we please get some sources? I agree that invasions of privacy are bad, but its a far stretch to say that the NSA listening to my personal calls is going to ruin my life.
You can't get solid sources, that's the entire point. You think they will just let that type of stuff out into the public willingly? I think if you're going to hear about it from anyone, it will be from mr. Snowden himself considering he has eluded towards seeing incredibly abusive and disturbing examples in some of his interviews before he finally decided to make the entire program public.
I pray and also hope he does talk about some of the more extreme abuses the NSA/FBI combo have done to US citizens. Whether you believe me or not, which you won't, doesn't really matter. We will all have to wait and see if these types of stories come to the surface or not....I have no reason to be making stuff up about this btw, I don't have some sort of agenda or whatever drives people to try and manipulate opinions. Just someone that knows he has been a target by this god awful program over the past 3 or so years. Hint, when you find out something about a multibillion dollar tech focused company that could ultimately cost them a lot of money if people learned about it, well that alone is enough of a reason for these guys to oppress you.
This is ridiculous. You have a totally non-falsifiable argument because all of the bad stuff that's supposedly happening is "secret" and yet you want other people to believe it. You really think that in this day and age of viral videos and such that the FBI could run a secret torture regime and nobody would notice and tell people? Don't drink the kool-aid.
well, they did (do) run a sick surveillance program until snowden revealed it, didnt they?
no?
where were all the viral videos revealing this?
As noted earlier in this thread, people knew that sort of thing was going on anyway, and snowden is certainly not the first to leak secret US info. Also wiretapping is a far cry from secret torture/oppression.
people didnt know at all. people were afraid that this stuff might be happening, but being aware that all your skype calls are actually target of surveillance? people KNEW THAT? are you kidding me?
poeple DID NOT know that. people did not know the scale of this shit. they just didnt. yes, everyone was afraid, cause so many people didnt trust their governments anymore. NOW THEY HAVE PROOF: that's the whole point, ok?
You're missing the point. AnomalySC2 is arguing that there is a secret FBI apparatus of "oppression/life runiation" and that its secret so any evidence I bring up as to why it doesn't exist doesn't count. The argument is non-falsifiable and thus I reject it. I don't really have some point to prove about how important snowden's leaks are, but as said before, you should probably be more worried about microsoft monitoring your skype calls than the NSA.
ok i get your point. but in all seriousness... should we be discussing details like that?
our governments are out of control and acting against our will. what's to discuss here?
On July 17 2013 03:35 Pr0wler wrote: [quote] Lol, what changes ? Look how they react to this. Instead of apologizing for all this shit, they want to capture the guy that exposed them and then kill him. EU(biggest ally) told the US gov. that what they did is not good and they are not happy about it, to say the least... What was the reaction ? Not a single word. US government does whatever it wants and I'm wondering why the people - free citizens - are doing nothing about it. Why there are no protests, riots etc ? For example in Luxembourg the prime minister Jean-Claude Juncker resigned for similar reasons last week.
I think people are just scared and or don't care. If you've experienced first hand just how powerful of a weapon the NSA/FBI alliance can be at oppression/life ruination, then you will probably feel hopeless about the entire situation. I imagine people that aren't fully aware just how shady/powerful and deep the rabbit hole at the NSA truly goes, you likely don't care.
You keep posting this kind of stuff. What are these weapons of "oppression/life ruination" that you're talking about, and could we please get some sources? I agree that invasions of privacy are bad, but its a far stretch to say that the NSA listening to my personal calls is going to ruin my life.
You can't get solid sources, that's the entire point. You think they will just let that type of stuff out into the public willingly? I think if you're going to hear about it from anyone, it will be from mr. Snowden himself considering he has eluded towards seeing incredibly abusive and disturbing examples in some of his interviews before he finally decided to make the entire program public.
I pray and also hope he does talk about some of the more extreme abuses the NSA/FBI combo have done to US citizens. Whether you believe me or not, which you won't, doesn't really matter. We will all have to wait and see if these types of stories come to the surface or not....I have no reason to be making stuff up about this btw, I don't have some sort of agenda or whatever drives people to try and manipulate opinions. Just someone that knows he has been a target by this god awful program over the past 3 or so years. Hint, when you find out something about a multibillion dollar tech focused company that could ultimately cost them a lot of money if people learned about it, well that alone is enough of a reason for these guys to oppress you.
This is ridiculous. You have a totally non-falsifiable argument because all of the bad stuff that's supposedly happening is "secret" and yet you want other people to believe it. You really think that in this day and age of viral videos and such that the FBI could run a secret torture regime and nobody would notice and tell people? Don't drink the kool-aid.
well, they did (do) run a sick surveillance program until snowden revealed it, didnt they?
no?
where were all the viral videos revealing this?
As noted earlier in this thread, people knew that sort of thing was going on anyway, and snowden is certainly not the first to leak secret US info. Also wiretapping is a far cry from secret torture/oppression.
people didnt know at all. people were afraid that this stuff might be happening, but being aware that all your skype calls are actually target of surveillance? people KNEW THAT? are you kidding me?
poeple DID NOT know that. people did not know the scale of this shit. they just didnt. yes, everyone was afraid, cause so many people didnt trust their governments anymore. NOW THEY HAVE PROOF: that's the whole point, ok?
You're missing the point. AnomalySC2 is arguing that there is a secret FBI apparatus of "oppression/life runiation" and that its secret so any evidence I bring up as to why it doesn't exist doesn't count. The argument is non-falsifiable and thus I reject it. I don't really have some point to prove about how important snowden's leaks are, but as said before, you should probably be more worried about microsoft monitoring your skype calls than the NSA.
ok i get your point. but in all seriousness... should we be discussing details like that?
our governments are out of control and acting against our will. what's to discuss here?
well for starters we could discuss whether on not snowden should get the peace prize
personally, while I'm a bit worried over violations of privacy, its not really that big of a deal. At the end of the day we're voluntarily giving up a lot of our privacy anyway because it makes it easier to connect to facebook. At the end of the day i think that the hype that the government is going to turn big brother all of a sudden is overblown. don't drink the kool aid.
On July 17 2013 05:20 RHGaming wrote: Polls like these infuriate me. 100% of the people that voted in this poll have no true idea what goes into selecting a Peace Prize recipient.
Good ole "95% of statistics are made up on the spot".
Also you can easily go to wikipedia, read a bit, find out that it's largely arbitrary, and then make a judgment call which is either based on what goes into selecting a peace prize recipient, OR what SHOULD go into the selection.
On July 17 2013 05:07 beg wrote: honestly, shouldnt we know about what our governments are doing?
this is a _DEMOCRACY_. our countries are "governed by the people". yet the biggest operations are secret from the people. and unwanted too.
do you not understand this? the majority DOES NOT WANT this shit to happen. yet it happens. thus the leak is good. what's so hard to understand?
On July 17 2013 05:06 packrat386 wrote:
On July 17 2013 05:02 beg wrote:
On July 17 2013 05:00 packrat386 wrote:
On July 17 2013 04:57 beg wrote:
On July 17 2013 04:39 packrat386 wrote:
On July 17 2013 04:34 AnomalySC2 wrote:
On July 17 2013 04:18 packrat386 wrote:
On July 17 2013 04:10 AnomalySC2 wrote: [quote]
I think people are just scared and or don't care. If you've experienced first hand just how powerful of a weapon the NSA/FBI alliance can be at oppression/life ruination, then you will probably feel hopeless about the entire situation. I imagine people that aren't fully aware just how shady/powerful and deep the rabbit hole at the NSA truly goes, you likely don't care.
You keep posting this kind of stuff. What are these weapons of "oppression/life ruination" that you're talking about, and could we please get some sources? I agree that invasions of privacy are bad, but its a far stretch to say that the NSA listening to my personal calls is going to ruin my life.
You can't get solid sources, that's the entire point. You think they will just let that type of stuff out into the public willingly? I think if you're going to hear about it from anyone, it will be from mr. Snowden himself considering he has eluded towards seeing incredibly abusive and disturbing examples in some of his interviews before he finally decided to make the entire program public.
I pray and also hope he does talk about some of the more extreme abuses the NSA/FBI combo have done to US citizens. Whether you believe me or not, which you won't, doesn't really matter. We will all have to wait and see if these types of stories come to the surface or not....I have no reason to be making stuff up about this btw, I don't have some sort of agenda or whatever drives people to try and manipulate opinions. Just someone that knows he has been a target by this god awful program over the past 3 or so years. Hint, when you find out something about a multibillion dollar tech focused company that could ultimately cost them a lot of money if people learned about it, well that alone is enough of a reason for these guys to oppress you.
This is ridiculous. You have a totally non-falsifiable argument because all of the bad stuff that's supposedly happening is "secret" and yet you want other people to believe it. You really think that in this day and age of viral videos and such that the FBI could run a secret torture regime and nobody would notice and tell people? Don't drink the kool-aid.
well, they did (do) run a sick surveillance program until snowden revealed it, didnt they?
no?
where were all the viral videos revealing this?
As noted earlier in this thread, people knew that sort of thing was going on anyway, and snowden is certainly not the first to leak secret US info. Also wiretapping is a far cry from secret torture/oppression.
people didnt know at all. people were afraid that this stuff might be happening, but being aware that all your skype calls are actually target of surveillance? people KNEW THAT? are you kidding me?
poeple DID NOT know that. people did not know the scale of this shit. they just didnt. yes, everyone was afraid, cause so many people didnt trust their governments anymore. NOW THEY HAVE PROOF: that's the whole point, ok?
You're missing the point. AnomalySC2 is arguing that there is a secret FBI apparatus of "oppression/life runiation" and that its secret so any evidence I bring up as to why it doesn't exist doesn't count. The argument is non-falsifiable and thus I reject it. I don't really have some point to prove about how important snowden's leaks are, but as said before, you should probably be more worried about microsoft monitoring your skype calls than the NSA.
ok i get your point. but in all seriousness... should we be discussing details like that?
our governments are out of control and acting against our will. what's to discuss here?
well for starters we could discuss whether on not snowden should get the peace prize
personally, while I'm a bit worried over violations of privacy, its not really that big of a deal. At the end of the day we're voluntarily giving up a lot of our privacy anyway because it makes it easier to connect to facebook. At the end of the day i think that the hype that the government is going to turn big brother all of a sudden is overblown. don't drink the kool aid.
It may well be overblown, but why give them the option? Don't spare the rod. It is a democracy (Although that's not technically true ), so we should be telling them what to do, not the other way around.
EDIT: I don't mean that we should be dictating policy, but that when something like this, or other important issues come around public opinion should play a maaaaaaaaassive role in anything that happens. Gay rights, sufferage, slavery, and the like are all good examples. Public opinion changed things, and while this may not be a social issue the same should apply.
On July 17 2013 02:59 sva wrote: More then Obama did....
And it hardly matters anymore, but I think he just needs our support not an award.
Indeed. Though, it will be sad if no change is brought about from his sacrifice. Our government will do anything it can to keep it's NSA surveillance weapon in working order, and it seems like we're all pretty powerless vs such a powerful entity.
Lol, what changes ? Look how they react to this. Instead of apologizing for all this shit, they want to capture the guy that exposed them and then kill him. EU(biggest ally) told the US gov. that what they did is not good and they are not happy about it, to say the least... What was the reaction ? Not a single word. US government does whatever it wants and I'm wondering why the people - free citizens - are doing nothing about it. Why there are no protests, riots etc ? For example in Luxembourg the prime minister Jean-Claude Juncker resigned for similar reasons last week.
I think people are just scared and or don't care. If you've experienced first hand just how powerful of a weapon the NSA/FBI alliance can be at oppression/life ruination, then you will probably feel hopeless about the entire situation. I imagine people that aren't fully aware just how shady/powerful and deep the rabbit hole at the NSA truly goes, you likely don't care.
You keep posting this kind of stuff. What are these weapons of "oppression/life ruination" that you're talking about, and could we please get some sources? I agree that invasions of privacy are bad, but its a far stretch to say that the NSA listening to my personal calls is going to ruin my life.
You can't get solid sources, that's the entire point. You think they will just let that type of stuff out into the public willingly? I think if you're going to hear about it from anyone, it will be from mr. Snowden himself considering he has eluded towards seeing incredibly abusive and disturbing examples in some of his interviews before he finally decided to make the entire program public.
I pray and also hope he does talk about some of the more extreme abuses the NSA/FBI combo have done to US citizens. Whether you believe me or not, which you won't, doesn't really matter. We will all have to wait and see if these types of stories come to the surface or not....I have no reason to be making stuff up about this btw, I don't have some sort of agenda or whatever drives people to try and manipulate opinions. Just someone that knows he has been a target by this god awful program over the past 3 or so years. Hint, when you find out something about a multibillion dollar tech focused company that could ultimately cost them a lot of money if people learned about it, well that alone is enough of a reason for these guys to oppress you.
This is ridiculous. You have a totally non-falsifiable argument because all of the bad stuff that's supposedly happening is "secret" and yet you want other people to believe it. You really think that in this day and age of viral videos and such that the FBI could run a secret torture regime and nobody would notice and tell people? Don't drink the kool-aid.
It's very easy to pull the conspiracy nut or paranoia card out, in fact it's their number one ace in the hole. However, is what they've been doing legal or not? And why have they been caught multiple times bluntly lying about it under oath. We're talking about a joint cooperation between the most powerful tech based corporations in america, the nsa, the fbi, and ultimately the entire government. That much money and power involved is capable of all sorts of things. Great things, bad things, evil things, and and amazing ability to oppress those that have been a victim of it all. It's a slaughter of basic human privacy and freedom of speech.
But anyways, please do answer my question. Is what they've been doing illegal or not?
No way that he deserves a peace prize for this. More than a dozen other people have said similar things, and snowden poorly articulated it. Just no one cared to listen.
On July 17 2013 05:20 RHGaming wrote: Polls like these infuriate me. 100% of the people that voted in this poll have no true idea what goes into selecting a Peace Prize recipient.
Good ole "95% of statistics are made up on the spot".
Also you can easily go to wikipedia, read a bit, find out that it's largely arbitrary, and then make a judgment call which is either based on what goes into selecting a peace prize recipient, OR what SHOULD go into the selection.
People should learn history. These extreme forms of control have always been performed by dictatorial governments who needed the information to be able to supress opposition. This is the only reason the nsa is spying so much,everyone defending the usa/nsa in this case is defending a tool that historically has been used to control people and supress thoose who think different. People should not look only at the act itself, but also at the purpose of it. And the purpose is verry frightening.
What has he done to promote the idea of peace in the world? By stirring up a shitstorm of anti-American feelings in other countries? That doesn't seem all that "peace" worthy to me.
I agree with what he did, but not how he did it. Blowing whistles, stopping crap like this, is good. Running to the press then fleeing the country doesn't seem like the best way to do things. But so much of what we've heard is probably filled with disinformation that it doesn't nothing but confound and confuse us civvies.
You have it backwards. Being loyal means having the courage to stand up for your country and against the government when it steps out of line, especially when it violates the constitution. In this line, Snowden is very loyal to his country.
As a blanket response to everybody who's defending and hailing Snowden as somebody that revealed this supposed information (and the endless 'acting contrary to national interests = standing up for the country' mantra being parroted), I'll ask you: What civil rights were violated? What human rights were violated?
Assuming of course this is all true and there are no more leaks, show me where the US Constitution guarantees or implies these expectations of privacy.
Oh. They don't? They only cover search and seizure in instances not relating to national security, imminent threat, or individuals of non-citizens where 1.) Majority needs overrule 2.) You're not a US citizen so the Constitution doesn't apply to you? Huh. Go figure. People don't have the right to know everything, nor do I believe that governments SHOULD let their people know everything. The state of ... well, states, has been this way since the first governments.
Javy_'s second half about bravery? Betraying your country's secrets because you think you know better than the entire government isn't brave, it's treason. It's aiding and abetting the enemy. It's also, when the government you're betraying is the United State's government, very stupid.
For the topic on hand: Snowden doesn't deserve a Nobel Peace Prize or anything of the sort. Ever.
That's facism right there. "Oh you arent part of our society? We are denying you basic human rights." To make things even better, there are thousands of people, especially Latinos in southern parts of the USA who dont have US citizenship, so it is also discriminating a minority living in the USA, based on what? A citizenship that comes mainly by birth and in some rare occasions from the state, it's like the incarnation of breaching the principle of equality. Hitler would have loved that part.
Citing that part proudly to prove that the country did nothing wrong just shows the arrogance of US-Americans, thinking that they are above human rights only because they are an imperial superpower. "Either you are American, or we trample on your rights."
You have it backwards. Being loyal means having the courage to stand up for your country and against the government when it steps out of line, especially when it violates the constitution. In this line, Snowden is very loyal to his country.
As a blanket response to everybody who's defending and hailing Snowden as somebody that revealed this supposed information (and the endless 'acting contrary to national interests = standing up for the country' mantra being parroted), I'll ask you: What civil rights were violated? What human rights were violated?
Assuming of course this is all true and there are no more leaks, show me where the US Constitution guarantees or implies these expectations of privacy.
Oh. They don't? They only cover search and seizure in instances not relating to national security, imminent threat, or individuals of non-citizens where 1.) Majority needs overrule 2.) You're not a US citizen so the Constitution doesn't apply to you? Huh. Go figure. People don't have the right to know everything, nor do I believe that governments SHOULD let their people know everything. The state of ... well, states, has been this way since the first governments.
Javy_'s second half about bravery? Betraying your country's secrets because you think you know better than the entire government isn't brave, it's treason. It's aiding and abetting the enemy. It's also, when the government you're betraying is the United State's government, very stupid.
For the topic on hand: Snowden doesn't deserve a Nobel Peace Prize or anything of the sort. Ever.
Hitler would have loved that part.
FYI you shouldn't do that, ever. Even if the comparison is valid, don't do it.
On July 17 2013 02:15 LegalLord wrote: None of these countries shield him because they believe he did the right thing. They shield him to spite the US.
that doesn't mean that they think that what he did was wrong
I am certain that these countries do the exact same thing (China obviously does, and the USSR did it so Russia almost certainly does). They do not support Snowden for any reason other than because they don't like the US.
And the US has been very, very vocal about how wrong those other countries doing it is. Much like how very supportive they are of dissidents from there. But now the shoe is on the other foot, isn't it?
He should get it imo, because it did cost him to expose this travesty and we do need a signal that this growing worldwide trend of invading the lives of everyone in trade for a pinky promise that all will be well is not something that should just be accepted.
But he probably won't.
Spying is what spies do. The NSA is an organization of spies. I see nothing wrong with that.
Leaking important documents vital to the function of that organization, on the other hand, is treason.
so if the government uses its army to kill citizens that are protesting it's okay because it's the army's job to kill people but if a soldier says: "no I won't kill these people" he should be killed because he is not obeying orders? I'm grateful that there are so few people with this point of view over here... jeez
The army's job is to maintain stability, not kill people. Very much a strawman argument.
Desertion, by the way, is a crime for which you can be shot.
Depending in which country you are serving. I know for a fact that german soldiers are told that they may refuse to follow orders if they are convinced they violate basic human rights. And the american constitution doesn't list basic human rights because it is older than those rights. I can only suppose that other countries have laws to protect these rights as well. In the german Grundgesetz it is article 10 "secrecy of correspondence, posts and telecommunications is inviolable". Every exception to this needs to go through court. At the moment it looks like violation of this right is the rule in the US. Maybe in other countries as well, but we won't know until someone blows the whistle on those.
On July 17 2013 09:15 Cirqueenflex wrote: the one thing he did well was made me understand the reasoning behind the constant internet connection and surveillance options of the xbox one
Yup. All major tech focused corporations are allied with the NSA. The purpose of the mandatory camera is pretty obvious no?
On July 17 2013 02:15 LegalLord wrote: None of these countries shield him because they believe he did the right thing. They shield him to spite the US.
that doesn't mean that they think that what he did was wrong
I am certain that these countries do the exact same thing (China obviously does, and the USSR did it so Russia almost certainly does). They do not support Snowden for any reason other than because they don't like the US.
And the US has been very, very vocal about how wrong those other countries doing it is. Much like how very supportive they are of dissidents from there. But now the shoe is on the other foot, isn't it?
He should get it imo, because it did cost him to expose this travesty and we do need a signal that this growing worldwide trend of invading the lives of everyone in trade for a pinky promise that all will be well is not something that should just be accepted.
But he probably won't.
Spying is what spies do. The NSA is an organization of spies. I see nothing wrong with that.
Leaking important documents vital to the function of that organization, on the other hand, is treason.
so if the government uses its army to kill citizens that are protesting it's okay because it's the army's job to kill people but if a soldier says: "no I won't kill these people" he should be killed because he is not obeying orders? I'm grateful that there are so few people with this point of view over here... jeez
The army's job is to maintain stability, not kill people. Very much a strawman argument.
Desertion, by the way, is a crime for which you can be shot.
This post is endlessly amusing to me, for several reasons. First: the army's job is to maintain stability? Really? I thought that was what police, firefighters, doctors, judges, water purification, and democracy are for. As far as I know, the army, by which I assume you mean the American army, hasn't "maintained stability" on American soil for longer than anyone has been alive. but I suppose it's fair at least to credit them with their commendable services and manpower during various national disasters and states of general hysteria.
Still, though, if I look at the history of the American army from after WWII until the present day, it doesn't really seem like any stability has been maintained or even restored by their presence overseas; if anything, American involvement tends to inflate the death toll of conflicts, bring to light a number of human rights abuses (on both sides) and doesn't have much correlation to a speedy end to hostilities. I mean, I'm not denying that the American military is effective for whatever purpose it's supposed to serve (and I have no idea what that purpose is supposed to be, since it seems like a largely redundant titanium wall coated with diamonds as the people who want to attack the city are either already in the city, know how to climb walls, or trying to attack with forks) but if I look at the "major" conflicts of the past half-century, a large number are pretty close to what I'd call "defeat" (even if America didn't necessarily get conquered or lose territory and just withdrew before losing more soldiers see Vietnam etc.) and the remainder are what I might generously call "not-failures." Perhaps there are one or two actual, roaring successes in there, depending how you qualify that success (I guess the Gulf War was pretty successful, from a certain point of view, especially compared to its younger brother) but they don't really seem to be all that common, or convincing, or major in the scope of commitment vs. goals vs. risk.
Also, saying that the army's job is maintain stability and that characterizing them as killers is a "strawman" is pretty funny when the next line is that they shoot people for deserting.
It's weird to me that Snowden is being hunted over the globe for possibly, hypothetically, potentially harming some ethereal American somewhere in the universe, but when we know that during Iraq/Afghanistan, some American soldiers did shitty things during war we barely prosecute them, barely sentence them, and chalk most of it up to the "horrors of war." This isn't a uniquely American phenomenon, or anything, but it still sucks.
On July 17 2013 02:15 LegalLord wrote: None of these countries shield him because they believe he did the right thing. They shield him to spite the US.
that doesn't mean that they think that what he did was wrong
I am certain that these countries do the exact same thing (China obviously does, and the USSR did it so Russia almost certainly does). They do not support Snowden for any reason other than because they don't like the US.
And the US has been very, very vocal about how wrong those other countries doing it is. Much like how very supportive they are of dissidents from there. But now the shoe is on the other foot, isn't it?
He should get it imo, because it did cost him to expose this travesty and we do need a signal that this growing worldwide trend of invading the lives of everyone in trade for a pinky promise that all will be well is not something that should just be accepted.
But he probably won't.
Spying is what spies do. The NSA is an organization of spies. I see nothing wrong with that.
Leaking important documents vital to the function of that organization, on the other hand, is treason.
so if the government uses its army to kill citizens that are protesting it's okay because it's the army's job to kill people but if a soldier says: "no I won't kill these people" he should be killed because he is not obeying orders? I'm grateful that there are so few people with this point of view over here... jeez
The army's job is to maintain stability, not kill people. Very much a strawman argument.
Desertion, by the way, is a crime for which you can be shot.
This post is endlessly amusing to me, for several reasons. First: the army's job is to maintain stability? Really? I thought that was what police, firefighters, doctors, judges, water purification, and democracy are for. As far as I know, the army, by which I assume you mean the American army, hasn't "maintained stability" on American soil for longer than anyone has been alive. but I suppose it's fair at least to credit them with their commendable services and manpower during various national disasters and states of general hysteria.
Still, though, if I look at the history of the American army from after WWII until the present day, it doesn't really seem like any stability has been maintained or even restored by their presence overseas; if anything, American involvement tends to inflate the death toll of conflicts, bring to light a number of human rights abuses (on both sides) and doesn't have much correlation to a speedy end to hostilities. I mean, I'm not denying that the American military is effective for whatever purpose it's supposed to serve (and I have no idea what that purpose is supposed to be, since it seems like a largely redundant titanium wall coated with diamonds as the people who want to attack the city are either already in the city, know how to climb walls, or trying to attack with forks) but if I look at the "major" conflicts of the past half-century, a large number are pretty close to what I'd call "defeat" (even if America didn't necessarily get conquered or lose territory and just withdrew before losing more soldiers see Vietnam etc.) and the remainder are what I might generously call "not-failures." Perhaps there are one or two actual, roaring successes in there, depending how you qualify that success (I guess the Gulf War was pretty successful, from a certain point of view, especially compared to its younger brother) but they don't really seem to be all that common, or convincing, or major in the scope of commitment vs. goals vs. risk.
Also, saying that the army's job is maintain stability and that characterizing them as killers is a "strawman" is pretty funny when the next line is that they shoot people for deserting.
It's weird to me that Snowden is being hunted over the globe for possibly, hypothetically, potentially harming some ethereal American somewhere in the universe, but when we know that during Iraq/Afghanistan, some American soldiers did shitty things during war we barely prosecute them, barely sentence them, and chalk most of it up to the "horrors of war." This isn't a uniquely American phenomenon, or anything, but it still sucks.
If you think our involvement overseas is actually for "stability" or "democracy", then it's also true that Allah commanded jihad and genocide against non-Muslims back in the 600s. That isn't our goal lol. It does fool people pretty effectively into thinking it is though .
On July 17 2013 02:15 LegalLord wrote: None of these countries shield him because they believe he did the right thing. They shield him to spite the US.
that doesn't mean that they think that what he did was wrong
I am certain that these countries do the exact same thing (China obviously does, and the USSR did it so Russia almost certainly does). They do not support Snowden for any reason other than because they don't like the US.
And the US has been very, very vocal about how wrong those other countries doing it is. Much like how very supportive they are of dissidents from there. But now the shoe is on the other foot, isn't it?
He should get it imo, because it did cost him to expose this travesty and we do need a signal that this growing worldwide trend of invading the lives of everyone in trade for a pinky promise that all will be well is not something that should just be accepted.
But he probably won't.
Spying is what spies do. The NSA is an organization of spies. I see nothing wrong with that.
Leaking important documents vital to the function of that organization, on the other hand, is treason.
so if the government uses its army to kill citizens that are protesting it's okay because it's the army's job to kill people but if a soldier says: "no I won't kill these people" he should be killed because he is not obeying orders? I'm grateful that there are so few people with this point of view over here... jeez
The army's job is to maintain stability, not kill people. Very much a strawman argument.
Desertion, by the way, is a crime for which you can be shot.
This post is endlessly amusing to me, for several reasons. First: the army's job is to maintain stability? Really? I thought that was what police, firefighters, doctors, judges, water purification, and democracy are for. As far as I know, the army, by which I assume you mean the American army, hasn't "maintained stability" on American soil for longer than anyone has been alive. but I suppose it's fair at least to credit them with their commendable services and manpower during various national disasters and states of general hysteria.
Still, though, if I look at the history of the American army from after WWII until the present day, it doesn't really seem like any stability has been maintained or even restored by their presence overseas; if anything, American involvement tends to inflate the death toll of conflicts, bring to light a number of human rights abuses (on both sides) and doesn't have much correlation to a speedy end to hostilities. I mean, I'm not denying that the American military is effective for whatever purpose it's supposed to serve (and I have no idea what that purpose is supposed to be, since it seems like a largely redundant titanium wall coated with diamonds as the people who want to attack the city are either already in the city, know how to climb walls, or trying to attack with forks) but if I look at the "major" conflicts of the past half-century, a large number are pretty close to what I'd call "defeat" (even if America didn't necessarily get conquered or lose territory and just withdrew before losing more soldiers see Vietnam etc.) and the remainder are what I might generously call "not-failures." Perhaps there are one or two actual, roaring successes in there, depending how you qualify that success (I guess the Gulf War was pretty successful, from a certain point of view, especially compared to its younger brother) but they don't really seem to be all that common, or convincing, or major in the scope of commitment vs. goals vs. risk.
Also, saying that the army's job is maintain stability and that characterizing them as killers is a "strawman" is pretty funny when the next line is that they shoot people for deserting.
It's weird to me that Snowden is being hunted over the globe for possibly, hypothetically, potentially harming some ethereal American somewhere in the universe, but when we know that during Iraq/Afghanistan, some American soldiers did shitty things during war we barely prosecute them, barely sentence them, and chalk most of it up to the "horrors of war." This isn't a uniquely American phenomenon, or anything, but it still sucks.
If you think our involvement overseas is actually for "stability" or "democracy", then it's also true that Allah commanded jihad and genocide against non-Muslims back in the 600s. That isn't our goal lol. It does fool people pretty effectively into thinking it is though .
Oh, I know. I'm probably one of the people on this forum most vehemently opposed to military operations/war in general, so I'd be pretty skeptical of any claim that overseas involvement is for democracy or stability. I tend to think wanton violence in pursuit of either of the two to be pretty oxymoronic.
On July 17 2013 10:09 Shiori wrote: As far as I know, the army, by which I assume you mean the American army, hasn't "maintained stability" on American soil for longer than anyone has been alive.
Alright then, here's an experiment for you: take the country you live in, and imagine that the entire armed forces of said country was disbanded. Is that country more stable now?
Oh and, ironically, much of your post was once again a strawman because I was responding to a post regarding Manning and quelling riots. There was nothing there addressing US overseas activities, which is another topic altogether.
On July 17 2013 10:09 Shiori wrote: As far as I know, the army, by which I assume you mean the American army, hasn't "maintained stability" on American soil for longer than anyone has been alive.
Alright then, here's an experiment for you: take the country you live in, and imagine that the entire armed forces of said country was disbanded. Is that country more stable now?
Oh and, ironically, much of your post was once again a strawman because I was responding to a post regarding Manning and quelling riots. There was nothing there addressing US overseas activities, which is another topic altogether.
I pretty much wouldn't even notice (with respect to day to day activities) if the military disappeared. As far as I know, my country (Canada) isn't courting war with anyone, and nor is anyone making overtures to invade us, so how exactly is the military maintaining stability in a fashion that only the military can do? I don't deny that they have manpower and organization, which are useful for auxiliary support during natural disasters and the like, but an army is more than just that.
Is it hypothetically "more stable"? Uh, I have no idea, because I don't consider the military to be a force actively going out of its way to undermine the stability of my life. I just think it's mostly pointless and violent, which I don't like.
Edit: making me go back and read the quote-chain in question (in which you forgive the NSA for spying on anyone ever because they're, like, spies, and brand Snowden a traitor, among other things) really doesn't inspire me to give you the benefit of the doubt regarding your defense of military functions.
On July 17 2013 10:09 Shiori wrote: As far as I know, the army, by which I assume you mean the American army, hasn't "maintained stability" on American soil for longer than anyone has been alive.
Alright then, here's an experiment for you: take the country you live in, and imagine that the entire armed forces of said country was disbanded. Is that country more stable now?
Oh and, ironically, much of your post was once again a strawman because I was responding to a post regarding Manning and quelling riots. There was nothing there addressing US overseas activities, which is another topic altogether.
I pretty much wouldn't even notice if the military disappeared. As far as I know, my country (Canada) isn't courting war with anyone, and nor is anyone making overtures to invades us, so how exactly is the military maintaining stability in a fashion that only the military can do? I don't deny that they have manpower and organization, which are useful for auxiliary support during natural disasters and the like, but an army is more than just that.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree. But I think it's utterly naive to think that you will lose nothing by having no armed forces, no matter how much of a pacifist you are.
On July 17 2013 10:09 Shiori wrote: As far as I know, the army, by which I assume you mean the American army, hasn't "maintained stability" on American soil for longer than anyone has been alive.
Alright then, here's an experiment for you: take the country you live in, and imagine that the entire armed forces of said country was disbanded. Is that country more stable now?
Oh and, ironically, much of your post was once again a strawman because I was responding to a post regarding Manning and quelling riots. There was nothing there addressing US overseas activities, which is another topic altogether.
I pretty much wouldn't even notice if the military disappeared. As far as I know, my country (Canada) isn't courting war with anyone, and nor is anyone making overtures to invades us, so how exactly is the military maintaining stability in a fashion that only the military can do? I don't deny that they have manpower and organization, which are useful for auxiliary support during natural disasters and the like, but an army is more than just that.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree. But I think it's utterly naive to think that you will lose nothing by having no armed forces, no matter how much of a pacifist you are.
Oh I don't deny that some things would be lost: a stockpile of (mostly male) people of good physical fitness who have good discipline, know how to obey a command, and know lots about killing people; the feeling that my tax dollars fund, on some level, organized killing, which tends to incidentally include civilians; and (hopefully) the depressing tendency to label soldiers as uniquely heroic* (as if Afghanistan were Normandy Beach) when there are tonnes of doctors, surgeons, teachers, scientists, judges actually positively contributing to the well-being of people on a day-to-day basis who receive nominal to modest praise upon their death.
*I don't deny that there are heroic soldiers, or that soldiers can do good things (both sides of my family have members who were at some point soldiers,and obviously I don't think they're bad people or anything less than good people). I'd say that the vast majority of soldiers are normal and good people, and that many of them have the best of intentions and truly love their country and/or their mission. I do deny that being in the military makes one a hero (regardless of death) in any automatic sense (the reason I state this is because the government renamed a major highway the "Highway of Heroes" since all fallen soldiers are escorted up it in funerary proceedings) and certainly not simply because they were killed doing something as a member of the armed forces. Dying for a cause shows resolve, but to be a hero, to me, means doing something noble or good in addition to being incredible/difficult. In that respect, I consider a firefighter who rushes to save someone from a burning building on the verge of collapse, despite indications of poisonous gas, to be far more worthy of the title of "hero" than a hypothetical soldier who was tragically shot during a firefight with insurgents in a random street. The latter is certainly very sad and definitely something to be mourned, but I think heroism is about deeds, not about tragedy. The firefighter is a hero whether he dies of poisoning or not; the soldier is venerated for death simply because the military is viewed by some as some literal, pure element of a nation more so than anyone else.
I understand the tendency to venerate the dead is very human and tends to concentrate around service professions that involve some kind of risk (police etc.). That's fine with me, but it seems to only be soldiers that are elevated so high in death, and that only soldiers are considered heroic not only by rgw people close to them, but also by people they've never met, and even by the government itself in such a systematic way that I feel is unmatched.
Granting the assumption of significance and meaning to the Nobel Peace Prize (questionable assumption), no, I absolutely do not think Edward Snowden deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. I find it impossible to even begin to imagine by what criterion he could be considered.
I am troubled by the great naivety that I feel would be required to consider his actions heroic. Those on that side seem completely foolish to me. Ignorant, naive, whiny, narrow-minded, shortsighted, feeble-minded, paranoid, and self-righteous are all adjectives which I feel encapsulate how I feel about this side. Reading that poll and reading the replies disappoints me greatly. I honestly feel very frustrated with many of you. I believe your thought process to be terrible and your conclusions to be ridiculous. I think it is the anti-establishment for the sake of anti-establishment (I feel this is a fundamental aspect of your mind-set) which bothers me the most. I feel as if you make up for your ignorance and lack of solutions by constantly attacking and constantly complaining. I think it is very easy to just complain and to point out flaws in systems, and that this is taken advantage of and taken to an extreme often. I often find your complaints to be irreconcilable with reality. Imaginary, simplistic, unattainable worlds and systems which are used to refute our actual world and systems. To me this seems incredibly unproductive and is just a lazy method by which some person can make themselves feel as if they are smarter than others.
But perhaps from your perspective, I'm just a gullible fool who was brainwashed to follow leadership and lash out at those who dispute the status quo. Of course I don't believe your perspective is at all correct, but I recognize its potential existence.
Perhaps this seemed like an odd response, but I'm trying to work on expressing my feelings better than saying things like "you're a fucking idiot" or "fuck you" or "you don't know anything" or "I hate you." And instead I'm at least trying to give a more descriptive and useful explanation of my feelings so that you can see where my heads at, though I do realize that this probably does not make my message any less antagonistic or abrasive.
To expand a little upon my viewpoints of this particular situation... I do not support Snowden's actions. I don't think they were at all an ideal method for fixing this perceived error. There exist other channels through which he could have done this which wouldn't have caused so much unnecessary controversy. I'm also bothered by his succeeding actions. Primarily his coming out interview. Preceding that interview, there was very little focus on the leaker aspect, and mostly all the media attention was on the actual issue of the NSA surveillance. Then he decides to give out his name and location? Why? Could he not foresee the complete shift in focus that would occur from the surveillance program to a sensationalized story of a man on the run from a government? What did he gain by coming out exactly?
And then he continues this by making even more drama out of it. As well as his and Greenwald's claims of Snowden's vast knowledge of secrets. He supposedly knows so much and he puts himself at a risk of being captured by any rivals of his own country which he is supposedly trying to protect? Who is this helping? It just seems as if even if you were to somehow accept that it was great for him to do what he did in the first place, why does this figure who seems to be viewed as a martyr by some do all these things after? Everything seems completely focused on him.
He just seems like a paranoid narcissist who without much thinking ahead decided he wanted to become some hero and reveal the dirty secrets of the U.S. government, but then afterwards he seems to think he can have all the praise and heroic status that comes with his martyring and "whistleblowing," but not suffer any punishments?
Though I must say he is an absolutely marvelous symbol for the modern-day, smug generation of lazy, unthinking political dissidents. He just about perfectly exemplifies all the negative aspects which I feel characterize many of you out there.
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.
On July 17 2013 10:09 Shiori wrote: As far as I know, the army, by which I assume you mean the American army, hasn't "maintained stability" on American soil for longer than anyone has been alive.
Alright then, here's an experiment for you: take the country you live in, and imagine that the entire armed forces of said country was disbanded. Is that country more stable now?
Oh and, ironically, much of your post was once again a strawman because I was responding to a post regarding Manning and quelling riots. There was nothing there addressing US overseas activities, which is another topic altogether.
I pretty much wouldn't even notice if the military disappeared. As far as I know, my country (Canada) isn't courting war with anyone, and nor is anyone making overtures to invades us, so how exactly is the military maintaining stability in a fashion that only the military can do? I don't deny that they have manpower and organization, which are useful for auxiliary support during natural disasters and the like, but an army is more than just that.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree. But I think it's utterly naive to think that you will lose nothing by having no armed forces, no matter how much of a pacifist you are.
Oh I don't deny that some things would be lost: a stockpile of (mostly male) people of good physical fitness who have good discipline, know how to obey a command, and know lots about killing people; the feeling that my tax dollars fund, on some level, organized killing, which tends to incidentally include civilians; and (hopefully) the depressing tendency to label soldiers as uniquely heroic* (as if Afghanistan were Normandy Beach) when there are tonnes of doctors, surgeons, teachers, scientists, judges actually positively contributing to the well-being of people on a day-to-day basis who receive nominal to modest praise upon their death.
*I don't deny that there are heroic soldiers, or that soldiers can do good things (both sides of my family have members who were at some point soldiers,and obviously I don't think they're bad people or anything less than good people). I'd say that the vast majority of soldiers are normal and good people, and that many of them have the best of intentions and truly love their country and/or their mission. I do deny that being in the military makes one a hero (regardless of death) in any automatic sense (the reason I state this is because the government renamed a major highway the "Highway of Heroes" since all fallen soldiers are escorted up it in funerary proceedings) and certainly not simply because they were killed doing something as a member of the armed forces. Dying for a cause shows resolve, but to be a hero, to me, means doing something noble or good in addition to being incredible/difficult. In that respect, I consider a firefighter who rushes to save someone from a burning building on the verge of collapse, despite indications of poisonous gas, to be far more worthy of the title of "hero" than a hypothetical soldier who was tragically shot during a firefight with insurgents in a random street. The latter is certainly very sad and definitely something to be mourned, but I think heroism is about deeds, not about tragedy. The firefighter is a hero whether he dies of poisoning or not; the soldier is venerated for death simply because the military is viewed by some as some literal, pure element of a nation more so than anyone else.
I understand the tendency to venerate the dead is very human and tends to concentrate around service professions that involve some kind of risk (police etc.). That's fine with me, but it seems to only be soldiers that are elevated so high in death, and that only soldiers are considered heroic not only by rgw people close to them, but also by people they've never met, and even by the government itself in such a systematic way that I feel is unmatched.
The real sadness to me when it comes to military operations overseas is that most soldiers are probably in it thinking they will make good, protect their country or some crap.
This whole farce as to what really happens during and after a war, what it achieves, and who profit from it, makes me sick.
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.
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.
It is polls like that illustrate why Nobel Peace Prizes have lost its meaning! It is not about peace anymore, but the one who held the greatest amount of political weight. Hey, why not call it "Nobel POLITICAL Prize"?
On July 17 2013 13:36 Befree wrote: He just seems like a paranoid narcissist who without much thinking ahead decided he wanted to become some hero and reveal the dirty secrets of the U.S. government, but then afterwards he seems to think he can have all the praise and heroic status that comes with his martyring and "whistleblowing," but not suffer any punishments?
Though I must say he is an absolutely marvelous symbol for the modern-day, smug generation of lazy, unthinking political dissidents. He just about perfectly exemplifies all the negative aspects which I feel characterize many of you out there.
i personally think, it is good that he made that thing public, but it is not an act that deserves this prize (or what this prize should mean). but since the commitee for this prize is stupid he probably has a good shot at winning it.
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.
i dont understand this viewpoint. is this something shoot-the-messanger like? because how i see it, snowden revealed a lot of undemocratic behaviour and holes in the state of law in the us. i mean, you got secret courts who can do whatever the fuck they want and no one can control them. but i guess some people are just fine as long as they can wave the american flag and shout USA USA USA.
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.
On July 17 2013 13:36 Befree wrote: Granting the assumption of significance and meaning to the Nobel Peace Prize (questionable assumption), no, I absolutely do not think Edward Snowden deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. I find it impossible to even begin to imagine by what criterion he could be considered.
I am troubled by the great naivety that I feel would be required to consider his actions heroic. Those on that side seem completely foolish to me. Ignorant, naive, whiny, narrow-minded, shortsighted, feeble-minded, paranoid, and self-righteous are all adjectives which I feel encapsulate how I feel about this side. Reading that poll and reading the replies disappoints me greatly. I honestly feel very frustrated with many of you. I believe your thought process to be terrible and your conclusions to be ridiculous. I think it is the anti-establishment for the sake of anti-establishment (I feel this is a fundamental aspect of your mind-set) which bothers me the most. I feel as if you make up for your ignorance and lack of solutions by constantly attacking and constantly complaining. I think it is very easy to just complain and to point out flaws in systems, and that this is taken advantage of and taken to an extreme often. I often find your complaints to be irreconcilable with reality. Imaginary, simplistic, unattainable worlds and systems which are used to refute our actual world and systems. To me this seems incredibly unproductive and is just a lazy method by which some person can make themselves feel as if they are smarter than others.
But perhaps from your perspective, I'm just a gullible fool who was brainwashed to follow leadership and lash out at those who dispute the status quo. Of course I don't believe your perspective is at all correct, but I recognize its potential existence.
Perhaps this seemed like an odd response, but I'm trying to work on expressing my feelings better than saying things like "you're a fucking idiot" or "fuck you" or "you don't know anything" or "I hate you." And instead I'm at least trying to give a more descriptive and useful explanation of my feelings so that you can see where my heads at, though I do realize that this probably does not make my message any less antagonistic or abrasive.
To expand a little upon my viewpoints of this particular situation... I do not support Snowden's actions. I don't think they were at all an ideal method for fixing this perceived error. There exist other channels through which he could have done this which wouldn't have caused so much unnecessary controversy. I'm also bothered by his succeeding actions. Primarily his coming out interview. Preceding that interview, there was very little focus on the leaker aspect, and mostly all the media attention was on the actual issue of the NSA surveillance. Then he decides to give out his name and location? Why? Could he not foresee the complete shift in focus that would occur from the surveillance program to a sensationalized story of a man on the run from a government? What did he gain by coming out exactly?
And then he continues this by making even more drama out of it. As well as his and Greenwald's claims of Snowden's vast knowledge of secrets. He supposedly knows so much and he puts himself at a risk of being captured by any rivals of his own country which he is supposedly trying to protect? Who is this helping? It just seems as if even if you were to somehow accept that it was great for him to do what he did in the first place, why does this figure who seems to be viewed as a martyr by some do all these things after? Everything seems completely focused on him.
He just seems like a paranoid narcissist who without much thinking ahead decided he wanted to become some hero and reveal the dirty secrets of the U.S. government, but then afterwards he seems to think he can have all the praise and heroic status that comes with his martyring and "whistleblowing," but not suffer any punishments?
Though I must say he is an absolutely marvelous symbol for the modern-day, smug generation of lazy, unthinking political dissidents. He just about perfectly exemplifies all the negative aspects which I feel characterize many of you out there.
The Nobel peace prize....is a joke. Obama got one for what exactly? Bombing brown people in foreign countries? The man is literally responsible for killing children. Do I think Snowden deserves the peace prize? No I don't, but only for the reason that the nobel peace price is meaningless. However bringing this to the forefront of mainstream media (even though all they focus on is the man and not the issues) is a very good thing for the global awareness of the outrageous war on terror. How can you call Snowden lazy, smug and unthinking. The guy took a risk to bring this information to us. And I thank him for that. You seem like a blind follower of authority, a pro government mentality. You offer no suggestions on where or how he could have disclosed this information, and how could you? You have no idea, just like the rest of us. You are just as ignorant as anyone else. Talk about smug. Your post is disgusting. Anti establishment for the sake of anti establishment is obviously not the best way to think about the world. Finding conspiracy in every little thing in life, is a very paranoid way of living. That being said, if you think the government spying on anyone and anything under the guise of "the war on terror" is a national policy that is good for the united states, then you sir have some serious issues. And I would call you just as naive as the people you are trying to put down. The world is not as you see it, and it is not how I see it. It is hidden for a reason, this reason is unknown to most. But we can take the looking glass out every now and then because of leaks of this nature. In the end could the guy of handled it better? Maybe. But at this point who cares, its out and the world is better off because of it. The guy has done a service to the entire world by disclosing such information. For you to make such sweeping generalizations shows you are every bit as ignorant as everyone else, and at least the people who are skeptical for the sake of it at least are on the side of the people. Go get a job at the NSA i'm sure you would fit right in.
Edit, By the way, where has faith in establishment got us so far? Greed spiraled out of control, people in power trading in suffering, standing on the skulls of the people below them. Huge banks destroying economies purely for profit. Shadow governments pulling strings behind the scenes, denying access to any and all information, for the sake of so called security, shitting on the constitutions as if they didn't even exist. Am I anti government? No I am not. However I am pro regulation, and the deregulation of said systems, ONLY benefit the ones who would exploit it for personal gain. Which is why they were deregulated in the first place, the ones in power choose to lobby for these bills to pass so they can make huge sweeping profits off the backs of society. The real criminals are the ones you cannot see. If i had my way, I would wage a violent revolution to take our fucking country back, nay the world back from the insanely greedy and corrupt. And when is all said and done, create a one world government that is an open and a fully disclosed form of scientific democratic policy. Remove the politicians and replace them with engineers, scientists and logical authoritarians who use reason to discern what is best for humanity as a whole.
The current state of economics is not economics in the slightest, it's damage control for ultra capitalism driven by pure greed. The sheer amount of money in politics only proves that greed cannot be let to spiral out of control, because people will always want more, want another house, another car another anything they can get their hands on. This is pure indoctrination by the ones that want you to consume the products they produce, its the result of commercials/media force feeding you your life. Telling you what to like, what to listen to, how much money you should make, and what you should do with it. What to believe and what to teach your children. This ultra materialism is the downfall of humans. This world is based on resources. Just like you cant make ultras on 1 base and expect to win a game, you cant rape the entire world and expect everything to just work out. Have some fucking responsibility for the toll you put on this world. When you post a shitty comment on youtube with your iphone, remember that device was built from the suffering of someone else. We are walking a very thin line. Evil prevails when good men do nothing. What Snowden has done is something. It's a start.
PS. For those that think he should be imprisoned for what he did. Congratulations you have been fully indoctrinated by the ones that seek to control you. You gain +2 sheep points. Please form a line for the human processing center, where we will continue to lobotomize the rest of the brain you have, slap a suit and tie on ya then proceed to dump you in a meat grinder so we can feed you to the pigs. One of us...
Oh and by the way, you can call me a communist or whatever ist or ism all you want, I expect the blind to utter the common attack words of the hive mind.
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.
He didn't sign up thinking the sensitive secrets were harming his own nation's people.
Whenever I agree to an oath of secrecy, I always know exactly what those sensitive secrets are and who they might harm.
Also, I don't think that's true. A lot of information seems to suggest that he intended to leak from the very start. Either way, the only thing he deserves is a prison cell.
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.
He didn't sign up thinking the sensitive secrets were harming his own nation's people.
Whenever I agree to an oath of secrecy, I always know exactly what those sensitive secrets are and who they might harm.
Also, I don't think that's true. A lot of information seems to suggest that he intended to leak from the very start. Either way, the only thing he deserves is a prison cell.
On July 17 2013 16:02 LegalLord wrote: Whenever I agree to an oath of secrecy, I always know exactly what those sensitive secrets are and who they might harm.
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?
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.
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)
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.
On July 17 2013 02:15 LegalLord wrote: None of these countries shield him because they believe he did the right thing. They shield him to spite the US.
that doesn't mean that they think that what he did was wrong
I am certain that these countries do the exact same thing (China obviously does, and the USSR did it so Russia almost certainly does). They do not support Snowden for any reason other than because they don't like the US.
And the US has been very, very vocal about how wrong those other countries doing it is. Much like how very supportive they are of dissidents from there. But now the shoe is on the other foot, isn't it?
He should get it imo, because it did cost him to expose this travesty and we do need a signal that this growing worldwide trend of invading the lives of everyone in trade for a pinky promise that all will be well is not something that should just be accepted.
But he probably won't.
Spying is what spies do. The NSA is an organization of spies. I see nothing wrong with that.
Leaking important documents vital to the function of that organization, on the other hand, is treason.
so if the government uses its army to kill citizens that are protesting it's okay because it's the army's job to kill people but if a soldier says: "no I won't kill these people" he should be killed because he is not obeying orders? I'm grateful that there are so few people with this point of view over here... jeez
Given that the US military doesn't have authority in the country its not the best comparison, but besides that, I think there is a big difference. There is a good argument to be made that the information that the NSA and our other intelligence agencies gather is worth the slight invasion of privacy. AS Plansix said somewhere earlier, you probably ought to be more worried about microsoft employees "monitoring" your skype calls than the NSA.
so now spying on other countries that you are allied to is a "slight invasion of privacy"? i see...
On July 17 2013 15:15 giesecke wrote: he doenst deserve it.
i personally think, it is good that he made that thing public, but it is not an act that deserves this prize (or what this prize should mean). but since the commitee for this prize is stupid he probably has a good shot at winning it.
You pretty much summed up everything I was about to say without walls of text, so instead I'll just quote you.
On July 17 2013 11:13 Xahhk wrote: Obama got one for being Mr. Drone Mcgee. A McDonalds McGriddle prep cook deserves one at this point.
I always felt like Obama was given it to make some bizarre "please be a nice guy that we want you to be" statement, without realizing that he only appears good compared to the kind of people he's running against. That worked out splendidly.
Anyhow, the Nobel prize doesn't matter. Bringing more lexposure to Snowden and legitimacy for his actions does, though. I would like to see him win it, even though I'm aware there is no chance of that happening.
Indeed. Though, it will be sad if no change is brought about from his sacrifice. Our government will do anything it can to keep it's NSA surveillance weapon in working order, and it seems like we're all pretty powerless vs such a powerful entity.
Lol, what changes ? Look how they react to this. Instead of apologizing for all this shit, they want to capture the guy that exposed them and then kill him. EU(biggest ally) told the US gov. that what they did is not good and they are not happy about it, to say the least... What was the reaction ? Not a single word. US government does whatever it wants and I'm wondering why the people - free citizens - are doing nothing about it. Why there are no protests, riots etc ? For example in Luxembourg the prime minister Jean-Claude Juncker resigned for similar reasons last week.
I think people are just scared and or don't care. If you've experienced first hand just how powerful of a weapon the NSA/FBI alliance can be at oppression/life ruination, then you will probably feel hopeless about the entire situation. I imagine people that aren't fully aware just how shady/powerful and deep the rabbit hole at the NSA truly goes, you likely don't care.
You keep posting this kind of stuff. What are these weapons of "oppression/life ruination" that you're talking about, and could we please get some sources? I agree that invasions of privacy are bad, but its a far stretch to say that the NSA listening to my personal calls is going to ruin my life.
You can't get solid sources, that's the entire point. You think they will just let that type of stuff out into the public willingly? I think if you're going to hear about it from anyone, it will be from mr. Snowden himself considering he has eluded towards seeing incredibly abusive and disturbing examples in some of his interviews before he finally decided to make the entire program public.
I pray and also hope he does talk about some of the more extreme abuses the NSA/FBI combo have done to US citizens. Whether you believe me or not, which you won't, doesn't really matter. We will all have to wait and see if these types of stories come to the surface or not....I have no reason to be making stuff up about this btw, I don't have some sort of agenda or whatever drives people to try and manipulate opinions. Just someone that knows he has been a target by this god awful program over the past 3 or so years. Hint, when you find out something about a multibillion dollar tech focused company that could ultimately cost them a lot of money if people learned about it, well that alone is enough of a reason for these guys to oppress you.
This is ridiculous. You have a totally non-falsifiable argument because all of the bad stuff that's supposedly happening is "secret" and yet you want other people to believe it. You really think that in this day and age of viral videos and such that the FBI could run a secret torture regime and nobody would notice and tell people? Don't drink the kool-aid.
well, they did (do) run a sick surveillance program until snowden revealed it, didnt they?
no?
where were all the viral videos revealing this?
As noted earlier in this thread, people knew that sort of thing was going on anyway, and snowden is certainly not the first to leak secret US info. Also wiretapping is a far cry from secret torture/oppression.
people didnt know at all. people were afraid that this stuff might be happening, but being aware that all your skype calls are actually target of surveillance? people KNEW THAT? are you kidding me?
poeple DID NOT know that. people did not know the scale of this shit. they just didnt. yes, everyone was afraid, cause so many people didnt trust their governments anymore. NOW THEY HAVE PROOF: that's the whole point, ok?
You're missing the point. AnomalySC2 is arguing that there is a secret FBI apparatus of "oppression/life runiation" and that its secret so any evidence I bring up as to why it doesn't exist doesn't count. The argument is non-falsifiable and thus I reject it. I don't really have some point to prove about how important snowden's leaks are, but as said before, you should probably be more worried about microsoft monitoring your skype calls than the NSA.
what do you think would have happend to snowden if he would have told someone of the nsa or fbi: btw guys i will release information on how you spy on your allies
On July 17 2013 10:09 Shiori wrote: As far as I know, the army, by which I assume you mean the American army, hasn't "maintained stability" on American soil for longer than anyone has been alive.
Alright then, here's an experiment for you: take the country you live in, and imagine that the entire armed forces of said country was disbanded. Is that country more stable now?
Oh and, ironically, much of your post was once again a strawman because I was responding to a post regarding Manning and quelling riots. There was nothing there addressing US overseas activities, which is another topic altogether.
looking at my countryit would not make ANY difference in any aspect of 99.9% of the lives of the people here if there are armed forces or not I see why an American can't imagine that but when people have guns in their homes but guess what: it is possible
looking at my countryit would not make ANY difference in any aspect of 99.9% of the lives of the people here if there are armed forces or not
and that's exactly the problem, a country as important as germany and there is that kind of a disconnect from reality in too much of the population.
Who is disconnected from reality is up to debate. You as americans may fear the future, but what I am afraid of is that history repeats itself.
How many countries that control their own people, that take the rights of their own people aways and that fight against their own people have ever worked? It has happened in the past, it has happened even in ancient times and it has never worked out.
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?
looking at my countryit would not make ANY difference in any aspect of 99.9% of the lives of the people here if there are armed forces or not
and that's exactly the problem, a country as important as germany and there is that kind of a disconnect from reality in too much of the population.
well you know, if I look at the situation that the USA are in right now, where China could just make their economy collapse with a snap of Jinpings fingers I must say that it seems pretty "disconnected from reality" to me that they invest the most money out of every country into their military for no real reason If the world would really want to erase the USA as they seem to like to think their army alone would not save them. (and I'm not talking about terrorists so pls don't start with that) And when I look at Romneys demands to punish China for what they are doing with their economy.... well let's just say I can't even begin to understand that amount of arrogance
Of COURSE he shouldn't and that's frankly a ridiculous thing to say. I know the peace prize has been devalued in recent times, but seriously!
Snowden is a criminal. Don't get me wrong, bringing the illegal activities of the NSA to light should absolutely have been done - but the US actually has an excellent way of doing things like that legally - your bring the issues up to your congressman. Snowden did the wrong thing, straight-up and shouldn't be lauded just because the US government did a lot worse.
I think he should get it for what he did, but considering that "great men", or should I maybe say criminals, like Obama have gotten it before it might be considered an insult to Snowden if you put him on the same level with these people.
The USA are obviously unable to follow any rules and aggreements they impose or suggest onto other countries, so maybe it is time to stop working so closely with the USA and look for more honest friends. It hurts me to say this though because most people in the USA are very nice and friendly people, a complete contrast to their government. I think you guys really need to get your government cleaned out. And by that I mean elections, not anything else, a good start would also be to reform the ridiculously outdated voting system, and create more than one party with 2 right wings.
On July 17 2013 19:32 althaz wrote: Of COURSE he shouldn't and that's frankly a ridiculous thing to say. I know the peace prize has been devalued in recent times, but seriously!
Snowden is a criminal. Don't get me wrong, bringing the illegal activities of the NSA to light should absolutely have been done - but the US actually has an excellent way of doing things like that legally - your bring the issues up to your congressman. Snowden did the wrong thing, straight-up and shouldn't be lauded just because the US government did a lot worse.
He is a criminal only in USA. Rest of the world thinks he is a hero.
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.
On July 17 2013 19:32 althaz wrote: Of COURSE he shouldn't and that's frankly a ridiculous thing to say. I know the peace prize has been devalued in recent times, but seriously!
Snowden is a criminal. Don't get me wrong, bringing the illegal activities of the NSA to light should absolutely have been done - but the US actually has an excellent way of doing things like that legally - your bring the issues up to your congressman. Snowden did the wrong thing, straight-up and shouldn't be lauded just because the US government did a lot worse.
He is a criminal only in USA. Rest of the world thinks he is a hero.
I don't think he is a hero. A hero shows valour and courage. He only showed how to betray his own country by showing how the intelligence agencies find people that may or may not commit acts of terror within the US.
The espionage done on Allies is something undoubtably every major country, that has the resources, have done. In a perfect world No country would spy on its allies, but it isn't a perfect country. We all have to look at our own best interest.
On July 17 2013 19:32 althaz wrote: Of COURSE he shouldn't and that's frankly a ridiculous thing to say. I know the peace prize has been devalued in recent times, but seriously!
Snowden is a criminal. Don't get me wrong, bringing the illegal activities of the NSA to light should absolutely have been done - but the US actually has an excellent way of doing things like that legally - your bring the issues up to your congressman. Snowden did the wrong thing, straight-up and shouldn't be lauded just because the US government did a lot worse.
He is a criminal only in USA. Rest of the world thinks he is a hero.
And that US government sucks more and more with each passing year after 9/11. They went from being the pillar of liberty in democration to democratish big brother state.
On July 17 2013 19:32 althaz wrote: Of COURSE he shouldn't and that's frankly a ridiculous thing to say. I know the peace prize has been devalued in recent times, but seriously!
Snowden is a criminal. Don't get me wrong, bringing the illegal activities of the NSA to light should absolutely have been done - but the US actually has an excellent way of doing things like that legally - your bring the issues up to your congressman. Snowden did the wrong thing, straight-up and shouldn't be lauded just because the US government did a lot worse.
Well if you think, it is that easy, question is why didn't this come out earlier? No one ever tried? All corrupt? It should make you think, why he did what he did.
Why the US establishment whats him painted as a criminal so badly, while most of the world (the people) see him cleary as an hero.
On July 17 2013 20:11 TheRealArtemis wrote: I don't think he is a hero. A hero shows valour and courage. He only showed how to betray his own country by showing how the intelligence agencies find people that may or may not commit acts of terror within the US.
The espionage done on Allies is something undoubtably every major country, that has the resources, have done. In a perfect world No country would spy on its allies, but it isn't a perfect country. We all have to look at our own best interest.
Sacrificing your normal life and future for something you have no personal gain for yourself, is a clearly selfless act.
On July 17 2013 19:32 althaz wrote: Of COURSE he shouldn't and that's frankly a ridiculous thing to say. I know the peace prize has been devalued in recent times, but seriously!
Snowden is a criminal. Don't get me wrong, bringing the illegal activities of the NSA to light should absolutely have been done - but the US actually has an excellent way of doing things like that legally - your bring the issues up to your congressman. Snowden did the wrong thing, straight-up and shouldn't be lauded just because the US government did a lot worse.
He is a criminal only in USA. Rest of the world thinks he is a hero.
I don't think he is a hero. A hero shows valour and courage. He only showed how to betray his own country by showing how the intelligence agencies find people that may or may not commit acts of terror within the US.
The espionage done on Allies is something undoubtably every major country, that has the resources, have done. In a perfect world No country would spy on its allies, but it isn't a perfect country. We all have to look at our own best interest.
Do you honestly think doing what he did does not require courage?
He didn't just betray his country - and to be honest it's debatable he actually betrayed country as a whole - he showed how hypocritical US is and how much US violates civil liberties of people around the world.
On July 17 2013 19:32 althaz wrote: Of COURSE he shouldn't and that's frankly a ridiculous thing to say. I know the peace prize has been devalued in recent times, but seriously!
Snowden is a criminal. Don't get me wrong, bringing the illegal activities of the NSA to light should absolutely have been done - but the US actually has an excellent way of doing things like that legally - your bring the issues up to your congressman. Snowden did the wrong thing, straight-up and shouldn't be lauded just because the US government did a lot worse.
He is a criminal only in USA. Rest of the world thinks he is a hero.
I don't think he is a hero. A hero shows valour and courage. He only showed how to betray his own country by showing how the intelligence agencies find people that may or may not commit acts of terror within the US.
The espionage done on Allies is something undoubtably every major country, that has the resources, have done. In a perfect world No country would spy on its allies, but it isn't a perfect country. We all have to look at our own best interest.
Even though you can suppose everyone does it, there's a difference between supposing and having reasonable evidence. Any country that transgresses by spying on other countries can and should be punished by the international public opinion (if not by international law in relevant cases). The idea is to convince the transgressor to cut back a bit on his intelligence gathering or at the very least force him to spend more money in order to not get caught again, making the following shitstorm when eventually they're caught actually big enough to solve the issue.
By embracing that spying is the norm and should be accepted no matter how far it goes, you make a mockery of the international community when you consider that absolutely no country spends as much on intelligence as the US and most don't even have the means (economy) to try.
On July 17 2013 19:32 althaz wrote: Of COURSE he shouldn't and that's frankly a ridiculous thing to say. I know the peace prize has been devalued in recent times, but seriously!
Snowden is a criminal. Don't get me wrong, bringing the illegal activities of the NSA to light should absolutely have been done - but the US actually has an excellent way of doing things like that legally - your bring the issues up to your congressman. Snowden did the wrong thing, straight-up and shouldn't be lauded just because the US government did a lot worse.
He is a criminal only in USA. Rest of the world thinks he is a hero.
I don't think he is a hero. A hero shows valour and courage. He only showed how to betray his own country by showing how the intelligence agencies find people that may or may not commit acts of terror within the US.
The espionage done on Allies is something undoubtably every major country, that has the resources, have done. In a perfect world No country would spy on its allies, but it isn't a perfect country. We all have to look at our own best interest.
Do you honestly think doing what he did does not require courage?
He didn't just betray his country - and to be honest it's debatable he actually betrayed country as a whole - he showed how hypocritical US is and how much US violates civil liberties of people around the world.
No. It would be courageous if he faced the US and the Media, but he ran and hid himself from the criminal acts he did.
Perhaps true. But it has shown that the UK and France did the same thing. But It only matter if the US does it for some reason.
On July 17 2013 19:32 althaz wrote: Of COURSE he shouldn't and that's frankly a ridiculous thing to say. I know the peace prize has been devalued in recent times, but seriously!
Snowden is a criminal. Don't get me wrong, bringing the illegal activities of the NSA to light should absolutely have been done - but the US actually has an excellent way of doing things like that legally - your bring the issues up to your congressman. Snowden did the wrong thing, straight-up and shouldn't be lauded just because the US government did a lot worse.
He is a criminal only in USA. Rest of the world thinks he is a hero.
I don't think he is a hero. A hero shows valour and courage. He only showed how to betray his own country by showing how the intelligence agencies find people that may or may not commit acts of terror within the US.
The espionage done on Allies is something undoubtably every major country, that has the resources, have done. In a perfect world No country would spy on its allies, but it isn't a perfect country. We all have to look at our own best interest.
Do you honestly think doing what he did does not require courage?
He didn't just betray his country - and to be honest it's debatable he actually betrayed country as a whole - he showed how hypocritical US is and how much US violates civil liberties of people around the world.
No. It would be courageous if he faced the US and the Media, but he ran and hid himself from the criminal acts he did.
Perhaps true. But it has shown that the UK and France did the same thing. But It only matter if the US does it for some reason.
Edit: spelling etc.
It matters the most to the world that the US does it because it makes us the largest hypocrites you've ever seen. We're trampling our laws and yours, our rights and yours, and admonishing those who do the SAME THING. The fact is, we've KNOWN the US has been doing it. We've KNOWN France and the UK were doing it. But now it's a public spectacle, those who care are making a big deal about it, because they have a window where people won't call them conspiracy theorists and traitorous jerks.
On July 17 2013 20:11 TheRealArtemis wrote: The espionage done on Allies is something undoubtably every major country, that has the resources, have done. In a perfect world No country would spy on its allies, but it isn't a perfect country. We all have to look at our own best interest.
But you're not part of the "we" in your sentence. You're part of the "them", as in people being targeted by espionage. This isn't only about spying on allied countries, remember?
You have no information to support the assumption that you're one benefiting from intelligence collected, and that it is done in your best interest, especially when it's being performed ON you. If you were actually looking at your own best interest, you would be demanding accountability from your government instead of identifying with them.
LOL @ anyone that thinks he's a criminal or a tratior
the government is the only criminal/traitor, if you don't believe that than im sorry but you're either an obama freak or you don't live in america and understand what a truly corrupt government it is
LOL @ therealartemis
you really think the guy would even be alive right now? Jesus man what fairyland of unicorns and castles in the sky do you live in honestly?
yah i'm sure if he "wrote his congressmen" and told the media that everything would be A OK. You haven't read 1984 have you? The government would make him vanish and the news media would have been the ones turning the guy in, and no they wouldn't have said a single word about it to the american people.
some of you really need to get a grip on just how corrupt and absolutely beyond control things are in this country right now
If the nobel committee is set for controversy they would choose Rouhani (the iranian president). Since Obama got the prize for talking about peace love and harmony while not delivering much on the international promises afterwards, Rouhani would be a safe bet for at least a candidacy. The Republic of the Union of Myanmars military dictatorship represented by Thein Sein would be an even more controversial pick. There are several african organisations, far more deserving and with some actual results to back up their candidacy.
The effect of what Snowden did is not even close to being felt yet and he hasn't made promises he cannot keep about peace, love and harmony. I think he is completely ineligible for the peace price, but I do not think that is a bad thing either, given the historical choices.
On July 17 2013 19:32 althaz wrote: Of COURSE he shouldn't and that's frankly a ridiculous thing to say. I know the peace prize has been devalued in recent times, but seriously!
Snowden is a criminal. Don't get me wrong, bringing the illegal activities of the NSA to light should absolutely have been done - but the US actually has an excellent way of doing things like that legally - your bring the issues up to your congressman. Snowden did the wrong thing, straight-up and shouldn't be lauded just because the US government did a lot worse.
He is a criminal only in USA. Rest of the world thinks he is a hero.
I don't think he is a hero. A hero shows valour and courage. He only showed how to betray his own country by showing how the intelligence agencies find people that may or may not commit acts of terror within the US.
The espionage done on Allies is something undoubtably every major country, that has the resources, have done. In a perfect world No country would spy on its allies, but it isn't a perfect country. We all have to look at our own best interest.
well if everyone just looks at their own interests we don't really need allies at all do we? and if you think about it it was quite courageous by him don't you think? I mean look how bloodthirsty everyone in the USA got...
On July 17 2013 21:03 shivver wrote: In all honesty though, the nobel prize lost all credibility when it was awarded to Obama
in fact it's just a flipping joke to many people now
The nobel peace prize has for the most part always been a joke. It awards people in public acclaim, and awards people for feel-good actions despite others who have made serious contributions.
On July 17 2013 21:22 sc2superfan101 wrote: My big problem is: he didn't expose the government doing anything illegal.
Remind me who writes the law that defines the words "Legal" and "Illegal" ?
It's not about something illegal (well...), it's about something truly unethical.
Could you also define what it means for something to be legal when it comes down to the US spying on non-US citizen who have nothing to do with US laws ? I didn't vote for Obama/Bush/etc, so if there are laws that grants the US gov the right to legally invade its citizen privacy and strip them of all their rights, I don't really see what grants them the right to do so with MY privacy.
And yet they can spy on my internet data and streams without my permission, and as we already saw, they don't really embarrass themselves with considerations when it comes down to arresting someone who's no US citizen for the sake of some big companies (Kim Dotcom). That's kind of scary when you think about what they could do.
OT: I don't know if the Nobel peace prize is appropriate, but he still deserves some prize. Btw, calling him a traitor is right. He's a traitor to the US government, and rightfully so. He's loyal to the US (and non-US) citizen that are affected.
Maybe not illegal by spying on other countries, but when it comes to domestic surveillance, the 4th Amendment has to be considered. We can't be sure it's not illegal (Which in my opinion it fully is. Not even a question) until it goes to court. Guess how likely that is.
I feel like sc2 is asking the key question here...did he actually expose anything illegal? How much did congress know about this program already (supposedly they were briefed about the nature of the program on a regular basis)? Obviously congress can't know everything because the nature of espionage is that you're going to have classified material; but we can ask whether they had a general understanding of what the NSA does.
If everything is legal, and congress broadly understood what the NSA was up to, then I don't think Snowden is a hero at all because he released classified secrets that helped protect national security.
More generally I feel like people in this thread are guilty of making extremist statements and the worst possible assumptions for seemingly no good reason other than some broad preconceptions that America is an evil, imperialist nation based on actions of past presidents. Lots of posters here reference 1984, say that the government is trampling all over their rights and freedoms, that its becoming a police state? All of these are extremist comments.
The only thing these programs do is attempt to sift through the massive amount of data online in order to find dangerous people...and in the process, unfortunately, you're not going to be able to maintain a society where everyone has 100% privacy - i.e. you're going to end up reading e-mails of people who may not have anything to do with terrorism. Is this really the same as a police state? I would think such an equivocation would be ridiculous to any objective mind.
All you can really say is that this program creates certain "slippery slope" dangers that could be abused if the American government somehow becomes tyrannical in the future, due to the fact that the FISA court is really the only protection, and its operations are secretive. But to me that's similar to "gun rights" advocates refusing to create a gun registry for fears that it would make it easier for the government to take away their guns. One does not necessarily lead to the other; plenty of countries have these registries but continue to allow their citizens to bear arms.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe not illegal by spying on other countries, but when it comes to domestic surveillance, the 4th Amendment has to be considered. We can't be sure it's not illegal (Which in my opinion it fully is. Not even a question) until it goes to court. Guess how likely that is.
I suppose you can say that there are two different issues: the NSA monitoring of US citizens (here american domestic law is relevant) and monitoring non-US citizens (here international law is relevant).
How does he even remotely deserve a Peace Prize? All he's done is create turmoil over the more tech savvy about whether or not what he did is justified.
In the end, he's about as worth of the Peace Prize as I am. One time I told my mom my sister was spying on me during lunch in elementary school.
On July 17 2013 21:56 radscorpion9 wrote: All you can really say is that this program creates certain "slippery slope" dangers that could be abused if the American government somehow becomes tyrannical in the future, due to the fact that the FISA court is really the only protection, and its operations are secretive. But to me that's similar to "gun rights" advocates refusing to create a gun registry for fears that it would make it easier for the government to take away their guns. One does not necessarily lead to the other; plenty of countries have these registries but continue to allow their citizens to bear arms.
Well, if you're going to use the gun argument, then here's the response: What is the point of keeping dangerous weapons behind security walls? It's to keep it out of the hands of those who wouldn't use these weapons for legal or just purposes, correct? Make sure the crazies don't shoot people up? You create a system that makes sure to a certain extent that those who use the weapons will not abuse them.
Why doesn't the government have the same checks for a system like this? Because while you say that tyranny is only a vague possibility, people probably thought the same about something like a civilian shooting spree. Columbine was a shock for people, but it happened. Couldn't this?
If you're going to put in preventative measures for one thing, you should look at it for another, more dangerous, thing.
Maybe not illegal by spying on other countries, but when it comes to domestic surveillance, the 4th Amendment has to be considered. We can't be sure it's not illegal (Which in my opinion it fully is. Not even a question) until it goes to court. Guess how likely that is.
I suppose you can say that there are two different issues: the NSA monitoring of US citizens (here american domestic law is relevant) and monitoring non-US citizens (here international law is relevant).
That's what I'm getting at, yes. Each situation has its own barrier.
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"
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.
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.
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 22:24 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 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 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.
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 16:27 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!
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?
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 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 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 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
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 00:30 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 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 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.
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.
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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).
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.
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?
I mean seriously guys, how can anybody thing this will protect us form terrorism? Look at Boston, didn't see the NSA intervene last minute. there has been no decline or rise in terrorist activities at all. and most "terrorists" that have been captured by these kind of spying software probably mostly are crazy kids/losers that pose no real threat at all anyways (for example the "Sauerland group" from Germany)
If it is online in existance to stop terrorism, why does nobody like it and why was it a secret?
LegalLord, you stated that certain things would qualify as grounds for asylum for a North Korean defector. Well, Snowden is attempting to obtain asylum from various countries (despite the US disrespecting the sovereignty of other nations behind the scenes and trying to make difficulties for him). It's not like he's on the run and the every nation in the world is trying to have him arrested. It's just that the US wants him to be extradited. Snowden is seeking asylum because he thinks that he qualifies for it and because he thinks that the extradition requests are predicated on unjust/unconstitutional/illegal arguments. What exactly do you have a problem with?
On July 18 2013 03:03 Shiori wrote: LegalLord, you stated that certain things would qualify as grounds for asylum for a North Korean defector. Well, Snowden is attempting to obtain asylum from various countries (despite the US disrespecting the sovereignty of other nations behind the scenes and trying to make difficulties for him). It's not like he's on the run and the every nation in the world is trying to have him arrested. It's just that the US wants him to be extradited. Snowden is seeking asylum because he thinks that he qualifies for it and because he thinks that the extradition requests are predicated on unjust/unconstitutional/illegal arguments. What exactly do you have a problem with?
He doesn't deserve asylum as a political refugee, which is what many of you make him out to be.
No one will give him asylum because they believe that he did the right thing by disclosing critical government documents. The Latin American countries do so as a "screw you" to the US for past troubles. He's not being persecuted, he's just being asked to answer for crimes that he did commit in a fair court of law.
On July 18 2013 02:56 Ai.Cola wrote: I mean seriously guys, how can anybody thing this will protect us form terrorism? Look at Boston, didn't see the NSA intervene last minute. there has been no decline or rise in terrorist activities at all. and most "terrorists" that have been captured by these kind of spying software probably mostly are crazy kids/losers that pose no real threat at all anyways (for example the "Sauerland group" from Germany)
If it is online in existance to stop terrorism, why does nobody like it and why was it a secret?
This is exactly that doesn't seem to get through to people. Nobody's security is being compromised by these leaks other than the security of NSA/government figureheads' jobs (and apparently, not even that).
The idea that Snowden compromised national security is the only thing they CAN say in an attempt to mitigate the PR damage and distract the public from the topic that actually matters. Of course people that are behind this program are going to say this to justify their activities, or at the very least to justify their wages.
There is noevidence that PRISM is an effective tool for countering and preventing terrorist activities. There are no results to be seen, there is no transparency, there is no way to demand accountability, even though the fundamental logic of the program is questionable when it comes to its potential to solve problems it was supposedly designed to solve.
In this thread alone, it has been pointed out in dozens of posts that nobody should be surprised by the fact PRISM exists. Well guess who else is not surprised - that's right, people this program is supposed to be catching. You can bet they know more than enough about communication security do bypass basic data mining.
On July 18 2013 03:03 Shiori wrote: LegalLord, you stated that certain things would qualify as grounds for asylum for a North Korean defector. Well, Snowden is attempting to obtain asylum from various countries (despite the US disrespecting the sovereignty of other nations behind the scenes and trying to make difficulties for him). It's not like he's on the run and the every nation in the world is trying to have him arrested. It's just that the US wants him to be extradited. Snowden is seeking asylum because he thinks that he qualifies for it and because he thinks that the extradition requests are predicated on unjust/unconstitutional/illegal arguments. What exactly do you have a problem with?
The Latin American countries do so as a "screw you" to the US for past troubles.
This is exactly what the US position was with respect to Soviet defectors, and NK defectors during the Korean War. Why is it suddenly not okay now?
I don't think the US has a justifiable claim against Snowden except as defined by their own (immoral) understanding of state secrets and the role of the NSA. Nobody outside of the US is under any obligation to respect the US's position on "treason" in this case.
He doesn't deserve asylum as a political refugee, which is what many of you make him out to be.
Why doesn't he deserve asylum as a political refugee?
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.
That's a legit view for sure. I guess it depends on how one views a hero, I don't view someone who gives away national security issues to enemies a hero (his more recent actions) but I do view what he did along the lines of talking about the NSA a more heroic venture, but still not one that deserves the peace prize.
Also, about Arafat, yeah I agree. There is a lot of politics regarding all the prizes, and because of that there tend to be bullshit winners. The peace prize shows this most often; often times the prize will be given more as a politically correct venture or as an outstretched hand to a people who are "under privileged."
On July 18 2013 03:03 Shiori wrote: LegalLord, you stated that certain things would qualify as grounds for asylum for a North Korean defector. Well, Snowden is attempting to obtain asylum from various countries (despite the US disrespecting the sovereignty of other nations behind the scenes and trying to make difficulties for him). It's not like he's on the run and the every nation in the world is trying to have him arrested. It's just that the US wants him to be extradited. Snowden is seeking asylum because he thinks that he qualifies for it and because he thinks that the extradition requests are predicated on unjust/unconstitutional/illegal arguments. What exactly do you have a problem with?
The Latin American countries do so as a "screw you" to the US for past troubles.
This is exactly what the US position was with respect to Soviet defectors, and NK defectors during the Korean War. Why is it suddenly not okay now?
I don't think the US has a justifiable claim against Snowden except as defined by their own (immoral) understanding of state secrets and the role of the NSA. Nobody outside of the US is under any obligation to respect the US's position on "treason" in this case.
Does the US have a justifiable claim against a criminal who committed an armed robbery and then fled the country? Yes they do. That's the reason they have a claim to Snowden. He stole documents and he is charged with espionage.
The big difference is that the US is not at war, and that due process doesn't exist in NK, and possibly not in a USSR court martial.
On July 18 2013 03:11 Shiori wrote:Why doesn't he deserve asylum as a political refugee?
On July 15 2013 23:34 -Archangel- wrote: Nobel prize lost all value after giving one to Obama so nobody cares who gets it anymore. But if my vote counted for anything I say Yes.
Henry Kissinger won it in the early 70's. Ill let that sink in...
He is just one of many, many totally undeserving winners since then. Even before the 70s there are numerous controversial winners.
On July 18 2013 03:03 Shiori wrote: LegalLord, you stated that certain things would qualify as grounds for asylum for a North Korean defector. Well, Snowden is attempting to obtain asylum from various countries (despite the US disrespecting the sovereignty of other nations behind the scenes and trying to make difficulties for him). It's not like he's on the run and the every nation in the world is trying to have him arrested. It's just that the US wants him to be extradited. Snowden is seeking asylum because he thinks that he qualifies for it and because he thinks that the extradition requests are predicated on unjust/unconstitutional/illegal arguments. What exactly do you have a problem with?
He doesn't deserve asylum as a political refugee, which is what many of you make him out to be.
No one will give him asylum because they believe that he did the right thing by disclosing critical government documents. The Latin American countries do so as a "screw you" to the US for past troubles. He's not being persecuted, he's just being asked to answer for crimes that he did commit in a fair court of law.
rofl @ "fair" court of law. While we're at it why not use the secret fisa court that has been used to "legalize" (or in other words, hide/manipulate) everything the NSA has been doing. That sure would be "fair".
On July 18 2013 03:03 Shiori wrote: LegalLord, you stated that certain things would qualify as grounds for asylum for a North Korean defector. Well, Snowden is attempting to obtain asylum from various countries (despite the US disrespecting the sovereignty of other nations behind the scenes and trying to make difficulties for him). It's not like he's on the run and the every nation in the world is trying to have him arrested. It's just that the US wants him to be extradited. Snowden is seeking asylum because he thinks that he qualifies for it and because he thinks that the extradition requests are predicated on unjust/unconstitutional/illegal arguments. What exactly do you have a problem with?
The Latin American countries do so as a "screw you" to the US for past troubles.
This is exactly what the US position was with respect to Soviet defectors, and NK defectors during the Korean War. Why is it suddenly not okay now?
I don't think the US has a justifiable claim against Snowden except as defined by their own (immoral) understanding of state secrets and the role of the NSA. Nobody outside of the US is under any obligation to respect the US's position on "treason" in this case.
Does the US have a justifiable claim against a criminal who committed an armed robbery and then fled the country?
No, they do not. The US has a claim against a criminal* who committed...
The claim is not "justifiable" because it is predicated on a nonsensical interpretation of the exposure of this information somehow harming the United States.
On July 18 2013 03:11 Shiori wrote:Why doesn't he deserve asylum as a political refugee?
Because he isn't one.
According to whom? Political asylum is a matter of national sovereignty. If Venezuela judges Snowden to meet the criteria for asylum (probably on the grounds of protecting political activism) then is that not their right as a sovereign nation?
On July 18 2013 03:22 TBO wrote: I have no idea how things work, but why isn't there an international warrant for Snowden if the USA think he is guilty of some crimes?
There probably is. Good thing there are still countries out there willing to stand up to injustice.
Is it standard practice in the USA to revoke the passport of a person suspected of a crime (or at least not yet sentenced guilty by a court) ? (I really don't know if it is)
On July 18 2013 03:22 TBO wrote: I have no idea how things work, but why isn't there an international warrant for Snowden if the USA think he is guilty of some crimes?
There probably is. Good thing there are still countries out there willing to stand up to injustice.
On July 18 2013 03:03 Shiori wrote: LegalLord, you stated that certain things would qualify as grounds for asylum for a North Korean defector. Well, Snowden is attempting to obtain asylum from various countries (despite the US disrespecting the sovereignty of other nations behind the scenes and trying to make difficulties for him). It's not like he's on the run and the every nation in the world is trying to have him arrested. It's just that the US wants him to be extradited. Snowden is seeking asylum because he thinks that he qualifies for it and because he thinks that the extradition requests are predicated on unjust/unconstitutional/illegal arguments. What exactly do you have a problem with?
No one will give him asylum because they believe that he did the right thing by disclosing critical government documents. The Latin American countries do so as a "screw you" to the US for past troubles. He's not being persecuted, he's just being asked to answer for crimes that he did commit in a fair court of law.
I'm sure he will get a fair trial.
It would be very unjust indeed if he didn't have to answer for raping and murdering the girl.
On July 18 2013 03:03 Shiori wrote: LegalLord, you stated that certain things would qualify as grounds for asylum for a North Korean defector. Well, Snowden is attempting to obtain asylum from various countries (despite the US disrespecting the sovereignty of other nations behind the scenes and trying to make difficulties for him). It's not like he's on the run and the every nation in the world is trying to have him arrested. It's just that the US wants him to be extradited. Snowden is seeking asylum because he thinks that he qualifies for it and because he thinks that the extradition requests are predicated on unjust/unconstitutional/illegal arguments. What exactly do you have a problem with?
The Latin American countries do so as a "screw you" to the US for past troubles.
This is exactly what the US position was with respect to Soviet defectors, and NK defectors during the Korean War. Why is it suddenly not okay now?
I don't think the US has a justifiable claim against Snowden except as defined by their own (immoral) understanding of state secrets and the role of the NSA. Nobody outside of the US is under any obligation to respect the US's position on "treason" in this case.
Does the US have a justifiable claim against a criminal who committed an armed robbery and then fled the country? Yes they do. That's the reason they have a claim to Snowden. He stole documents and he is charged with espionage.
The big difference is that the US is not at war, and that due process doesn't exist in NK, and possibly not in a USSR court martial.
On July 18 2013 03:11 Shiori wrote:Why doesn't he deserve asylum as a political refugee?
Because he isn't one.
he is one because he is being persecuted by the USA because he obviously has a different understanding of the constitution than the government/NSA he did what he thaught was right (btw that is also why your comparison to armed robbery is completely irrelevant) and he is being persecuted for it by the government ---> political refugee
I have mixed feelings about this. Patronage is an important trait for any award winner, so I am not entirely sure about the issue. My gut says that he should receive the prize.
On July 18 2013 03:03 Shiori wrote: LegalLord, you stated that certain things would qualify as grounds for asylum for a North Korean defector. Well, Snowden is attempting to obtain asylum from various countries (despite the US disrespecting the sovereignty of other nations behind the scenes and trying to make difficulties for him). It's not like he's on the run and the every nation in the world is trying to have him arrested. It's just that the US wants him to be extradited. Snowden is seeking asylum because he thinks that he qualifies for it and because he thinks that the extradition requests are predicated on unjust/unconstitutional/illegal arguments. What exactly do you have a problem with?
The Latin American countries do so as a "screw you" to the US for past troubles.
This is exactly what the US position was with respect to Soviet defectors, and NK defectors during the Korean War. Why is it suddenly not okay now?
I don't think the US has a justifiable claim against Snowden except as defined by their own (immoral) understanding of state secrets and the role of the NSA. Nobody outside of the US is under any obligation to respect the US's position on "treason" in this case.
Does the US have a justifiable claim against a criminal who committed an armed robbery and then fled the country? Yes they do. That's the reason they have a claim to Snowden. He stole documents and he is charged with espionage.
The big difference is that the US is not at war, and that due process doesn't exist in NK, and possibly not in a USSR court martial.
On July 18 2013 03:11 Shiori wrote:Why doesn't he deserve asylum as a political refugee?
Because he isn't one.
As for the claim against an armed robber, there is no doubt that most treaties would recognize that under certain other restrictions. How on earth do you conflate theft and robbery? I do not believe theft is generally covered by extradition treaties, since the severity of the crime has to reach a certain threshold.
And please elaborate on the materiality of the claim that he is not a political refugee. I do not see where that comes from.
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.
That's a legit view for sure. I guess it depends on how one views a hero, I don't view someone who gives away national security issues to enemies a hero (his more recent actions) but I do view what he did along the lines of talking about the NSA a more heroic venture, but still not one that deserves the peace prize.
Also, about Arafat, yeah I agree. There is a lot of politics regarding all the prizes, and because of that there tend to be bullshit winners. The peace prize shows this most often; often times the prize will be given more as a politically correct venture or as an outstretched hand to a people who are "under privileged."
The problems is that the US was not only spying on it's enemies, it was spying on it's allies as well.
Does he deserve the Nobel peace prize, I don't know. Does he deserve to be locked up in a 6*10 cell because he had the guts to expose the fact that a security agency has once again crossed a boarder, killed the village on the other side and acted like it's perfectly natural, definitely no.
They want to make an example out of him so this never happens, but if reports like these don't surface from time to time what's there to keep them from committing even worse atrocities. What's next, organizing a few terrorist attacks on their allies so they'll support the war on terror?
The problems is that the US was not only spying on it's enemies, it was spying on it's allies as well.
What's the problem with that?
They aren't a part of the United States, they are foreign independent countries no matter how closely allied to the United States. Not spying on them would be a dereliction of duty imo...
committing even worse atrocities.
I don't think atrocity means what you think it means...
What's next, organizing a few terrorist attacks on their allies so they'll support the war on terror?
That seems... oh hell it's just stupid to say something like that.
The problems is that the US was not only spying on it's enemies, it was spying on it's allies as well.
What's the problem with that?
They aren't a part of the United States, they are foreign independent countries no matter how closely allied to the United States. Not spying on them would be a dereliction of duty imo...
What's next, organizing a few terrorist attacks on their allies so they'll support the war on terror?
That seems... oh hell it's just stupid to say something like that.
I am with this guy, "atrocities" is not the word you are looking for. Also, spying on our allies is a good practice. Keeps us all honest. I fully expect England, France and everyone else to spy on the US.
Also, I think you might want check to see if your tinfoil hat is on to tight.
The problems is that the US was not only spying on it's enemies, it was spying on it's allies as well.
What's the problem with that?
They aren't a part of the United States, they are foreign independent countries no matter how closely allied to the United States. Not spying on them would be a dereliction of duty imo...
The problems is that the US was not only spying on it's enemies, it was spying on it's allies as well.
What's the problem with that?
They aren't a part of the United States, they are foreign independent countries no matter how closely allied to the United States. Not spying on them would be a dereliction of duty imo...
committing even worse atrocities.
I don't think atrocity means what you think it means...
What's next, organizing a few terrorist attacks on their allies so they'll support the war on terror?
That seems... oh hell it's just stupid to say something like that.
I am with this guy, "atrocities" is not the word you are looking for. Also, spying on our allies is a good practice. Keeps us all honest. I fully expect England, France and everyone else to spy on the US.
Also, I think you might want check to see if your tinfoil hat is on to tight.
The defender plansix to the rescue! What is your opinion on all this anyways. Do you think what the NSA has been doing is legal/moral, and do you think Snowden is an american hero or traitor?
The problems is that the US was not only spying on it's enemies, it was spying on it's allies as well.
What's the problem with that?
They aren't a part of the United States, they are foreign independent countries no matter how closely allied to the United States. Not spying on them would be a dereliction of duty imo...
committing even worse atrocities.
I don't think atrocity means what you think it means...
What's next, organizing a few terrorist attacks on their allies so they'll support the war on terror?
That seems... oh hell it's just stupid to say something like that.
Please elaborate on why it would be a dereliction of duty to not spy on our allied nations..
Because if you trust your allies to do what they say, you end up in really bad places when they don't. There are a lot of good examples of this in WW2 when nations just trusted Germany to stop it's forward progress. Trust is good, within reason.
The problems is that the US was not only spying on it's enemies, it was spying on it's allies as well.
What's the problem with that?
They aren't a part of the United States, they are foreign independent countries no matter how closely allied to the United States. Not spying on them would be a dereliction of duty imo...
committing even worse atrocities.
I don't think atrocity means what you think it means...
What's next, organizing a few terrorist attacks on their allies so they'll support the war on terror?
That seems... oh hell it's just stupid to say something like that.
Please elaborate on why it would be a dereliction of duty to not spy on our allied nations..
Because if you trust your allies to do what they say, you end up in really bad places when they don't. There are a lot of good examples of this in WW2 when nations just trusted Germany to stop it's forward progress. Trust is good, within reason.
so you want to compare the germany of today with the germany of 1933? Or Angela Merkel with Adolf Hitler?
The problems is that the US was not only spying on it's enemies, it was spying on it's allies as well.
What's the problem with that?
They aren't a part of the United States, they are foreign independent countries no matter how closely allied to the United States. Not spying on them would be a dereliction of duty imo...
committing even worse atrocities.
I don't think atrocity means what you think it means...
What's next, organizing a few terrorist attacks on their allies so they'll support the war on terror?
That seems... oh hell it's just stupid to say something like that.
Please elaborate on why it would be a dereliction of duty to not spy on our allied nations..
Because if you trust your allies to do what they say, you end up in really bad places when they don't. There are a lot of good examples of this in WW2 when nations just trusted Germany to stop it's forward progress. Trust is good, within reason.
they didn't trust germany they were just afraid to interfere
The problem is US corporations cooperating with US government, and we need to "crack" open those corps so they can't have a blanket surveillance warrant if the target is non-US. Germany was spied upon as much as "enemies" of US, and that should make you angry.
Facebook etc. should be forced to split their businesses so the US does not have 100% control of all their data.
The problems is that the US was not only spying on it's enemies, it was spying on it's allies as well.
What's the problem with that?
They aren't a part of the United States, they are foreign independent countries no matter how closely allied to the United States. Not spying on them would be a dereliction of duty imo...
committing even worse atrocities.
I don't think atrocity means what you think it means...
What's next, organizing a few terrorist attacks on their allies so they'll support the war on terror?
That seems... oh hell it's just stupid to say something like that.
I am with this guy, "atrocities" is not the word you are looking for. Also, spying on our allies is a good practice. Keeps us all honest. I fully expect England, France and everyone else to spy on the US.
Also, I think you might want check to see if your tinfoil hat is on to tight.
The defender plansix to the rescue! What is your opinion on all this anyways. Do you think what the NSA has been doing is legal/moral, and do you think Snowden is an american hero or traitor?
I think he is a criminal who broke the law and put some people in the intelligence community in danger. I don’t think he is the devil or evil, but I don’t like hearing that intelligence is released because my brother in over seas. I do think people should know more about the data that is being requested and the process that used to oversee the requests, but at the end of the day, the internet is something government has to deal with. I don’t really care if Snowden is tried or ever caught, but if he is, he should be tried in open court.
I am pragmatic on the subject. I think people should assume that anything they put on the internet could go public, as they are giving up control over it(even if a company claims they will guard their privacy). The internet is not a place were we should feel as protected as we do in our homes, since that is not the case. Finally, I think people fearing the NSA snooping their skype calls isn't a non-issue, it was likely Microsoft was already doing it.
The problems is that the US was not only spying on it's enemies, it was spying on it's allies as well.
What's the problem with that?
They aren't a part of the United States, they are foreign independent countries no matter how closely allied to the United States. Not spying on them would be a dereliction of duty imo...
committing even worse atrocities.
I don't think atrocity means what you think it means...
What's next, organizing a few terrorist attacks on their allies so they'll support the war on terror?
That seems... oh hell it's just stupid to say something like that.
I am with this guy, "atrocities" is not the word you are looking for. Also, spying on our allies is a good practice. Keeps us all honest. I fully expect England, France and everyone else to spy on the US.
Also, I think you might want check to see if your tinfoil hat is on to tight.
The defender plansix to the rescue! What is your opinion on all this anyways. Do you think what the NSA has been doing is legal/moral, and do you think Snowden is an american hero or traitor?
I think he is a criminal who broke the law and put some people in the intelligence community in danger. I don’t think he is the devil or evil, but I don’t like hearing that intelligence is released because my brother in over seas. I do think people should know more about the data that is being requested and the process that used to oversee the requests, but at the end of the day, the internet is something government has to deal with. I don’t really care if Snowden is tried or ever caught, but if he is, he should be tried in open court.
I am pragmatic on the subject. I think people should assume that anything they put on the internet could go public, as they are giving up control over it(even if a company claims they will guard their privacy). The internet is not a place were we should feel as protected as we do in our homes, since that is not the case. Finally, I think people fearing the NSA snooping their skype calls isn't a non-issue, it was likely Microsoft was already doing it.
How did i know you would hold an opinion like that. So just let our government/major corporations invade every single aspect of our lives all the while shitting all over freedom of speech?
The problems is that the US was not only spying on it's enemies, it was spying on it's allies as well.
What's the problem with that?
They aren't a part of the United States, they are foreign independent countries no matter how closely allied to the United States. Not spying on them would be a dereliction of duty imo...
committing even worse atrocities.
I don't think atrocity means what you think it means...
What's next, organizing a few terrorist attacks on their allies so they'll support the war on terror?
That seems... oh hell it's just stupid to say something like that.
Please elaborate on why it would be a dereliction of duty to not spy on our allied nations..
Because if you trust your allies to do what they say, you end up in really bad places when they don't. There are a lot of good examples of this in WW2 when nations just trusted Germany to stop it's forward progress. Trust is good, within reason.
they didn't trust germany they were just afraid to interfere
There are a lot of historians that would argue that Neville Chamberlain believed Hitler, despite what he was being informed by others. Total trust is not responsable when you are in charge of protecting millions.
The problems is that the US was not only spying on it's enemies, it was spying on it's allies as well.
What's the problem with that?
They aren't a part of the United States, they are foreign independent countries no matter how closely allied to the United States. Not spying on them would be a dereliction of duty imo...
committing even worse atrocities.
I don't think atrocity means what you think it means...
What's next, organizing a few terrorist attacks on their allies so they'll support the war on terror?
That seems... oh hell it's just stupid to say something like that.
Please elaborate on why it would be a dereliction of duty to not spy on our allied nations..
Because if you trust your allies to do what they say, you end up in really bad places when they don't. There are a lot of good examples of this in WW2 when nations just trusted Germany to stop it's forward progress. Trust is good, within reason.
so you want to compare the germany of today with the germany of 1933? Or Angela Merkel with Adolf Hitler?
No, I am saying be pragmatic on the subject. I woudl never fault Germany for spying on the US. I expect it, Angela Merkel is in charge of protecting a lot of people in that nation.
The problems is that the US was not only spying on it's enemies, it was spying on it's allies as well.
What's the problem with that?
They aren't a part of the United States, they are foreign independent countries no matter how closely allied to the United States. Not spying on them would be a dereliction of duty imo...
Because it demonstrates disrespect for the sovereignty of other nations, which is bizarre considering the entire existence (i.e. the Revolutionary mentality) of the United States is based on an understanding of sovereignty as being something connected to the people and not the business of foreign powers or monarchs.
I think he is a criminal who broke the law and put some people in the intelligence community in danger.
Who did he put in danger, how did he put them in danger, and have any of the people in danger actually been harmed in any way? If so, how, when, and was it connected to Snowden or just incidental?
I am pragmatic on the subject. I think people should assume that anything they put on the internet could go public, as they are giving up control over it(even if a company claims they will guard their privacy). The internet is not a place were we should feel as protected as we do in our homes, since that is not the case. Finally, I think people fearing the NSA snooping their skype calls isn't a non-issue, it was likely Microsoft was already doing it.
Microsoft isn't the government, first off. That means that, while people can basically just stop using Microsoft's products, file lawsuits, and otherwise demonize them in the public sphere/flock to their competitors, people can't do that with the NSA. The NSA has already been sued by groups like the ACLU, only to be met with the State Secrets privilege, so the prospects of rectifying things using the legal apparatus doesn't seem promising. Second, why should I have to assume that any communication I make using the internet is somehow open to the government's knowledge? It's not going to "go public," and that's the problem. It's not that everyone is allowed to check up on people's phone/internet records, because that's illegal, but that, for some reason, the government is not subject to the same rules. Obviously, there are some things the government is allowed to do that regular citizens shouldn't be allowed to do, but I don't think blanket surveillance of the communications of private citizens conducting private business is really something that needs to exist.
It's another one of those "if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't be afraid" responses. Well, um, I'm not afraid. I don't think anyone is really fearing that they're going to be arrested or something, but instead I think people feel rather uncomfortable with the idea that their primary means of private communication is no longer private. That's kinda creepy, if you ask me. Even if you never do anything that gets your file looked up, or your data pulled, or anything, it's still weird to know that somewhere, out there, someone has the ability to call up (not denying that there are protocols in place, but that's not the point) all of the metadata pertaining to you. To me, that's weird, because even I can't call up my own metadata, and I'm me.
The problems is that the US was not only spying on it's enemies, it was spying on it's allies as well.
What's the problem with that?
They aren't a part of the United States, they are foreign independent countries no matter how closely allied to the United States. Not spying on them would be a dereliction of duty imo...
committing even worse atrocities.
I don't think atrocity means what you think it means...
What's next, organizing a few terrorist attacks on their allies so they'll support the war on terror?
That seems... oh hell it's just stupid to say something like that.
I am with this guy, "atrocities" is not the word you are looking for. Also, spying on our allies is a good practice. Keeps us all honest. I fully expect England, France and everyone else to spy on the US.
Also, I think you might want check to see if your tinfoil hat is on to tight.
The defender plansix to the rescue! What is your opinion on all this anyways. Do you think what the NSA has been doing is legal/moral, and do you think Snowden is an american hero or traitor?
I think he is a criminal who broke the law and put some people in the intelligence community in danger. I don’t think he is the devil or evil, but I don’t like hearing that intelligence is released because my brother in over seas. I do think people should know more about the data that is being requested and the process that used to oversee the requests, but at the end of the day, the internet is something government has to deal with. I don’t really care if Snowden is tried or ever caught, but if he is, he should be tried in open court.
I am pragmatic on the subject. I think people should assume that anything they put on the internet could go public, as they are giving up control over it(even if a company claims they will guard their privacy). The internet is not a place were we should feel as protected as we do in our homes, since that is not the case. Finally, I think people fearing the NSA snooping their skype calls isn't a non-issue, it was likely Microsoft was already doing it.
How did i know you would hold an opinion like that. So just let our government/major corporations invade every single aspect of our lives all the while shitting all over freedom of speech?
I didn't say that. I said people should expect that at some level the goverment is going to interact with the internet and collect information that is traveling through the ether. Emails and the other information traveling isn't like a letter. If can be altered and changed after it is sent. It isn't physical. I don't think they shoudl have unlimited access, but there needs to be a way for the goverment to get information without gaving to go through 15 steps just to find out where a single email went.
And finally, this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. You are free to talk about this all you want. It is about privacy, which is a right that has not bee fully fleshed out on the internet and we are going to need to deal with that.
The problems is that the US was not only spying on it's enemies, it was spying on it's allies as well.
What's the problem with that?
They aren't a part of the United States, they are foreign independent countries no matter how closely allied to the United States. Not spying on them would be a dereliction of duty imo...
committing even worse atrocities.
I don't think atrocity means what you think it means...
What's next, organizing a few terrorist attacks on their allies so they'll support the war on terror?
That seems... oh hell it's just stupid to say something like that.
I am with this guy, "atrocities" is not the word you are looking for. Also, spying on our allies is a good practice. Keeps us all honest. I fully expect England, France and everyone else to spy on the US.
Also, I think you might want check to see if your tinfoil hat is on to tight.
The defender plansix to the rescue! What is your opinion on all this anyways. Do you think what the NSA has been doing is legal/moral, and do you think Snowden is an american hero or traitor?
I think he is a criminal who broke the law and put some people in the intelligence community in danger. I don’t think he is the devil or evil, but I don’t like hearing that intelligence is released because my brother in over seas. I do think people should know more about the data that is being requested and the process that used to oversee the requests, but at the end of the day, the internet is something government has to deal with. I don’t really care if Snowden is tried or ever caught, but if he is, he should be tried in open court.
I am pragmatic on the subject. I think people should assume that anything they put on the internet could go public, as they are giving up control over it(even if a company claims they will guard their privacy). The internet is not a place were we should feel as protected as we do in our homes, since that is not the case. Finally, I think people fearing the NSA snooping their skype calls isn't a non-issue, it was likely Microsoft was already doing it.
Then we're back to the great firewall of China. Basically the people of any nation are not safe from foreign invasion by large corporations. So EU will have to set up own service and their own internet and their own credit card companies to avoid this or they have to trust that America has everyone's interest in mind, and basically that trust is wrong on so many levels it's not even funny. America never has anyone's interest in mind save their own, so anything business ever will never go our way as EU is practically the backyard of US companies.
EU is taking it up the arse, patents first and novelty business second with every advantage lost due to American wiretaps. Meanwhile they sell us crappy subprime mortages and cause economic crisis after economic crisis. I think Snowden deserves a shot at the nobel price. He aspires to greater ideals than most nations will ever care for.
it is often said that Lies make the world go round, but i disagree. The public of any nation needs to be informed, so they can make informed choices and in order for their politicians can be held accountable there needs to be someone revealing the information first.
The problems is that the US was not only spying on it's enemies, it was spying on it's allies as well.
What's the problem with that?
They aren't a part of the United States, they are foreign independent countries no matter how closely allied to the United States. Not spying on them would be a dereliction of duty imo...
committing even worse atrocities.
I don't think atrocity means what you think it means...
What's next, organizing a few terrorist attacks on their allies so they'll support the war on terror?
That seems... oh hell it's just stupid to say something like that.
Please elaborate on why it would be a dereliction of duty to not spy on our allied nations..
Because if you trust your allies to do what they say, you end up in really bad places when they don't. There are a lot of good examples of this in WW2 when nations just trusted Germany to stop it's forward progress. Trust is good, within reason.
so you want to compare the germany of today with the germany of 1933? Or Angela Merkel with Adolf Hitler?
Germany did it twice in the past 100 years. I think suspicion is justified.
The problems is that the US was not only spying on it's enemies, it was spying on it's allies as well.
What's the problem with that?
They aren't a part of the United States, they are foreign independent countries no matter how closely allied to the United States. Not spying on them would be a dereliction of duty imo...
committing even worse atrocities.
I don't think atrocity means what you think it means...
What's next, organizing a few terrorist attacks on their allies so they'll support the war on terror?
That seems... oh hell it's just stupid to say something like that.
I am with this guy, "atrocities" is not the word you are looking for. Also, spying on our allies is a good practice. Keeps us all honest. I fully expect England, France and everyone else to spy on the US.
Also, I think you might want check to see if your tinfoil hat is on to tight.
The defender plansix to the rescue! What is your opinion on all this anyways. Do you think what the NSA has been doing is legal/moral, and do you think Snowden is an american hero or traitor?
I think he is a criminal who broke the law and put some people in the intelligence community in danger. I don’t think he is the devil or evil, but I don’t like hearing that intelligence is released because my brother in over seas. I do think people should know more about the data that is being requested and the process that used to oversee the requests, but at the end of the day, the internet is something government has to deal with. I don’t really care if Snowden is tried or ever caught, but if he is, he should be tried in open court.
I am pragmatic on the subject. I think people should assume that anything they put on the internet could go public, as they are giving up control over it(even if a company claims they will guard their privacy). The internet is not a place were we should feel as protected as we do in our homes, since that is not the case. Finally, I think people fearing the NSA snooping their skype calls isn't a non-issue, it was likely Microsoft was already doing it.
How did i know you would hold an opinion like that. So just let our government/major corporations invade every single aspect of our lives all the while shitting all over freedom of speech?
I didn't say that. I said people should expect that at some level the goverment is going to interact with the internet and collect information that is traveling through the ether. Emails and the other information traveling isn't like a letter. If can be altered and changed after it is sent. It isn't physical. I don't think they shoudl have unlimited access, but there needs to be a way for the goverment to get information without gaving to go through 15 steps just to find out where a single email went.
The government can and does open letters. Moreover, it is perfectly possible (and actually trivially easy) to intercept a letter and alter it, whereas an e-mail travels near-instantly and can't really be changed on the fly unless you're waiting for it and/or have a shitload of access to the relevant mail servers.
Why does the government need to be able to get any and all information conveniently? Why is this need more important than the pretty reasonable desire of human beings to not have a giant organization having the ability to know anything they deem pertinent?
Nobody has established what the actual function of these surveillance programs is in any real terms. Supposedly it has something to do with terrorism, but I haven't exactly seen it do anything monumental, so what's the justification?
And finally, this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. You are free to talk about this all you want. It is about privacy, which is a right that has not bee fully fleshed out on the internet and we are going to need to deal with that.
Right to privacy is like proving a negative. The default position is that a given thing a person does is private unless there is a good reason for it not to be. Sometimes, this is obvious: a public park is not private because it doesn't belong to any individual in particular, and because it's designated as being accessible to everyone, so when you walk there, you don't have the right to not have people see you. But when you're in your own house using a telephone or sending an e-mail, there needs to be a pretty damn good reason as to why this shouldn't be considered a private activity.
Germany did it twice in the past 100 years. I think suspicion is justified.
I really hope you're joking. World War I was basically a bunch of arrogant nationalists on both sides. It wasn't like Britain were saints bringing justice and Germany was trying to enslave everyone, or something. But guess what? Right after WWI, the Germans were made to sign the Treaty of Versailles, which basically fucked them over to the point of no return*. The United States didn't even ratify the treaty, because they couldn't agree on it, and because the populace hated it since it was perceived as being ridiculously unfair.
I mean it's like having a fight with someone, winning, and then burning down his house and requiring him to eat nothing but sardines for a few decades. Are you gonna be surprised if that guy's children hate you? A large part of Germany's vulnerability to fascist takeover was that Germany fucking sucked at the time, and the Nazis played on that go obtain more popular support. Stable, prosperous countries tend not to experience coups. basically.
*Yes, I'm aware that modern assessments of the Versailles treaty consider it manageable for the Germans, but that doesn't change the narrative of what happened. Germany was made to basically bear the "fault" for the war in the sense of accordance of blame, and the general public absolutely fucking hated the Treaty for that. That's what the Nazis worked with.
The problems is that the US was not only spying on it's enemies, it was spying on it's allies as well.
What's the problem with that?
They aren't a part of the United States, they are foreign independent countries no matter how closely allied to the United States. Not spying on them would be a dereliction of duty imo...
committing even worse atrocities.
I don't think atrocity means what you think it means...
What's next, organizing a few terrorist attacks on their allies so they'll support the war on terror?
That seems... oh hell it's just stupid to say something like that.
Please elaborate on why it would be a dereliction of duty to not spy on our allied nations..
Because if you trust your allies to do what they say, you end up in really bad places when they don't. There are a lot of good examples of this in WW2 when nations just trusted Germany to stop it's forward progress. Trust is good, within reason.
so you want to compare the germany of today with the germany of 1933? Or Angela Merkel with Adolf Hitler?
Germany did it twice in the past 100 years. I think suspicion is justified.
You are presumptious. Germany did it once. Read up on WW1 before making claims like this.
Snowden deserves the prize for human rights.he fought for the freedom of his own people.I dunno if there is any prize for human rights but if there is Snowden definetly deserves it.He is a hero in an age where the USA fails to be that beacon and democracy that it once was.
The problems is that the US was not only spying on it's enemies, it was spying on it's allies as well.
What's the problem with that?
They aren't a part of the United States, they are foreign independent countries no matter how closely allied to the United States. Not spying on them would be a dereliction of duty imo...
committing even worse atrocities.
I don't think atrocity means what you think it means...
What's next, organizing a few terrorist attacks on their allies so they'll support the war on terror?
That seems... oh hell it's just stupid to say something like that.
Please elaborate on why it would be a dereliction of duty to not spy on our allied nations..
Because if you trust your allies to do what they say, you end up in really bad places when they don't. There are a lot of good examples of this in WW2 when nations just trusted Germany to stop it's forward progress. Trust is good, within reason.
so you want to compare the germany of today with the germany of 1933? Or Angela Merkel with Adolf Hitler?
Germany did it twice in the past 100 years. I think suspicion is justified.
You are presumptious. Germany did it once. Read up on WW1 before making claims like this.
By "did it" I mean "tried to take over Europe." It's reasonable to be suspicious of a country after that.
The problems is that the US was not only spying on it's enemies, it was spying on it's allies as well.
What's the problem with that?
They aren't a part of the United States, they are foreign independent countries no matter how closely allied to the United States. Not spying on them would be a dereliction of duty imo...
committing even worse atrocities.
I don't think atrocity means what you think it means...
What's next, organizing a few terrorist attacks on their allies so they'll support the war on terror?
That seems... oh hell it's just stupid to say something like that.
Please elaborate on why it would be a dereliction of duty to not spy on our allied nations..
Because if you trust your allies to do what they say, you end up in really bad places when they don't. There are a lot of good examples of this in WW2 when nations just trusted Germany to stop it's forward progress. Trust is good, within reason.
so you want to compare the germany of today with the germany of 1933? Or Angela Merkel with Adolf Hitler?
Germany did it twice in the past 100 years. I think suspicion is justified.
You have to be kidding me. A federal Republic with an extremly strong democratic base, in the European Nation AND the NATO (where the US is, too) and a rotating Member of the UN-Security Council should be met with suspicion? And in case you didn't notice yet: The Germany now is completely different to the Germany back then.
He does not deserve a peace price but a worldwide recognition for human rights, guy is a hero.
The problems is that the US was not only spying on it's enemies, it was spying on it's allies as well.
What's the problem with that?
They aren't a part of the United States, they are foreign independent countries no matter how closely allied to the United States. Not spying on them would be a dereliction of duty imo...
committing even worse atrocities.
I don't think atrocity means what you think it means...
What's next, organizing a few terrorist attacks on their allies so they'll support the war on terror?
That seems... oh hell it's just stupid to say something like that.
Please elaborate on why it would be a dereliction of duty to not spy on our allied nations..
Because if you trust your allies to do what they say, you end up in really bad places when they don't. There are a lot of good examples of this in WW2 when nations just trusted Germany to stop it's forward progress. Trust is good, within reason.
so you want to compare the germany of today with the germany of 1933? Or Angela Merkel with Adolf Hitler?
Germany did it twice in the past 100 years. I think suspicion is justified.
You are presumptious. Germany did it once. Read up on WW1 before making claims like this.
By "did it" I mean "tried to take over Europe." It's reasonable to be suspicious of a country after that.
When do we get to talk about all the shitty things the US has done in the past century? Or any country, for that matter? There's scarcely a country in Europe that hasn't ruled a large part of it at some point in history.
The problems is that the US was not only spying on it's enemies, it was spying on it's allies as well.
What's the problem with that?
They aren't a part of the United States, they are foreign independent countries no matter how closely allied to the United States. Not spying on them would be a dereliction of duty imo...
committing even worse atrocities.
I don't think atrocity means what you think it means...
What's next, organizing a few terrorist attacks on their allies so they'll support the war on terror?
That seems... oh hell it's just stupid to say something like that.
Please elaborate on why it would be a dereliction of duty to not spy on our allied nations..
Because if you trust your allies to do what they say, you end up in really bad places when they don't. There are a lot of good examples of this in WW2 when nations just trusted Germany to stop it's forward progress. Trust is good, within reason.
so you want to compare the germany of today with the germany of 1933? Or Angela Merkel with Adolf Hitler?
Germany did it twice in the past 100 years. I think suspicion is justified.
You have to be kidding me. A federal Republic with an extremly strong democratic base, in the European Nation AND the NATO (where the US is, too) and a rotating Member of the UN-Security Council should be met with suspicion? And in case you didn't notice yet: The Germany now is completely different to the Germany back then.
He does not deserve a peace price but a worldwide recognition for human rights, guy is a hero.
A lot of americans in this forum confuse America with leaders such as George W Bush and think that country can do no wrong.They have strayed away form the principles of their own founding fathers and the amendments of their own constitution.Nowadays they follow principles such as "Guilty until proven innocent" aka "Germany most surely spies on the USA.we do not have any evidence but hey that did not stop us from invading Iraq and causing a war with about 1 million human lives lost'.remember Saddams mass destruction weapons?it is a very dangerous mentality when warmongering groups take power especially in a world superpower such as the USA and manage to manipulate the masses into renouncing even their most basic democratic principles.Obama had the image of a democratic leader,a nobel prize winner, who wanted to change things.After two warrants although doing positive things he still hasn't manage to tackle the problem of USA insecurities after September 11. Fearmongering is a common thing thing this days in the US and groups such as NSA rely on that to accumulate even more dictatorial power and do whatever they want.when the NSA files will be open to the public I think watergate will seem like childsplay
The problems is that the US was not only spying on it's enemies, it was spying on it's allies as well.
What's the problem with that?
They aren't a part of the United States, they are foreign independent countries no matter how closely allied to the United States. Not spying on them would be a dereliction of duty imo...
committing even worse atrocities.
I don't think atrocity means what you think it means...
What's next, organizing a few terrorist attacks on their allies so they'll support the war on terror?
That seems... oh hell it's just stupid to say something like that.
Please elaborate on why it would be a dereliction of duty to not spy on our allied nations..
Because if you trust your allies to do what they say, you end up in really bad places when they don't. There are a lot of good examples of this in WW2 when nations just trusted Germany to stop it's forward progress. Trust is good, within reason.
so you want to compare the germany of today with the germany of 1933? Or Angela Merkel with Adolf Hitler?
Germany did it twice in the past 100 years. I think suspicion is justified.
You have to be kidding me. A federal Republic with an extremly strong democratic base, in the European Nation AND the NATO (where the US is, too) and a rotating Member of the UN-Security Council should be met with suspicion? And in case you didn't notice yet: The Germany now is completely different to the Germany back then.
I do not believe for one second that the grandchildren of the Germans of WWII and the great grandchildren of the Germans of WWI are so different that they don't need to be kept in check once in a while. People simply do not change that easily, and it's a "fool me once" type of deal.
The problems is that the US was not only spying on it's enemies, it was spying on it's allies as well.
What's the problem with that?
They aren't a part of the United States, they are foreign independent countries no matter how closely allied to the United States. Not spying on them would be a dereliction of duty imo...
committing even worse atrocities.
I don't think atrocity means what you think it means...
What's next, organizing a few terrorist attacks on their allies so they'll support the war on terror?
That seems... oh hell it's just stupid to say something like that.
Please elaborate on why it would be a dereliction of duty to not spy on our allied nations..
Because if you trust your allies to do what they say, you end up in really bad places when they don't. There are a lot of good examples of this in WW2 when nations just trusted Germany to stop it's forward progress. Trust is good, within reason.
so you want to compare the germany of today with the germany of 1933? Or Angela Merkel with Adolf Hitler?
Germany did it twice in the past 100 years. I think suspicion is justified.
You are presumptious. Germany did it once. Read up on WW1 before making claims like this.
By "did it" I mean "tried to take over Europe." It's reasonable to be suspicious of a country after that.
When do we get to talk about all the shitty things the US has done in the past century? Or any country, for that matter? There's scarcely a country in Europe that hasn't ruled a large part of it at some point in history.
Some heroic award...maybe. Nobel Peace Prize? No. What Alfred Nobel had in mind was for someone that "shall have 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." Also, I'm totally not sure of how Snowden's action actually promoted peace. Controversies, suspicions, and hatred, yes. Peace? No...at least not at the moment.
I do not believe for one second that the grandchildren of the Germans of WWII and the great grandchildren of the Germans of WWI are so different that they don't need to be kept in check once in a while. People simply do not change that easily, and it's a "fool me once" type of deal.
Wait...you think that WWII was because of some problem with the German people themselves (transmitted genetically, I guess?) rather than with a party of ideologues who took advantage of widespread unrest to scapegoat the rest of Europe/minorities and gain power????
What you're saying is so blatantly fucking racist that it's disturbing. In what way are the Germans of today not "different" enough from those of WWII? In what way do you believe that the average German citizen in 1940 was different from one in America/Britain? In what way do you think the conscripted armies differed?
And that's why we need spies.
Korean War, Vietnam, Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the general theme of the Cold War dominated the last 50 years of American foreign politics, and you're saying that we need to worry about the fucking descendants Germans who happened to be ruled by the Nazis???? LMAO. Some people...
I do not believe for one second that the grandchildren of the Germans of WWII and the great grandchildren of the Germans of WWI are so different that they don't need to be kept in check once in a while. People simply do not change that easily, and it's a "fool me once" type of deal.
So basically you're saying I inherited the nazism of the older generations of this nation? Cause it's spreading from grandgrandfather to grandfather to father to son? Or like a cloud - nazism hanging over germany? I guess the denazification wasn't able to clear out all the evil spirits.
wat?
Some heroic award...maybe. Nobel Peace Prize? No. What Alfred Nobel had in mind was for someone that "shall have 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." Also, I'm totally not sure of how Snowden's action actually promoted peace. Controversies, suspicions, and hatred, yes. Peace? No...at least not at the moment.
imo it's a step towards peace. Can you call it peace if nations mistrust each other? I'd describe it as fake peace. It's a time of cyberwar; war's aren't won by spears and shields anymore, they are won through the internet. i'd give him the nobel peace prize. he deserves it. too bad it won't happen.
I do not believe for one second that the grandchildren of the Germans of WWII and the great grandchildren of the Germans of WWI are so different that they don't need to be kept in check once in a while. People simply do not change that easily, and it's a "fool me once" type of deal.
So basically you're saying I inherited the nazism of the older generations of this nation? Cause it's spreading from grandgrandfather to grandfather to father to son? Or like a cloud - nazism hanging over germany? I guess the denazification wasn't able to clear out all the evil spirits.
wat?
I wouldn't say that that's certainly the case, but to rule that possibility out is just naive.
However, I will end it at this, because pursuing this point can only devolve into a flame war: keeping allies in check is good measure, and that's what espionage is for.
imo it's a step towards peace. Can you call it peace if nations mistrust each other? I'd describe it as fake peace. It's a time of cyberwar; war's aren't won by spears and shields anymore, they are won through the internet. i'd give him the nobel peace prize. he deserves it. too bad it won't happen.
You think exposing the inconvenience truth will generate less mistrust? Okay... If you caught your significant other cheating on you, would you ever trust him/her again? His action will generate a FAKE peace because now everyone is suspicious of one another even more.
I do not believe for one second that the grandchildren of the Germans of WWII and the great grandchildren of the Germans of WWI are so different that they don't need to be kept in check once in a while. People simply do not change that easily, and it's a "fool me once" type of deal.
So basically you're saying I inherited the nazism of the older generations of this nation? Cause it's spreading from grandgrandfather to grandfather to father to son? Or like a cloud - nazism hanging over germany? I guess the denazification wasn't able to clear out all the evil spirits.
Some heroic award...maybe. Nobel Peace Prize? No. What Alfred Nobel had in mind was for someone that "shall have 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." Also, I'm totally not sure of how Snowden's action actually promoted peace. Controversies, suspicions, and hatred, yes. Peace? No...at least not at the moment.
imo it's a step towards peace. Can you call it peace if nations mistrust each other? I'd describe it as fake peace. It's a time of cyberwar; war's aren't won by spears and shields anymore, they are won through the internet. i'd give him the nobel peace prize. he deserves it. too bad it won't happen.
He is dead serious, probably a hardcore conservative loony/foxnews watcher/glen back fan.it is quite common to hear this reccurent theme propagated to give the american conservatives a sense of accomplishement,you will find that motos such as"USA is the land of the free home of the brave,germans are nazis,europeans are communists,russians and chinesse are enemies" are used to instill fearmongering.If you really wanna know how deep the manipulation goes check out this fearmongering clip regarding the netherlands form fox news:
They are mad and rely on lies to manipulate their people.
imo it's a step towards peace. Can you call it peace if nations mistrust each other? I'd describe it as fake peace. It's a time of cyberwar; war's aren't won by spears and shields anymore, they are won through the internet. i'd give him the nobel peace prize. he deserves it. too bad it won't happen.
You think exposing the inconvenience truth will generate less mistrust? Okay... If you caught your significant other cheating on you, would you ever trust him/her again? His action will generate a FAKE peace because now everyone is suspicious of one another even more.
At the end of the day it may generate less mistrust. i think it does - but that's my opinion, how said. the trust is mostly gone the moment the other is cheating on you (/how much depends on whatever is the equivalent of cheating), but it can be rebuilt. i'd rather live in a honest world with a bit of mistrust left than in a world with fake peace. i define fake peace not by being suspicious, but by being able to get rid of it because nations actually listen to each other more than they do now. (happy lil dream world)
oh well and i just don't want any organisation spying on personal matters without me knowing or not able to do sth about it. facebook google and all that i know about, the things NSA did - i did not know until there was snowden.
I do not believe for one second that the grandchildren of the Germans of WWII and the great grandchildren of the Germans of WWI are so different that they don't need to be kept in check once in a while. People simply do not change that easily, and it's a "fool me once" type of deal.
So basically you're saying I inherited the nazism of the older generations of this nation? Cause it's spreading from grandgrandfather to grandfather to father to son? Or like a cloud - nazism hanging over germany? I guess the denazification wasn't able to clear out all the evil spirits.
wat?
I wouldn't say that that's certainly the case, but to rule that possibility out is just naive.
However, I will end it at this, because pursuing this point can only devolve into a flame war: keeping allies in check is good measure, and that's what espionage is for.
How the hell can someone inherit Nazism? It's a political system and ideology, not a genetic trait. What's more, Nazism is illegal in Germany. So in what way could it actually be inherited?!
Like your argument is actually eerily similar to the logic employed by Nazis to emphasize their "racial purity."
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?
Easy, Did he make that decision? Or did he decide that its not worth his time and is letting his party work it out. (Notice how he has been relatively quiet about Snowden for some time, other than firing his advisor that wanted to arrest Snowden badly) If you believe that everything that is done that is high profile is decided by the president, I think that you don't really understand politics.
It is a party issue and issues of national security are only temporarily handled by the president, then they go to congress, unless they fight for the case. There is a national security council that the president presides, but in turn most decisions are made by ununanimous consensus including Joe Biden, John Kerry, Chuck Hagel, and advice from people like James Clapper, Tony Blinkin, Janet Napolitano, and Lisa Monaco. (Janet Napolitano resigned over this. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2013/07/15/who-will-replace-janet-napolitano-as-head-of-homeland-security/) If Obama views this as more of an important issue, (Catching Snowden) I think he would have put pressure on other countries, instead of firing one of his national security advisors who wanted to catch him. The politicians angry about snowden making statements generally aren't even these people, they are republicans who are mad that we aren't going after Snowden like Senator McCain.
I think that based off of recent information, Democrats are not going after him and republicans are stating its a bad idea in general. Snowden does not deserve a peace prize for his actions. If he stayed and was arrested, like Mikhail Khodorkovskky, I think that would show something. Other people deserve it more.
I do not believe for one second that the grandchildren of the Germans of WWII and the great grandchildren of the Germans of WWI are so different that they don't need to be kept in check once in a while. People simply do not change that easily, and it's a "fool me once" type of deal.
So basically you're saying I inherited the nazism of the older generations of this nation? Cause it's spreading from grandgrandfather to grandfather to father to son? Or like a cloud - nazism hanging over germany? I guess the denazification wasn't able to clear out all the evil spirits.
wat?
I wouldn't say that that's certainly the case, but to rule that possibility out is just naive.
However, I will end it at this, because pursuing this point can only devolve into a flame war: keeping allies in check is good measure, and that's what espionage is for.
In that case I think it would be prudent of the USA to scrap their entire nuclear arsenal being the only country in the world to have used one and thus who knows when they might do it again?!
The only thing more shocking and irksome than the fact that people took the Nobel Peace Prize nomination for Snowden seriously is the poll results in the OP of this thread. 75% here think he actually deserves it? What. The. Fuck. Nobel Peace prize for letting it out that the US... has access to its citizens' phone records? smh. Not only is it ridiculous but it is a big slap in the face to everyone else who has ever won a Nobel Peace Prize.
BTW I really don't get why people are making such a big deal about phone records. I don't give a fuck if the government sees that I called my Mom this weekend, and you know what, the government doesn't care that I called my Mom either. But why do you care, unless you are a terrorist planning an attack?
BTW I really don't get why people are making such a big deal about phone records. I don't give a fuck if the government sees that I called my Mom this weekend, and you know what, the government doesn't care that I called my Mom either. But why do you care, unless you are a terrorist planning an attack?
Because privacy is freedom and the perceived "security" we get from this loss of privacy is not worth it. If you let the government have an inch, they'll want a foot. If they can take our privacy away without a raised finger, then what's next? Defend your rights or lose them.
On July 18 2013 08:31 rhs408 wrote: BTW I really don't get why people are making such a big deal about phone records. I don't give a fuck if the government sees that I called my Mom this weekend, and you know what, the government doesn't care that I called my Mom either. But why do you care, unless you are a terrorist planning an attack?
Agreed. With that in mind, any citizen should be able to view the phone records of any other citizens. As you say, they don't have anything to hide unless they're terrorists, and harassing people on such knowledge is already illegal, so what's the problem?
On July 18 2013 08:18 yOngKIN wrote: why not. Obama won it for nothing. At least Snowden has done something actually worthy.
Yeah Obama's push for removing nuclear arsenals is not noteworthy person from North Korea.
All words, little progress...
Hopefully well placed words lead to continued increase in actions. "Under New START, each former Cold War adversary agreed to cut their deployed nuclear weapons to 1,550, a 30 percent reduction from the previous 2002 bilateral agreement between the two states"
I"m glad that he's still trying, and to yOngKON, I agree that it would have been better to give the prize after more action. A little progress, hopefully is better than a little retrogress.
I find it alarming that some people here keep defeinding the spying, I mean we are talking about private E-mails, SKYPE CALLS, facebook chat, and so on.
What does this have to do with keeping track on what other nations are up to? Some people talked about Germany and WW2. Nobody would be so upset if we were talking about spying on military numbers, industrial production, and so on. And by the way, in the age of cellphones, internet, and so on, who needs spys to figure out that a nation is preparing for war with it's neighbours?
In any country it is highly illegal to spy on people's homes and letters, so why would we tolerate spying in our personal messages that we send online, or our personal calls we make via the internet? Those things are exactly the same, only the technoligy/medium used to transfer the information is a different one.
PS: to be fair I should point out that as far as I know every E-mail in Germany, and probably in other countries too, is officially scanned for keywords and if it turns out to be very alarming it is checked by the police or whoever is responsible. This makes the secret spying even more absurd. And yes, I also think this should be illegal and stopped.
On July 18 2013 08:48 Ai.Cola wrote: I find it alarming that some people here keep defeinding the spying, I mean we are talking about private E-mails, SKYPE CALLS, facebook chat, and so on.
What does this have to do with keeping track on what other nations are up to? Some people talked about Germany and WW2. Nobody would be so upset if we were talking about spying on military numbers, industrial production, and so on. And by the way, in the age of cellphones, internet, and so on, who needs spys to figure out that a nation is preparing for war with it's neighbours?
In any country it is highly illegal to spy on people's homes and letters, so why would we tolerate spying in our personal messages that we send online, or our personal calls we make via the internet? Those things are exactly the same, only the technoligy/medium used to transfer the information is a different one.
PS: to be fair I should point out that as far as I know every E-mail in Germany, and probably in other countries too, is officially scanned for keywords and if it turns out to be very alarming it is checked by the police or whoever is responsible. This makes the secret spying even more absurd. And yes, I also think this should be illegal and stopped.
Ai.Cola, I agree that it is completely illegal and hope it will be stopped.
Just to point out some cultural differences, I guess that we didn't go through occupation by another country nor genocide. So the US is still struggling to grasp that. We didn't have to meet at church to hide information from an occupier, we didn't have a wall dividing our people. We don't have near as much censorship in the US.(GoGo mods, who censor the ascii genitals) We let anyone say stupid things, and just give people arbitrary varying amounts of credibility.
We still have a young country that believes that negotiating and spying is better than genocide, even though they are just as bad but in a different way. I have family that was in East Germany and I feel the same way as you.
BTW I really don't get why people are making such a big deal about phone records. I don't give a fuck if the government sees that I called my Mom this weekend, and you know what, the government doesn't care that I called my Mom either. But why do you care, unless you are a terrorist planning an attack?
Because privacy is freedom and the perceived "security" we get from this loss of privacy is not worth it. If you let the government have an inch, they'll want a foot. If they can take our privacy away without a raised finger, then what's next? Defend your rights or lose them.
There are a lot of rights that we need to defend. Look at Guantanamo Bay, or the police brutality that happens with frightening regularity. This Snowden smokescreen is drawing attention to the wrong things.
Privacy is a right that we need to defend, it's a right that we should have. But is it really being violated here? Do you think that anyone in the government will actually read your messages, among the trillions of other messages that are sent every day? I doubt it, unless you happen to be planning a terrorist attack. Snowden should know better than anyone that very little harm is being done here, and that's why I think he's doing this mainly for attention purposes.
He did that for the freedom and the person's privacy right , in war if you know someone do something against humanity or against the law you need report it or you go to jail , he not a soldier , but he did report what the NSA was doing , and this was against human right and most law we got in this world , they can twist it in any way they want , he did nothing , and for me he a hero
Only a small % of the population did know that the USA was doing something like that , now everyone knows , and we can guess we will get new law and in 10 years this will have helped most of you guys posting here , it will get better , maybe not but this will get worst realy less fast that how fast it was going right now , they were close to control the internet with pipa , sofa ect , now you can be sure these kind of law will just not pass easy like before !! , he have fought for freedom and you call him a criminal ??? What's wrong with your guy ?? I was thinking Starcraft game was smart , stop to be brain washed and just get what the TV news tell you and think for yourself !! Look at the internet , find the info , think !!
this make me angry what bob in the usa think , but that not his fault , are you bob ?
Privacy is a right that we need to defend, it's a right that we should have. But is it really being violated here? Do you think that anyone in the government will actually read your messages, among the trillions of other messages that are sent every day? I doubt it, unless you happen to be planning a terrorist attack. Snowden should know better than anyone that very little harm is being done here, and that's why I think he's doing this mainly for attention purposes.
It's actually a pretty huge deal. It's not about Obama reading your personal letter to Person X. it's about all of the data gathered and saved (for unlimited time) without you actually able to stop that. it's the possibility of being a little step towards the "glassy citizen" where there's no real privacy left. if it was all about attention the US wouldn't have pressed on other nations that hard because of snowden.
On July 18 2013 08:31 rhs408 wrote: The only thing more shocking and irksome than the fact that people took the Nobel Peace Prize nomination for Snowden seriously is the poll results in the OP of this thread. 75% here think he actually deserves it? What. The. Fuck. Nobel Peace prize for letting it out that the US... has access to its citizens' phone records? smh. Not only is it ridiculous but it is a big slap in the face to everyone else who has ever won a Nobel Peace Prize.
BTW I really don't get why people are making such a big deal about phone records. I don't give a fuck if the government sees that I called my Mom this weekend, and you know what, the government doesn't care that I called my Mom either. But why do you care, unless you are a terrorist planning an attack?
It's a blatant breach of the fourth amendment. A right US citizens are guaranteed at birth -- that their privacy won't be violated to "fish" for crimes without probable cause. This isn't just about random phone calls to a mother. The audacity you have to flaunt your ignorance by suggesting any American who defends their right is a terrorist.
And Snowden is sacrificing his own freedom, possibly even his life to make the people aware their rights are being taken away. Freedom, a privilege you have apparently taken for granted.
On July 18 2013 08:48 Ai.Cola wrote: I find it alarming that some people here keep defeinding the spying, I mean we are talking about private E-mails, SKYPE CALLS, facebook chat, and so on.
What does this have to do with keeping track on what other nations are up to? Some people talked about Germany and WW2. Nobody would be so upset if we were talking about spying on military numbers, industrial production, and so on. And by the way, in the age of cellphones, internet, and so on, who needs spys to figure out that a nation is preparing for war with it's neighbours?
In any country it is highly illegal to spy on people's homes and letters, so why would we tolerate spying in our personal messages that we send online, or our personal calls we make via the internet? Those things are exactly the same, only the technoligy/medium used to transfer the information is a different one.
PS: to be fair I should point out that as far as I know every E-mail in Germany, and probably in other countries too, is officially scanned for keywords and if it turns out to be very alarming it is checked by the police or whoever is responsible. This makes the secret spying even more absurd. And yes, I also think this should be illegal and stopped.
Ai.Cola, I agree that it is completely illegal and hope it will be stopped.
Just to point out some cultural differences, I guess that we didn't go through occupation by another country nor genocide. So the US is still struggling to grasp that. We didn't have to meet at church to hide information from an occupier, we didn't have a wall dividing our people. We don't have near as much censorship in the US.(GoGo mods, who censor the ascii genitals) We let anyone say stupid things, and just give people arbitrary varying amounts of credibility.
We still have a young country that believes that negotiating and spying is better than genocide, even though they are just as bad but in a different way. I have family that was in East Germany and I feel the same way as you.
I think you missed a couple of lessons in your history class. As for the bolded: Are you really trying to say that it is either spying or genocide? I think you might want to reconsider that.
For example someone knows the police did something really wrong , with this system he can never talk , no one will know .
they could control everything... and SERIOUSLY ,
It's a blatant breach of the fourth amendment. A right US citizens are guaranteed at birth -- that their privacy won't be violated to "fish" for crimes without probable cause. This isn't just about random phone calls to a mother. The audacity you have to flaunt your ignorance by suggesting any American who defends their right is a terrorist.
if people want to fight again big corporation , they can supress them easy , no one would dare do that in 2052
then we get 1984 , maybe you dont care that they know you have called your mom today but in 15 year when you see for exemple someone realy rich do a murder and because of this system you just disappear , you will care .
On July 18 2013 08:48 Ai.Cola wrote: I find it alarming that some people here keep defeinding the spying, I mean we are talking about private E-mails, SKYPE CALLS, facebook chat, and so on.
What does this have to do with keeping track on what other nations are up to? Some people talked about Germany and WW2. Nobody would be so upset if we were talking about spying on military numbers, industrial production, and so on. And by the way, in the age of cellphones, internet, and so on, who needs spys to figure out that a nation is preparing for war with it's neighbours?
In any country it is highly illegal to spy on people's homes and letters, so why would we tolerate spying in our personal messages that we send online, or our personal calls we make via the internet? Those things are exactly the same, only the technoligy/medium used to transfer the information is a different one.
PS: to be fair I should point out that as far as I know every E-mail in Germany, and probably in other countries too, is officially scanned for keywords and if it turns out to be very alarming it is checked by the police or whoever is responsible. This makes the secret spying even more absurd. And yes, I also think this should be illegal and stopped.
Ai.Cola, I agree that it is completely illegal and hope it will be stopped.
Just to point out some cultural differences, I guess that we didn't go through occupation by another country nor genocide. So the US is still struggling to grasp that. We didn't have to meet at church to hide information from an occupier, we didn't have a wall dividing our people. We don't have near as much censorship in the US.(GoGo mods, who censor the ascii genitals) We let anyone say stupid things, and just give people arbitrary varying amounts of credibility.
We still have a young country that believes that negotiating and spying is better than genocide, even though they are just as bad but in a different way. I have family that was in East Germany and I feel the same way as you.
Kind of don't know what you mean, but here are some facts to enlighten you.
1. the USA are built upon the genocide of the Native American population 2. Ever heared of slavery? 3. the USA also started out as the colony of another Nation, sounds pretty much like occupation to me 4. You didn't have a wall, but a straight on civil war, north vs east 5. "not near as much censorship" !? Where exactly is the terrible censorship in Germany? At least you can say "fuck" out loud here and say any word you want in a song. The censorship is pretty even when it comes to more or less "normal" people.
We still have a young country that believes that negotiating and spying is better than genocide, even though they are just as bad but in a different way.
I don't get this at all, what does it have to do with the topic?
However, the USA were based on the idea of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, privacy, and so on, because at the time those ideas were not yet established in europe. So it is very sad to see that the USA (AND EUROPEAN COUNTRIES ASWELL) start to take those rights away from us again, under the ridiculous excuse of terrorism ...
On July 18 2013 09:28 Mansef wrote: Maybe if he had not ran away and evaded the legal system like a coward.
Uh...wat? Yeah. Sure. He should get "judged" by the USA. Cause USA will "judge right" in this case. He will get imprisoned, tortured and you want him to stay? He did an unbelieveable self-sacrifice by doing what he did. Ever heard of Bradley Manning, the whisteblower of WikiLeaks?
On July 18 2013 08:59 Loanshark wrote: Privacy is a right that we need to defend, it's a right that we should have. But is it really being violated here? Do you think that anyone in the government will actually read your messages, among the trillions of other messages that are sent every day? I doubt it, unless you happen to be planning a terrorist attack.
Or if the algorithm mistakenly identifies a completely random person as a high priority surveillance target. Or if you make a joke about terrorist attacks while playing League of Legends. Or if you write something that could even remotely be interpreted as being sympathetic towards terrorists. Or if you're found to be a threat-to-national-security in a way completely unrelated to terrorism. Snowden isn't a terrorist, but he's been branded as the enemy nonetheless - seems kind of easy to be branded the "enemy" nowadays.
If anything, messages about actual terrorist attacks are probably the only kind they're NOT going to read, because nobody is going to be stupid enough to plan terrorist attacks via Gmail, nor were they doing that so far.
The foundation of privacy is that you cannot access any of my private information unless I decide to give you permission or you come with an actual warrant. Is that being violated here? Of course it bloody is. It doesn't matter what they will read and what won't they read in the end. They have access to it, they have no ethical right to that access, and they should certainly have no legal right to it, but fuck knows they've been allowed to pass a metric ton of legislation that is completely out of place in a modern democracy.
On July 18 2013 09:28 quebecman77 wrote: For example someone knows the police did something really wrong , with this system he can never talk , no one will know .
they could control everything... and SERIOUSLY ,
It's a blatant breach of the fourth amendment. A right US citizens are guaranteed at birth -- that their privacy won't be violated to "fish" for crimes without probable cause. This isn't just about random phone calls to a mother. The audacity you have to flaunt your ignorance by suggesting any American who defends their right is a terrorist.
if people want to fight again big corporation , they can supress them easy , no one would dare do that in 2052
then we get 1984 , maybe you dont care that they know you have called your mom today but in 15 year when you see for exemple someone realy rich do a murder and because of this system you just disappear , you will care .
"They" already do control everything, in case you didn't notice. The government has been spying since the Patriot Act.
I understand that there's a scare of the Orwellian Nightmare, but honestly...I just don't see that happening with the U.S. government. I do believe that the NSA is only doing this to help the populace, not harm us. You may say I'm just a brainwashed idiot, but it seems like people are making too big of a fuss. I don't see the harm in letting some pasty faced government official look over all my posts, emails, conversations, and pictures. They're not going to use the information they gather unless it looks like a serious threat to national security. If the NSA begins to use the info they gather to really start oppressing the populace, then I'd get worried.
As for the fourth amendment... I honestly think our Constitution is outdated for the most part anyway. That's going off-topic, though.
On July 18 2013 09:28 quebecman77 wrote: For example someone knows the police did something really wrong , with this system he can never talk , no one will know .
they could control everything... and SERIOUSLY ,
It's a blatant breach of the fourth amendment. A right US citizens are guaranteed at birth -- that their privacy won't be violated to "fish" for crimes without probable cause. This isn't just about random phone calls to a mother. The audacity you have to flaunt your ignorance by suggesting any American who defends their right is a terrorist.
if people want to fight again big corporation , they can supress them easy , no one would dare do that in 2052
then we get 1984 , maybe you dont care that they know you have called your mom today but in 15 year when you see for exemple someone realy rich do a murder and because of this system you just disappear , you will care .
"They" already do control everything, in case you didn't notice. The government has been spying since the Patriot Act.
I understand that there's a scare of the Orwellian Nightmare, but honestly...I just don't see that happening with the U.S. government. I do believe that the NSA is only doing this to help the populace, not harm us. You may say I'm just a brainwashed idiot, but it seems like people are making too big of a fuss. I don't see the harm in letting some pasty faced government official look over all my posts, emails, conversations, and pictures. They're not going to use the information they gather unless it looks like a serious threat to national security. If the NSA begins to use the info they gather to really start oppressing the populace, then I'd get worried.
As for the fourth amendment... I honestly think our Constitution is outdated for the most part anyway. That's going off-topic, though.
No, please go on. You've already derailed this discussion by proposing this argument. Thanks for sharing your own opinion and in the same breath preemptively condemning anyone who'd retort for being off-topic. Why not just say it straight up? Did you just suggest the fourth amendment is outdated? Or that the entire constitution is outdated therefore spying and logging billions of records on private citizens is okay?
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"
I merely meant that I believe Snowden did wrong. "Sinning" was just an adequate synonym to get that point across.
Why wouldn't a country spy on purported "allies?" It's militarily sound, if not morally. A country friendly to another one day may be a mortal enemy the next.
People are treating him like a vigilante, when all he appears to me is just a traitor. I would bet he was lured by other countries to share the secrets for the fame he's receiving now, and any money he could be/was offered. We're assuming that Snowden has honest, wholesome intentions by uncovering these secrets. I'm very skeptical towards that assumption.
On July 18 2013 08:48 Ai.Cola wrote: I find it alarming that some people here keep defeinding the spying, I mean we are talking about private E-mails, SKYPE CALLS, facebook chat, and so on.
What does this have to do with keeping track on what other nations are up to? Some people talked about Germany and WW2. Nobody would be so upset if we were talking about spying on military numbers, industrial production, and so on. And by the way, in the age of cellphones, internet, and so on, who needs spys to figure out that a nation is preparing for war with it's neighbours?
In any country it is highly illegal to spy on people's homes and letters, so why would we tolerate spying in our personal messages that we send online, or our personal calls we make via the internet? Those things are exactly the same, only the technoligy/medium used to transfer the information is a different one.
PS: to be fair I should point out that as far as I know every E-mail in Germany, and probably in other countries too, is officially scanned for keywords and if it turns out to be very alarming it is checked by the police or whoever is responsible. This makes the secret spying even more absurd. And yes, I also think this should be illegal and stopped.
Ai.Cola, I agree that it is completely illegal and hope it will be stopped.
Just to point out some cultural differences, I guess that we didn't go through occupation by another country nor genocide. So the US is still struggling to grasp that. We didn't have to meet at church to hide information from an occupier, we didn't have a wall dividing our people. We don't have near as much censorship in the US.(GoGo mods, who censor the ascii genitals) We let anyone say stupid things, and just give people arbitrary varying amounts of credibility.
We still have a young country that believes that negotiating and spying is better than genocide, even though they are just as bad but in a different way. I have family that was in East Germany and I feel the same way as you.
I think you missed a couple of lessons in your history class. As for the bolded: Are you really trying to say that it is either spying or genocide? I think you might want to reconsider that.
Nope I'm not saying that its spying or genocide. Its like asking which one is the worse, in which i state -"they are just as bad, but in a different way."
Why wouldn't a country spy on purported "allies?" It's militarily sound, if not morally. A country friendly to another one day may be a mortal enemy the next.
Actually no. Why woul anybody in Germany or Europe as a whole want a war with the USA? But a good way to try to get the situation to move from "friend" to "enemy" could be spying on the other country
On July 18 2013 09:28 quebecman77 wrote: For example someone knows the police did something really wrong , with this system he can never talk , no one will know .
they could control everything... and SERIOUSLY ,
It's a blatant breach of the fourth amendment. A right US citizens are guaranteed at birth -- that their privacy won't be violated to "fish" for crimes without probable cause. This isn't just about random phone calls to a mother. The audacity you have to flaunt your ignorance by suggesting any American who defends their right is a terrorist.
if people want to fight again big corporation , they can supress them easy , no one would dare do that in 2052
then we get 1984 , maybe you dont care that they know you have called your mom today but in 15 year when you see for exemple someone realy rich do a murder and because of this system you just disappear , you will care .
"They" already do control everything, in case you didn't notice. The government has been spying since the Patriot Act.
I understand that there's a scare of the Orwellian Nightmare, but honestly...I just don't see that happening with the U.S. government. I do believe that the NSA is only doing this to help the populace, not harm us. You may say I'm just a brainwashed idiot, but it seems like people are making too big of a fuss. I don't see the harm in letting some pasty faced government official look over all my posts, emails, conversations, and pictures. They're not going to use the information they gather unless it looks like a serious threat to national security. If the NSA begins to use the info they gather to really start oppressing the populace, then I'd get worried.
As for the fourth amendment... I honestly think our Constitution is outdated for the most part anyway. That's going off-topic, though.
NSA isn't doing anything to help the populace nobody ever does anything to help the populace. Everything that they do, they do to justify their existence and stay relevant so that they get to keep their jobs. If they do that by protecting the public interest, then that is what they will do. If they do that by protecting other kinds of interests, then that's what they will do. If they do that by creating threats where little or none exist, then providing the tools to deal with those threats, then that is what they will do. I'd venture a guess that they're doing all these things in some undetermined ratio.
I don't understand how anyone can say with a straight face that this rather expensive pet project actually makes them feel safer from terrorist attacks. It's a good plot for a TV show, but Prism isn't going to save many lives or prevent many bombs from going off. If any.
On July 18 2013 09:28 quebecman77 wrote: For example someone knows the police did something really wrong , with this system he can never talk , no one will know .
they could control everything... and SERIOUSLY ,
It's a blatant breach of the fourth amendment. A right US citizens are guaranteed at birth -- that their privacy won't be violated to "fish" for crimes without probable cause. This isn't just about random phone calls to a mother. The audacity you have to flaunt your ignorance by suggesting any American who defends their right is a terrorist.
if people want to fight again big corporation , they can supress them easy , no one would dare do that in 2052
then we get 1984 , maybe you dont care that they know you have called your mom today but in 15 year when you see for exemple someone realy rich do a murder and because of this system you just disappear , you will care .
"They" already do control everything, in case you didn't notice. The government has been spying since the Patriot Act.
I understand that there's a scare of the Orwellian Nightmare, but honestly...I just don't see that happening with the U.S. government. I do believe that the NSA is only doing this to help the populace, not harm us. You may say I'm just a brainwashed idiot, but it seems like people are making too big of a fuss. I don't see the harm in letting some pasty faced government official look over all my posts, emails, conversations, and pictures. They're not going to use the information they gather unless it looks like a serious threat to national security. If the NSA begins to use the info they gather to really start oppressing the populace, then I'd get worried.
As for the fourth amendment... I honestly think our Constitution is outdated for the most part anyway. That's going off-topic, though.
NSA isn't doing anything to help the populace nobody ever does anything to help the populace. Everything that they do, they do to justify their existence and stay relevant so that they get to keep their jobs. If they do that by protecting the public interest, then that is what they will do. If they do that by protecting other kinds of interests, then that's what they will do. If they do that by creating threats where little or none exist, then providing the tools to deal with those threats, then that is what they will do. I'd venture a guess that they're doing all these things in some undetermined ratio.
I don't understand how anyone can say with a straight face that this rather expensive pet project actually makes them feel safer from terrorist attacks. It's a good plot for a TV show, but Prism isn't going to save many lives or prevent many bombs from going off. If any.
I certainly see your point. However, I feel that in today's world...any precaution is a good one. I can honestly say I've never felt the effects of any of the programs, and I don't know anyone that has, either. As long as they aren't selling the data they get or using it to oppress- then I'm OK with their monitoring the populace's communications.
No I don't think he deserves it for bringing awareness of governments spying on its citizens.Snowden's act didn't create peace between nations. It angered people. The only reason he got nominated at all was to make a point to obama that europe isn't happy with him after hearing about the depth of spying. Even the guy that nominated Snowden admits his distaste for obama. Maybe the council that selects people should do a better job of selecting worthy people than to use the award to get back at people they regret nominating.
On July 18 2013 08:48 Ai.Cola wrote: I find it alarming that some people here keep defeinding the spying, I mean we are talking about private E-mails, SKYPE CALLS, facebook chat, and so on.
What does this have to do with keeping track on what other nations are up to? Some people talked about Germany and WW2. Nobody would be so upset if we were talking about spying on military numbers, industrial production, and so on. And by the way, in the age of cellphones, internet, and so on, who needs spys to figure out that a nation is preparing for war with it's neighbours?
In any country it is highly illegal to spy on people's homes and letters, so why would we tolerate spying in our personal messages that we send online, or our personal calls we make via the internet? Those things are exactly the same, only the technoligy/medium used to transfer the information is a different one.
PS: to be fair I should point out that as far as I know every E-mail in Germany, and probably in other countries too, is officially scanned for keywords and if it turns out to be very alarming it is checked by the police or whoever is responsible. This makes the secret spying even more absurd. And yes, I also think this should be illegal and stopped.
Ai.Cola, I agree that it is completely illegal and hope it will be stopped.
Just to point out some cultural differences, I guess that we didn't go through occupation by another country nor genocide. So the US is still struggling to grasp that. We didn't have to meet at church to hide information from an occupier, we didn't have a wall dividing our people. We don't have near as much censorship in the US.(GoGo mods, who censor the ascii genitals) We let anyone say stupid things, and just give people arbitrary varying amounts of credibility.
We still have a young country that believes that negotiating and spying is better than genocide, even though they are just as bad but in a different way. I have family that was in East Germany and I feel the same way as you.
Kind of don't know what you mean, but here are some facts to enlighten you.
1. the USA are built upon the genocide of the Native American population 2. Ever heared of slavery? 3. the USA also started out as the colony of another Nation, sounds pretty much like occupation to me 4. You didn't have a wall, but a straight on civil war, north vs east 5. "not near as much censorship" !? Where exactly is the terrible censorship in Germany? At least you can say "fuck" out loud here and say any word you want in a song. The censorship is pretty even when it comes to more or less "normal" people.
We still have a young country that believes that negotiating and spying is better than genocide, even though they are just as bad but in a different way.
I don't get this at all, what does it have to do with the topic?
However, the USA were based on the idea of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, privacy, and so on, because at the time those ideas were not yet established in europe. So it is very sad to see that the USA (AND EUROPEAN COUNTRIES ASWELL) start to take those rights away from us again, under the ridiculous excuse of terrorism ...
Nice facts, which means that obviously I'm being unclear. The spying the by the US isn't as bad as it was with the Stasi((http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20130710/eu-germany-nsa-surveillance/?utm_hp_ref=world&ir=world), but the potential is there to be. (hence why germans and Russians in general might support snowdens cause, yet why people in the US would feel different)
My bad is that I'm not trying to talk about the events. The post is about spying, I'm I'm trying to provide evidence for why spying on a non-offending population leads to bad events such as genocide. My facts are discussing spying on the non-offending population, particularly from the Stasi and the results of that. For example, spying was related to genocide, occupation related to spying. The divide in our country if the south wins means that we have 2 countries with different sets of rights, the country never did actually end in having two countries. The US did not have a policy of spying on its own people not targeted by the government until recently. As far as censorship in Germany, I'm talking about political discussions stopped by the stasi.
I was trying to emphasize that until now, the US is unaware of the bad things that come from spying. I have family in Schwedt who told me a little about the stasi and what it was like, not that the US has the cleanest history, but that we haven't established inside the US, the negative effects of spying on our own population, yet, and thus i think that eventually most people will agree with you as it continues to be more prominent.
On July 18 2013 09:28 quebecman77 wrote: For example someone knows the police did something really wrong , with this system he can never talk , no one will know .
they could control everything... and SERIOUSLY ,
It's a blatant breach of the fourth amendment. A right US citizens are guaranteed at birth -- that their privacy won't be violated to "fish" for crimes without probable cause. This isn't just about random phone calls to a mother. The audacity you have to flaunt your ignorance by suggesting any American who defends their right is a terrorist.
if people want to fight again big corporation , they can supress them easy , no one would dare do that in 2052
then we get 1984 , maybe you dont care that they know you have called your mom today but in 15 year when you see for exemple someone realy rich do a murder and because of this system you just disappear , you will care .
"They" already do control everything, in case you didn't notice. The government has been spying since the Patriot Act.
I understand that there's a scare of the Orwellian Nightmare, but honestly...I just don't see that happening with the U.S. government. I do believe that the NSA is only doing this to help the populace, not harm us. You may say I'm just a brainwashed idiot, but it seems like people are making too big of a fuss. I don't see the harm in letting some pasty faced government official look over all my posts, emails, conversations, and pictures. They're not going to use the information they gather unless it looks like a serious threat to national security. If the NSA begins to use the info they gather to really start oppressing the populace, then I'd get worried.
As for the fourth amendment... I honestly think our Constitution is outdated for the most part anyway. That's going off-topic, though.
NSA isn't doing anything to help the populace nobody ever does anything to help the populace. Everything that they do, they do to justify their existence and stay relevant so that they get to keep their jobs. If they do that by protecting the public interest, then that is what they will do. If they do that by protecting other kinds of interests, then that's what they will do. If they do that by creating threats where little or none exist, then providing the tools to deal with those threats, then that is what they will do. I'd venture a guess that they're doing all these things in some undetermined ratio.
I don't understand how anyone can say with a straight face that this rather expensive pet project actually makes them feel safer from terrorist attacks. It's a good plot for a TV show, but Prism isn't going to save many lives or prevent many bombs from going off. If any.
I certainly see your point. However, I feel that in today's world...any precaution is a good one. I can honestly say I've never felt the effects of any of the programs, and I don't know anyone that has, either. As long as they aren't selling the data they get or using it to oppress- then I'm OK with their monitoring the populace's communications.
So as long as they don't abuse their powers you are okay with it? Do you see the slippery slide here? And why people object to even stepping out on it by collecting the data?
On July 18 2013 10:16 Baarn wrote: No I don't think he deserves it for bringing awareness of governments spying on its citizens. The only reason he got nominated at all was to make a point to obama that europe isn't happy with him after hearing about the depth of spying. Snowden's act didn't create peace between nations. It angered people.
The Peace prize represents(/ed) ideals greater in scope than people not being angry and killing each other. More than one person on the Peace prize list has actively waged wars or otherwise caused deaths of innocents.
The anger that Snowden's leaks created isn't anger bred out of hatred or ideological differences. It is a civil anger towards an government that has committed unwarranted hostile actions towards its own people and the rest of the civilized world. The leaks did no damage, but rather exposed the damage that has been perpetrated by others, thus laying an important foundation for these issues to be properly confronted and hopefully resolved.
I would say that a foreign government infringing on my people's individual privacy and treating their countries and/or European Union as one would treat a threat or a potential enemy is hardly a statement of peace.
On July 18 2013 10:16 Baarn wrote: No I don't think he deserves it for bringing awareness of governments spying on its citizens. The only reason he got nominated at all was to make a point to obama that europe isn't happy with him after hearing about the depth of spying. Snowden's act didn't create peace between nations. It angered people.
The Peace prize represents(/ed) ideals greater in scope than people not being angry and killing each other. More than one person on the Peace prize list has actively waged wars or otherwise caused deaths of innocents.
The anger that Snowden's leaks created isn't anger bred out of hatred or ideological differences. It is a civil anger towards an government that has committed unwarranted hostile actions towards its own people and the rest of the civilized world. The leaks did no damage, but rather exposed the damage that has been perpetrated by others, thus laying an important foundation for these issues to be properly confronted and hopefully resolved.
Nailed it on the head man.
Snowden didnt make people angry, he just gave us a massive dose of truth that the global media was unable to dilute in order to avoid the outrage.
The US has been outraging the world for the past decade, snowden just put it in evidence.
On July 18 2013 10:16 Baarn wrote: No I don't think he deserves it for bringing awareness of governments spying on its citizens. The only reason he got nominated at all was to make a point to obama that europe isn't happy with him after hearing about the depth of spying. Snowden's act didn't create peace between nations. It angered people.
The Peace prize represents(/ed) ideals greater in scope than people not being angry and killing each other. More than one person on the Peace prize list has actively waged wars or otherwise caused deaths of innocents.
The anger that Snowden's leaks created isn't anger bred out of hatred or ideological differences. It is a civil anger towards an government that has committed unwarranted hostile actions towards its own people and the rest of the civilized world. The leaks did no damage, but rather exposed the damage that has been perpetrated by others, thus laying an important foundation for these issues to be properly confronted and hopefully resolved.
I would say that a foreign government infringing on my people's individual privacy and treating their countries and/or European Union as one would treat a threat or a potential enemy is hardly a statement of peace.
I disagree because of this. Chew on that for a bit. I'll read your reply when I get back later tonight.
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"
I merely meant that I believe Snowden did wrong. "Sinning" was just an adequate synonym to get that point across.
Why wouldn't a country spy on purported "allies?" It's militarily sound, if not morally. A country friendly to another one day may be a mortal enemy the next.
People are treating him like a vigilante, when all he appears to me is just a traitor. I would bet he was lured by other countries to share the secrets for the fame he's receiving now, and any money he could be/was offered. We're assuming that Snowden has honest, wholesome intentions by uncovering these secrets. I'm very skeptical towards that assumption.
Snowden didn't have to make this information public. If he were doing this purely for his own gain, he wouldn't have and he wouldn't be in this predicament.
Given the fact that Snowden was able to do this so easily, there has probably been quite a few people in the past that did what Snowden did without releasing information to the public, these people would never be known or caught.
Snowden's actions just goes to show that the NSA is actually creating the opposite effect of what we want. The NSA is just one big treasure trove for espionage, we have done all the terrorists work for them by funnelling and sorting all important data into the one place. Terrorists no longer have to look anywhere else, they just need one person in the NSA and they have all the information they need.
Also don't assume all terrorists are burka wearing middle-eastern people or carry bombs, a terrorist can come from within the USA looking for massive financial gain, or from China looking to cause mass disruption in the USA in the fight to become the #1 global superpower. I'm sure many CEOs would sell their souls to get this kind of information.
On July 18 2013 10:16 Baarn wrote: No I don't think he deserves it for bringing awareness of governments spying on its citizens. The only reason he got nominated at all was to make a point to obama that europe isn't happy with him after hearing about the depth of spying. Snowden's act didn't create peace between nations. It angered people.
The Peace prize represents(/ed) ideals greater in scope than people not being angry and killing each other. More than one person on the Peace prize list has actively waged wars or otherwise caused deaths of innocents.
The anger that Snowden's leaks created isn't anger bred out of hatred or ideological differences. It is a civil anger towards an government that has committed unwarranted hostile actions towards its own people and the rest of the civilized world. The leaks did no damage, but rather exposed the damage that has been perpetrated by others, thus laying an important foundation for these issues to be properly confronted and hopefully resolved.
I would say that a foreign government infringing on my people's individual privacy and treating their countries and/or European Union as one would treat a threat or a potential enemy is hardly a statement of peace.
I disagree because of this. Chew on that for a bit. I'll read your reply when I get back later tonight.
I'm not sure how that article can be the grounds for disagreeing with me.
Of course it should have a severe impact on US-EU relations. That should be a part of confronting the issue and acknowledging its implications. It's probably not going to, though, but that's a different matter entirely. Either way, Snowden didn't personally cause the damage to US-EU relations, at least not by leaking information. He did not "make people angry", US government made people angry.
On July 18 2013 09:28 quebecman77 wrote: For example someone knows the police did something really wrong , with this system he can never talk , no one will know .
they could control everything... and SERIOUSLY ,
It's a blatant breach of the fourth amendment. A right US citizens are guaranteed at birth -- that their privacy won't be violated to "fish" for crimes without probable cause. This isn't just about random phone calls to a mother. The audacity you have to flaunt your ignorance by suggesting any American who defends their right is a terrorist.
if people want to fight again big corporation , they can supress them easy , no one would dare do that in 2052
then we get 1984 , maybe you dont care that they know you have called your mom today but in 15 year when you see for exemple someone realy rich do a murder and because of this system you just disappear , you will care .
"They" already do control everything, in case you didn't notice. The government has been spying since the Patriot Act.
I understand that there's a scare of the Orwellian Nightmare, but honestly...I just don't see that happening with the U.S. government. I do believe that the NSA is only doing this to help the populace, not harm us. You may say I'm just a brainwashed idiot, but it seems like people are making too big of a fuss. I don't see the harm in letting some pasty faced government official look over all my posts, emails, conversations, and pictures. They're not going to use the information they gather unless it looks like a serious threat to national security. If the NSA begins to use the info they gather to really start oppressing the populace, then I'd get worried.
As for the fourth amendment... I honestly think our Constitution is outdated for the most part anyway. That's going off-topic, though.
NSA isn't doing anything to help the populace nobody ever does anything to help the populace. Everything that they do, they do to justify their existence and stay relevant so that they get to keep their jobs. If they do that by protecting the public interest, then that is what they will do. If they do that by protecting other kinds of interests, then that's what they will do. If they do that by creating threats where little or none exist, then providing the tools to deal with those threats, then that is what they will do. I'd venture a guess that they're doing all these things in some undetermined ratio.
I don't understand how anyone can say with a straight face that this rather expensive pet project actually makes them feel safer from terrorist attacks. It's a good plot for a TV show, but Prism isn't going to save many lives or prevent many bombs from going off. If any.
I certainly see your point. However, I feel that in today's world...any precaution is a good one. I can honestly say I've never felt the effects of any of the programs, and I don't know anyone that has, either. As long as they aren't selling the data they get or using it to oppress- then I'm OK with their monitoring the populace's communications.
So any precaution against the possibility of terrorism is okay, but precaution against possible abuse of power (Which has happened before... a lot... Power corrupts, after all, and this is getting close to absolute power) is negligible because of the modicum of safety that power may or may not provide? Seems sound.
It's interesting to me that so many people here seem to be ok with all of this spying..could anyone give me some examples of what good it has done for us that we know about so far?
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"
I merely meant that I believe Snowden did wrong. "Sinning" was just an adequate synonym to get that point across.
Why wouldn't a country spy on purported "allies?" It's militarily sound, if not morally. A country friendly to another one day may be a mortal enemy the next.
People are treating him like a vigilante, when all he appears to me is just a traitor. I would bet he was lured by other countries to share the secrets for the fame he's receiving now, and any money he could be/was offered. We're assuming that Snowden has honest, wholesome intentions by uncovering these secrets. I'm very skeptical towards that assumption.
Snowden didn't have to make this information public. If he were doing this purely for his own gain, he wouldn't have and he wouldn't be in this predicament.
Given the fact that Snowden was able to do this so easily, there has probably been quite a few people in the past that did what Snowden did without releasing information to the public, these people would never be known or caught.
Snowden's actions just goes to show that the NSA is actually creating the opposite effect of what we want. The NSA is just one big treasure trove for espionage, we have done all the terrorists work for them by funnelling and sorting all important data into the one place. Terrorists no longer have to look anywhere else, they just need one person in the NSA and they have all the information they need.
He didn't have to, but he couldn't have won so much fame and fortune if he didn't announce it to the public. He sacrificed his anonymity for public glory and foreign allies; now he's seeking asylum to avoid legal backlash.
Also don't assume all terrorists are burka wearing middle-eastern people or carry bombs, a terrorist can come from within the USA looking for massive financial gain, or from China looking to cause mass disruption in the USA in the fight to become the #1 global superpower. I'm sure many CEOs would sell their souls to get this kind of information.
I've never said or implied that. (edit: I saw how you intended to say that immediately after I posted; hwoops) And if your second/third phrase is correct, why couldn't it be in the form of someone on "the inside" like Snowden?
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"
I merely meant that I believe Snowden did wrong. "Sinning" was just an adequate synonym to get that point across.
Why wouldn't a country spy on purported "allies?" It's militarily sound, if not morally. A country friendly to another one day may be a mortal enemy the next.
People are treating him like a vigilante, when all he appears to me is just a traitor. I would bet he was lured by other countries to share the secrets for the fame he's receiving now, and any money he could be/was offered. We're assuming that Snowden has honest, wholesome intentions by uncovering these secrets. I'm very skeptical towards that assumption.
Snowden didn't have to make this information public. If he were doing this purely for his own gain, he wouldn't have and he wouldn't be in this predicament.
Given the fact that Snowden was able to do this so easily, there has probably been quite a few people in the past that did what Snowden did without releasing information to the public, these people would never be known or caught.
Snowden's actions just goes to show that the NSA is actually creating the opposite effect of what we want. The NSA is just one big treasure trove for espionage, we have done all the terrorists work for them by funnelling and sorting all important data into the one place. Terrorists no longer have to look anywhere else, they just need one person in the NSA and they have all the information they need.
He didn't have to, but he couldn't have won so much fame and fortune if he didn't announce it to the public. He sacrificed his anonymity for public glory and foreign allies; now he's seeking asylum to avoid legal backlash.
Also don't assume all terrorists are burka wearing middle-eastern people or carry bombs, a terrorist can come from within the USA looking for massive financial gain, or from China looking to cause mass disruption in the USA in the fight to become the #1 global superpower. I'm sure many CEOs would sell their souls to get this kind of information.
I've never said or implied that. (edit: I saw how you intended to say that immediately after I posted; hwoops) And if your second/third phrase is correct, why couldn't it be in the form of someone on "the inside" like Snowden?
Yes and thanks, the second half was not a rebuttal, just more of a voice of awareness.
I think the NSA evidence wouldn't have any credibility without someone like Snowden to be shown to be behind it, however there's no denying that Snowden probably wanted his name to be etched in history as well.
It would be in the form of someone on the inside like Snowden, however Snowden himself would not and could not be useful to a terrorist. Why? Because he is no longer on the inside. A one time dump of data does not help in an attack, it is the constant up to date feed of data that is most useful. If I were to launch an attack, I would want to know all the details leading right up to the attack, especially whether the NSA is aware of it or not, and whether they had a counter-strategy in place.
Preparing a strategy on month old data just leads to failure, like the phony terrorist attacks that the police setup in order to catch wannabe jihadists in the act. A constant stream would enable terrorists to throw in red herrings or immediately bypass any counter measures that end up being devised and make the NSA completely useless to the US while being amazingly useful for terrorists. This information is not that useful to the people who would use it for terrorism, however someone on the inside, and would remain on the inside, would be extremely useful.
On July 18 2013 11:19 kmillz wrote: It's interesting to me that so many people here seem to be ok with all of this spying..could anyone give me some examples of what good it has done for us that we know about so far?
Supposedly the spying the NSA did on Americans has thwarted terrorist attacks, though I haven't heard concrete evidence of this myself yet.
On July 18 2013 11:19 kmillz wrote: It's interesting to me that so many people here seem to be ok with all of this spying..could anyone give me some examples of what good it has done for us that we know about so far?
Supposedly the spying the NSA did on Americans has thwarted terrorist attacks, though I haven't heard concrete evidence of this myself yet.
So we know about none. In fact we have exactly 0 evidence for it, as far as I know. You'd think at least one event could be declassified, since this operation has run so long.
On July 18 2013 11:19 kmillz wrote: It's interesting to me that so many people here seem to be ok with all of this spying..could anyone give me some examples of what good it has done for us that we know about so far?
Supposedly the spying the NSA did on Americans has thwarted terrorist attacks, though I haven't heard concrete evidence of this myself yet.
I don't have a source but I remember hearing about a small number of terrorist attacks that have been thwarted as a result of this program. Whatever number it was did not sound remotely high enough to justify it..though I'm sure some people believe any amount of attacks prevented is worth shitting on all communication privacy.
On July 18 2013 11:19 kmillz wrote: It's interesting to me that so many people here seem to be ok with all of this spying..could anyone give me some examples of what good it has done for us that we know about so far?
Supposedly the spying the NSA did on Americans has thwarted terrorist attacks, though I haven't heard concrete evidence of this myself yet.
I don't have a source but I remember hearing about a small number of terrorist attacks that have been thwarted as a result of this program. Whatever number it was did not sound remotely high enough to justify it..though I'm sure some people believe any amount of attacks prevented is worth shitting on all communication privacy.
I believe if the NSA had thwarted any real terrorist attacks, even one of them would have made massive headlines. One of NSA's biggest issues is resistance from the public, so it would be a top priority to make it out that the NSA is actually worth it. Also having a giant behemoth security system publicly announce that it is in fact working, should actually slow down terrorism.
Nothing stopped terrorist attacks that get thwarted by federal police from making headlines, why is the NSA any different? They do not have to reveal how they did it, just show that they did in fact do it.
On July 18 2013 11:19 kmillz wrote: It's interesting to me that so many people here seem to be ok with all of this spying..could anyone give me some examples of what good it has done for us that we know about so far?
Supposedly the spying the NSA did on Americans has thwarted terrorist attacks, though I haven't heard concrete evidence of this myself yet.
I don't have a source but I remember hearing about a small number of terrorist attacks that have been thwarted as a result of this program. Whatever number it was did not sound remotely high enough to justify it..though I'm sure some people believe any amount of attacks prevented is worth shitting on all communication privacy.
I believe if the NSA had thwarted any real terrorist attacks, even one of them would have made massive headlines. One of NSA's biggest issues is resistance from the public, so it would be a top priority to make it out that the NSA is actually worth it. Also having a giant behemoth security system publicly announce that it is in fact working, should actually slow down terrorism.
Nothing stopped terrorist attacks that get thwarted by federal police from making headlines, why is the NSA any different? They do not have to reveal how they did it, just show that they did in fact do it.
Basically there is maybe 1 terrorist plot that the NSA's e-mail monitoring played a big role in discovering.
For the phone records snooping, that number is 0.
NSA director says they stopped 50 terror plots with help from NSA snooping, that's a bullshit lie.
On July 18 2013 11:19 kmillz wrote: It's interesting to me that so many people here seem to be ok with all of this spying..could anyone give me some examples of what good it has done for us that we know about so far?
Supposedly the spying the NSA did on Americans has thwarted terrorist attacks, though I haven't heard concrete evidence of this myself yet.
I don't have a source but I remember hearing about a small number of terrorist attacks that have been thwarted as a result of this program. Whatever number it was did not sound remotely high enough to justify it..though I'm sure some people believe any amount of attacks prevented is worth shitting on all communication privacy.
I think Snowden himself addressed this and said "but how many of those averted terrorist attacks were averted because of PRISM specifically? How many of them actually required PRISM?" The point being that the NSA is counting PRISM as averting an attack if it's ever used as part of the investigation, even if it wasn't necessary.
On July 18 2013 14:59 cz wrote: No, because he didn't do anything for peace. That said the Peace Prize is already a joke so maybe he does "deserve" it.
They need to create some sort of award for government whistleblowing.
The Presidential Medal of Freedom would be a good fit... if the US president wasn't the president in "Presidential Medal of Freedom."
On July 18 2013 17:10 Basic Basic wrote: I think Snowden's internet fame is an award enough for someone who so clearly wanted attention.
The guy is stuck at a freaking airport for months, with that probably being one of the more comfortable scenarios he could have gone through. His future is uncertain, but I would say it's going to be far from pleasant even in the best possible scenarios for him.
Somehow I don't think anybody would put themselves through all of that because they "want attention". I just don't understand the need you and some other people have to misrepresent him as a kind of person he's obviously not, even defying basic logic in the process.
On July 18 2013 17:10 Basic Basic wrote: I think Snowden's internet fame is an award enough for someone who so clearly wanted attention.
He is facing life in prison or worse if caught by the US and you think he is an attention w****? Are you for real? People think that America is the land of freedom, but someone over there just opened some communism manuals and started to apply lessons from there. If the trend goes on, soon we will be living in police states where everything will be intercepted, recorded and even more. You will say on the phone your girlfriend is a bomb(as in hot chick), and the next day the NSA is tearing down your front door at 5 am in the morning.
On July 18 2013 11:19 kmillz wrote: It's interesting to me that so many people here seem to be ok with all of this spying..could anyone give me some examples of what good it has done for us that we know about so far?
Supposedly the spying the NSA did on Americans has thwarted terrorist attacks, though I haven't heard concrete evidence of this myself yet.
So we know about none. In fact we have exactly 0 evidence for it, as far as I know. You'd think at least one event could be declassified, since this operation has run so long.
IIRC they did bring up 2 specific cases.
One was an american with plans about terror abroad (source). He was allegedly caught by PRISM according to Clapper (NSA). Feinstein (D) said he was caught by tele-logging. Several other informed priviledged senators doubted both statements since 2 of his wives were providing information.
The other case was Rogers (R) claiming that a Colorado resident was foiled in terrorism threats by PRISM. Unfortunately for Rogers side, the person was found to be suspicious by british anti-terror corps because of data from their seized computers (source). It might have been a POC for PRISM, but it was hardly instrumental to solving the case. If you look at the mainstream media the following rather poor journalistic effort was echoed in several sources to twart any doubt about what people should believe.
Some claim that 20, about 50 or several hundred terrorattacks have been foiled since 9/11 2001, but if the involvement of the more advanced programs are as limited as in the above cases, it is a pretty weak defense for those specific programs.
I think the Nobel Peace Prize should stop being given out for what are essentially political matters. It should go to people that are involved with things Doctors Without Borders or Charity: Water. People like that do more actual good.
The Nobel Peace Prize is kind of a joke these days, anyway. I mean shit, they gave it to Obama before he actually did anything, and he's been doing everything BUT promoting the cause of peace in the world.
Plus, Snowden's actions are pretty suspect, imo. I appreciate the fact that he blew the whistle on what is clearly a serious breach of privacy that shouldn't be tolerated here in the US, but his actions after the fact leave me suspicious that his intentions were really pure after all. Between trying to seek asylum in Hong Kong/China/Russia to reports of him possibly handing over laptops to the Chinese...idk.
On July 18 2013 11:19 kmillz wrote: It's interesting to me that so many people here seem to be ok with all of this spying..could anyone give me some examples of what good it has done for us that we know about so far?
I think it's the same reason why many super power has nuclear arsenal. Do you want a good example what good it has done for human kind?
On July 18 2013 11:19 kmillz wrote: It's interesting to me that so many people here seem to be ok with all of this spying..could anyone give me some examples of what good it has done for us that we know about so far?
I think it's the same reason why many super power has nuclear arsenal. Do you want a good example what good it has done for human kind?
Further, what harm has it done to us? A lot of this outrage is unsubstantiated from a practical point of view.
Plus, Snowden's actions are pretty suspect, imo. I appreciate the fact that he blew the whistle on what is clearly a serious breach of privacy that shouldn't be tolerated here in the US, but his actions after the fact leave me suspicious that his intentions were really pure after all. Between trying to seek asylum in Hong Kong/China/Russia to reports of him possibly handing over laptops to the Chinese...idk.
well the american government showed in the past that they do not value human rights very highly when it comes to whistleblowers. so the only reliable chance he got was to go to a country that could give him at least some basic form of protection.
On July 18 2013 11:19 kmillz wrote: It's interesting to me that so many people here seem to be ok with all of this spying..could anyone give me some examples of what good it has done for us that we know about so far?
I think it's the same reason why many super power has nuclear arsenal. Do you want a good example what good it has done for human kind?
Further, what harm has it done to us? A lot of this outrage is unsubstantiated from a practical point of view.
Nuclear capability factors in strategic considerations in international relations, much as military factors, so their benefit/harm, however you see it, exists from a practical point of view even if they're not used. This is probably not the thread for getting into said discussion, though.
On July 18 2013 11:19 kmillz wrote: It's interesting to me that so many people here seem to be ok with all of this spying..could anyone give me some examples of what good it has done for us that we know about so far?
I think it's the same reason why many super power has nuclear arsenal. Do you want a good example what good it has done for human kind?
Yay random analogies.
No, it is not comparable to the nuclear arsenal. The security benefits of having a nuclear arsenal are more than obvious. The national security benefits of PRISM are unclear at best and completely non-existent at worst.
If you were referring to spying on EU nations, that isn't nearly as bad as it is dumb. Espionage programs cost money and risk lives and reputations of whole countries. It's globally considered to be a hostile act, and no matter how much everybody assumes it's going on all the time anyway, when the cat is actually out of the bag it can only do harm. You don't spy if the costs and risks far outweigh any imaginable benefits.
I don't see why they shouldn't give him the award, they gave it to Obama for absolutely no reason. Might as well give it to Snowden too.
Its sad that the prize was created to draw attention to individuals that were making a difference to the name of peace in the world, and lately its just been being used as a political tool by the Norwegian government.
On July 18 2013 22:52 Tennoji wrote: Seems to me lot of the Americans would cry differently if it was Europe spying on American companies, politicians and other individuals (maybe them?).
Its certainly true that Americans would be more angry were it Europe doing the spying. I think that its also true however that Europeans would be less angry if Europe was doing the spying. It comes down to the entire "us vs them" mentality we have as a species.
That being said, keep in mind that this is just what we know about. Just because we only know about US spying does not mean that the same thing isn't happening in Europe.
On July 19 2013 00:15 yelsiab wrote: I don't see why they shouldn't give him the award, they gave it to Obama for absolutely no reason. Might as well give it to Snowden too.
Its sad that the prize was created to draw attention to individuals that were making a difference to the name of peace in the world, and lately its just been being used as a political tool by the Norwegian government.
On July 18 2013 22:52 Tennoji wrote: Seems to me lot of the Americans would cry differently if it was Europe spying on American companies, politicians and other individuals (maybe them?).
Its certainly true that Americans would be more angry were it Europe doing the spying. I think that its also true however that Europeans would be less angry if Europe was doing the spying. It comes down to the entire "us vs them" mentality we have as a species.
That being said, keep in mind that this is just what we know about. Just because we only know about US spying does not mean that the same thing isn't happening in Europe.
Seems to me like claiming Europe is doing the same (without having any evidence!) is only going to make the US look more like the bad guy. It is the very "us vs them" mentality that a lot of people in the US seem to have that is the problem. You just assume people in Europe think the same way. The EU is made up of a lot of countries that had this "us vs them" mentality in the past (between each other and probably also towards others). However, the EU has shown that these countries have moved past this mentality and want to work together as a whole, for the better of all. At least most people in those countries want that, I assume.
By doing these kinds of things, the "us vs them" mentality will remain and we wont be able to move further as a species.
On July 19 2013 00:15 yelsiab wrote: I don't see why they shouldn't give him the award, they gave it to Obama for absolutely no reason. Might as well give it to Snowden too.
Its sad that the prize was created to draw attention to individuals that were making a difference to the name of peace in the world, and lately its just been being used as a political tool by the Norwegian government.
On July 18 2013 22:52 Tennoji wrote: Seems to me lot of the Americans would cry differently if it was Europe spying on American companies, politicians and other individuals (maybe them?).
Its certainly true that Americans would be more angry were it Europe doing the spying. I think that its also true however that Europeans would be less angry if Europe was doing the spying. It comes down to the entire "us vs them" mentality we have as a species.
That being said, keep in mind that this is just what we know about. Just because we only know about US spying does not mean that the same thing isn't happening in Europe.
Honestly, I doubt it. Europeans do not, in any way, tend to think of Europe as a united, continuous entity. Every nation has its own biases, concerns, and nationalist base. The difference between the US and Europe is that, well, the US is basically a really populous, large nation with a lot of power and international clout, whereas Europe is a large group of nations, some powerful and some not so powerful, that have decided to join together in certain respects, but not in others. I doubt there would be any sort of uniform EU spying program, and, if there were, I imagine it'd benefit some countries more than others (within the EU); as such, different nationals would receive it differently, because politics in, say, Sweden, are different than those of Britain i.e. every culture probably has different customs/biases in regard to spying.
Basically, I don't think it makes any sense to think of a citizen of the EU as an analogue of a citizen of the US. There are some similarities, but being an EU citizen is different than being an Italian citizen. The EU is not one really big country. It's a union of a lot of small (and some big) ones. As such, it is very diverse, both politically and culturally.
On July 19 2013 00:15 yelsiab wrote: I don't see why they shouldn't give him the award, they gave it to Obama for absolutely no reason. Might as well give it to Snowden too.
Its sad that the prize was created to draw attention to individuals that were making a difference to the name of peace in the world, and lately its just been being used as a political tool by the Norwegian government.
On July 18 2013 22:52 Tennoji wrote: Seems to me lot of the Americans would cry differently if it was Europe spying on American companies, politicians and other individuals (maybe them?).
Its certainly true that Americans would be more angry were it Europe doing the spying. I think that its also true however that Europeans would be less angry if Europe was doing the spying. It comes down to the entire "us vs them" mentality we have as a species.
That being said, keep in mind that this is just what we know about. Just because we only know about US spying does not mean that the same thing isn't happening in Europe.
Seems to me like claiming Europe is doing the same (without having any evidence!) is only going to make the US look more like the bad guy. It is the very "us vs them" mentality that a lot of people in the US seem to have that is the problem. You just assume people in Europe think the same way. The EU is made up of a lot of countries that had this "us vs them" mentality in the past (between each other and probably also towards others). However, the EU has shown that these countries have moved past this mentality and want to work together as a whole, for the better of all. At least most people in those countries want that, I assume.
By doing these kinds of things, the "us vs them" mentality will remain and we wont be able to move further as a species.
To you, my post reeks of American arrogance. To me, your post reeks of European arrogance.
I think that we as a species have a long way to go, and the problem is not only in one culture.
On July 19 2013 00:15 yelsiab wrote: I don't see why they shouldn't give him the award, they gave it to Obama for absolutely no reason. Might as well give it to Snowden too.
Its sad that the prize was created to draw attention to individuals that were making a difference to the name of peace in the world, and lately its just been being used as a political tool by the Norwegian government.
On July 18 2013 22:52 Tennoji wrote: Seems to me lot of the Americans would cry differently if it was Europe spying on American companies, politicians and other individuals (maybe them?).
Its certainly true that Americans would be more angry were it Europe doing the spying. I think that its also true however that Europeans would be less angry if Europe was doing the spying. It comes down to the entire "us vs them" mentality we have as a species.
That being said, keep in mind that this is just what we know about. Just because we only know about US spying does not mean that the same thing isn't happening in Europe.
Seems to me like claiming Europe is doing the same (without having any evidence!) is only going to make the US look more like the bad guy. It is the very "us vs them" mentality that a lot of people in the US seem to have that is the problem. You just assume people in Europe think the same way. The EU is made up of a lot of countries that had this "us vs them" mentality in the past (between each other and probably also towards others). However, the EU has shown that these countries have moved past this mentality and want to work together as a whole, for the better of all. At least most people in those countries want that, I assume.
By doing these kinds of things, the "us vs them" mentality will remain and we wont be able to move further as a species.
To you, my post reeks of American arrogance. To me, your post reeks of European arrogance.
I think that we as a species have a long way to go, and the problem is not only in one culture.
The thing is that being part of the EU isn't the same thing as being part of a sovereign nation. I mean, it's not like French and Italians don't consider themselves different and independent, even though they're part of the EU.
On July 19 2013 00:15 yelsiab wrote: I don't see why they shouldn't give him the award, they gave it to Obama for absolutely no reason. Might as well give it to Snowden too.
Its sad that the prize was created to draw attention to individuals that were making a difference to the name of peace in the world, and lately its just been being used as a political tool by the Norwegian government.
On July 18 2013 22:52 Tennoji wrote: Seems to me lot of the Americans would cry differently if it was Europe spying on American companies, politicians and other individuals (maybe them?).
Its certainly true that Americans would be more angry were it Europe doing the spying. I think that its also true however that Europeans would be less angry if Europe was doing the spying. It comes down to the entire "us vs them" mentality we have as a species.
That being said, keep in mind that this is just what we know about. Just because we only know about US spying does not mean that the same thing isn't happening in Europe.
Seems to me like claiming Europe is doing the same (without having any evidence!) is only going to make the US look more like the bad guy. It is the very "us vs them" mentality that a lot of people in the US seem to have that is the problem. You just assume people in Europe think the same way. The EU is made up of a lot of countries that had this "us vs them" mentality in the past (between each other and probably also towards others). However, the EU has shown that these countries have moved past this mentality and want to work together as a whole, for the better of all. At least most people in those countries want that, I assume.
By doing these kinds of things, the "us vs them" mentality will remain and we wont be able to move further as a species.
To you, my post reeks of American arrogance. To me, your post reeks of European arrogance.
I think that we as a species have a long way to go, and the problem is not only in one culture.
To me, that one reeks of false equivalence.
As much as everybody assumes some things are going on (maybe both ways), you cannot act and pass judgement based on assumptions, only on evidence. This is why US espionage programs weren't a hot topic pre-Snowden even though they were obviously going on for a very long time, and they are a hot topic now.
On July 19 2013 00:15 yelsiab wrote: I don't see why they shouldn't give him the award, they gave it to Obama for absolutely no reason. Might as well give it to Snowden too.
Its sad that the prize was created to draw attention to individuals that were making a difference to the name of peace in the world, and lately its just been being used as a political tool by the Norwegian government.
On July 18 2013 22:52 Tennoji wrote: Seems to me lot of the Americans would cry differently if it was Europe spying on American companies, politicians and other individuals (maybe them?).
Its certainly true that Americans would be more angry were it Europe doing the spying. I think that its also true however that Europeans would be less angry if Europe was doing the spying. It comes down to the entire "us vs them" mentality we have as a species.
That being said, keep in mind that this is just what we know about. Just because we only know about US spying does not mean that the same thing isn't happening in Europe.
Seems to me like claiming Europe is doing the same (without having any evidence!) is only going to make the US look more like the bad guy. It is the very "us vs them" mentality that a lot of people in the US seem to have that is the problem. You just assume people in Europe think the same way. The EU is made up of a lot of countries that had this "us vs them" mentality in the past (between each other and probably also towards others). However, the EU has shown that these countries have moved past this mentality and want to work together as a whole, for the better of all. At least most people in those countries want that, I assume.
By doing these kinds of things, the "us vs them" mentality will remain and we wont be able to move further as a species.
To you, my post reeks of American arrogance. To me, your post reeks of European arrogance.
I think that we as a species have a long way to go, and the problem is not only in one culture.
To me, that one reeks of false equivalence.
As much as everybody assumes some things are going on (maybe both ways), you cannot act and pass judgement based on assumptions, only on evidence. This is why US espionage programs weren't a hot topic pre-Snowden even though they were obviously going on for a very long time, and they are a hot topic now.
I'm not passing any judgement. I was merely using it as a point (apparently a poorly made one) that any government at any time could be doing similar spying. My point was that really no government should be trusted. I was not trying to make any excuses for the NSA. I only used "Europe" as a general example because it was relevant to the post I was replying to. I suppose I should have said "China" or something to avoid getting people so riled.
My comments on arrogance were directed at Tennoji's remarks implying that Europe has long ago as a whole put aside any sort of thoughts of nationalism for the betterment of the world, and the United States is lagging behind in this regard. I found it arrogant because it was aggressive and also pretty untrue. The members of the EU argue amongst themselves just as much as anyone else.
Basically I'm saying everyone is arrogant, especially people who think that they are not.
On July 19 2013 00:15 yelsiab wrote: I don't see why they shouldn't give him the award, they gave it to Obama for absolutely no reason. Might as well give it to Snowden too.
Its sad that the prize was created to draw attention to individuals that were making a difference to the name of peace in the world, and lately its just been being used as a political tool by the Norwegian government.
On July 18 2013 22:52 Tennoji wrote: Seems to me lot of the Americans would cry differently if it was Europe spying on American companies, politicians and other individuals (maybe them?).
Its certainly true that Americans would be more angry were it Europe doing the spying. I think that its also true however that Europeans would be less angry if Europe was doing the spying. It comes down to the entire "us vs them" mentality we have as a species.
That being said, keep in mind that this is just what we know about. Just because we only know about US spying does not mean that the same thing isn't happening in Europe.
Seems to me like claiming Europe is doing the same (without having any evidence!) is only going to make the US look more like the bad guy. It is the very "us vs them" mentality that a lot of people in the US seem to have that is the problem. You just assume people in Europe think the same way. The EU is made up of a lot of countries that had this "us vs them" mentality in the past (between each other and probably also towards others). However, the EU has shown that these countries have moved past this mentality and want to work together as a whole, for the better of all. At least most people in those countries want that, I assume.
By doing these kinds of things, the "us vs them" mentality will remain and we wont be able to move further as a species.
To you, my post reeks of American arrogance. To me, your post reeks of European arrogance.
I think that we as a species have a long way to go, and the problem is not only in one culture.
To me, that one reeks of false equivalence.
As much as everybody assumes some things are going on (maybe both ways), you cannot act and pass judgement based on assumptions, only on evidence. This is why US espionage programs weren't a hot topic pre-Snowden even though they were obviously going on for a very long time, and they are a hot topic now.
I'm not passing any judgement. I was merely using it as a point (apparently a poorly made one) that any government at any time could be doing similar spying. My point was that really no government should be trusted. I was not trying to make any excuses for the NSA. I only used "Europe" as a general example because it was relevant to the post I was replying to. I suppose I should have said "China" or something to avoid getting people so riled.
My comments on arrogance were directed at Tennoji's remarks implying that Europe has long ago as a whole put aside any sort of thoughts of nationalism for the betterment of the world, and the United States is lagging behind in this regard. I found it arrogant because it was aggressive and also pretty untrue. The members of the EU argue amongst themselves just as much as anyone else.
Basically I'm saying everyone is arrogant, especially people who think that they are not.
In a way, you are correct. But in real terms, there's no doubt that between the EU and North America, the US is far and away the nation with the biggest tendency to enact aggressive/coercive/far-reaching foreign policies. Bluntly, the US seems to have an official opinion on every event that occurs anywhere in the world, and they're not above telling other countries to do certain things. Obama, for instance, strongly demanded for China to embrace American understandings of copyright when their head of state visited America (Chinese rejected it, I'm pretty sure). I don't recall China going out of its way to suggest that America become a single-party state or that politicians must be atheists, even though both of these things are customary in China.
On July 19 2013 00:15 yelsiab wrote: I don't see why they shouldn't give him the award, they gave it to Obama for absolutely no reason. Might as well give it to Snowden too.
Its sad that the prize was created to draw attention to individuals that were making a difference to the name of peace in the world, and lately its just been being used as a political tool by the Norwegian government.
On July 18 2013 22:52 Tennoji wrote: Seems to me lot of the Americans would cry differently if it was Europe spying on American companies, politicians and other individuals (maybe them?).
Its certainly true that Americans would be more angry were it Europe doing the spying. I think that its also true however that Europeans would be less angry if Europe was doing the spying. It comes down to the entire "us vs them" mentality we have as a species.
That being said, keep in mind that this is just what we know about. Just because we only know about US spying does not mean that the same thing isn't happening in Europe.
Seems to me like claiming Europe is doing the same (without having any evidence!) is only going to make the US look more like the bad guy. It is the very "us vs them" mentality that a lot of people in the US seem to have that is the problem. You just assume people in Europe think the same way. The EU is made up of a lot of countries that had this "us vs them" mentality in the past (between each other and probably also towards others). However, the EU has shown that these countries have moved past this mentality and want to work together as a whole, for the better of all. At least most people in those countries want that, I assume.
By doing these kinds of things, the "us vs them" mentality will remain and we wont be able to move further as a species.
To you, my post reeks of American arrogance. To me, your post reeks of European arrogance.
I think that we as a species have a long way to go, and the problem is not only in one culture.
To me, that one reeks of false equivalence.
As much as everybody assumes some things are going on (maybe both ways), you cannot act and pass judgement based on assumptions, only on evidence. This is why US espionage programs weren't a hot topic pre-Snowden even though they were obviously going on for a very long time, and they are a hot topic now.
I'm not passing any judgement. I was merely using it as a point (apparently a poorly made one) that any government at any time could be doing similar spying. My point was that really no government should be trusted. I was not trying to make any excuses for the NSA. I only used "Europe" as a general example because it was relevant to the post I was replying to. I suppose I should have said "China" or something to avoid getting people so riled.
My comments on arrogance were directed at Tennoji's remarks implying that Europe has long ago as a whole put aside any sort of thoughts of nationalism for the betterment of the world, and the United States is lagging behind in this regard. I found it arrogant because it was aggressive and also pretty untrue. The members of the EU argue amongst themselves just as much as anyone else.
Basically I'm saying everyone is arrogant, especially people who think that they are not.
In a way, you are correct. But in real terms, there's no doubt that between the EU and North America, the US is far and away the nation with the biggest tendency to enact aggressive/coercive/far-reaching foreign policies. Bluntly, the US seems to have an official opinion on every event that occurs anywhere in the world, and they're not above telling other countries to do certain things. Obama, for instance, strongly demanded for China to embrace American understandings of copyright when their head of state visited America (Chinese rejected it, I'm pretty sure). I don't recall China going out of its way to suggest that America become a single-party state or that politicians must be atheists, even though both of these things are customary in China.
I agree with you. America does have a tendency to believe that it can do basically whatever it wants and everyone else will get out of the way. For the most part, this is true, but this has earned America a lot of enemies over time. I think that people are slowly starting to realize this, but this is still very real American arrogance. We think that we are untouchable, but we are not.
The EU as a whole I think tends to believe that it has taken a moral high road to what the United States has done, and as a result its crap does not stink. I think for the most part this tends to be true, but many Americans are of the belief that Europe has basically been living safely under the blanket the US made for it and has maintained for it since WWII. Basically, the idea is that Europe is able to take the moral high road because America gets the blood on its hands so Europe does not have to. This is European arrogance.
On July 19 2013 00:15 yelsiab wrote: I don't see why they shouldn't give him the award, they gave it to Obama for absolutely no reason. Might as well give it to Snowden too.
Its sad that the prize was created to draw attention to individuals that were making a difference to the name of peace in the world, and lately its just been being used as a political tool by the Norwegian government.
On July 18 2013 22:52 Tennoji wrote: Seems to me lot of the Americans would cry differently if it was Europe spying on American companies, politicians and other individuals (maybe them?).
Its certainly true that Americans would be more angry were it Europe doing the spying. I think that its also true however that Europeans would be less angry if Europe was doing the spying. It comes down to the entire "us vs them" mentality we have as a species.
That being said, keep in mind that this is just what we know about. Just because we only know about US spying does not mean that the same thing isn't happening in Europe.
Seems to me like claiming Europe is doing the same (without having any evidence!) is only going to make the US look more like the bad guy. It is the very "us vs them" mentality that a lot of people in the US seem to have that is the problem. You just assume people in Europe think the same way. The EU is made up of a lot of countries that had this "us vs them" mentality in the past (between each other and probably also towards others). However, the EU has shown that these countries have moved past this mentality and want to work together as a whole, for the better of all. At least most people in those countries want that, I assume.
By doing these kinds of things, the "us vs them" mentality will remain and we wont be able to move further as a species.
To you, my post reeks of American arrogance. To me, your post reeks of European arrogance.
I think that we as a species have a long way to go, and the problem is not only in one culture.
European arrogance, American arrogance? Please... You think I am opposed to your opinion because you are American? That is ridiculous as there are many American people who would agree with me that spying on your allies is not done.
Either way, if you want to look at an argument with reason, it is not less or more valid because or in spite of arrogance. So your comment does not bring anything to the discussion even if it were true.
Bluntly, the US seems to have an official opinion on every event that occurs anywhere in the world,
As does everyone other country in the world... so what. What you mean is the US has the capability to do something about its opinion and get its opinion satisfied most of the time... which oddly only seems to really piss off people who also have an official opinion about every event that happens anywhere in the world and aren't getting their opinion satisfied most of the time.
and they're not above telling other countries to do certain things.
Like, oh, non-US countries do to the US and to each other all the time...
America does have a tendency to believe that it can do basically whatever it wants and everyone else will get out of the way.
lolwut
9 times out of 10 America bends over backwards to get people to go along with it. Which has resulted in some bad relationships like say with the Egyptian government under Sadat and Mubarak or the Royal House of Saud. 5 times out of that 10 the American goal is maintaining the liberal internationalist order that gives most other countries influence far beyond their own national capability, and the 1 time out of 10 America actually does remember that it doesn't need permission to act in its national-interest, people get the vapors. America, acting without our leave? We are disappoint.
That is ridiculous as there are many American people who would agree with me that spying on your allies is not done.
I'm sure there are lots of Europeans who would say spying on the US is fine, spying is not worth raging over that's why when the US captures Russian spies we don't call up the Kremlin and start spewing sand out of our vaginas over it.
For the most part, this is true, but this has earned America a lot of enemies over time.
Such as...?
I think that people are slowly starting to realize this, but this is still very real American arrogance.
It would be a shame if Americans became as hypocritical as most of the rest of the world, to start accusing countries of doing things it disagrees with as being arrogant.
We think that we are untouchable, but we are not.
Didn't that cliché die an unnoticed death circa 2006? The Americans who actually make American policy have never believed that anyway.
Bluntly, the US seems to have an official opinion on every event that occurs anywhere in the world,
As does everyone other country in the world... so what. What you mean is the US has the capability to do something about its opinion and get its opinion satisfied most of the time... which oddly only seems to really piss off people who also have an official opinion about every event that happens anywhere in the world and aren't getting their opinion satisfied most of the time.
That's because everyone is entitled to an opinion, whereas the US seems to think that it's entitled to exercise its influence in other sovereign nations to coerce/demand them to do things.
The problem isn't with having the opinion. It's with being arrogant enough to presume that your opinion somehow trumps sovereignty and/or shit that's none of your business simply because you're strong enough to make it so regardless. Compare it to the way politics plays out in America. Nobody really cares if Bob or Alice have differing views about gay marriage. They care if there are so many Bobs in high places that pressure starts to mount on people who disagree with them. That's the point. Nobody is mad that the US expresses a concern on a certain issue; it's when they have a history of doing shit behind the scenes outside of their jurisdiction that people call them presumptuous and/or arrogant.
It doesn't really matter if other nations have strong opinions on things. Most of them are either too quiet to be of any serious concern or more or less fine with the fact that strong opinions on things are still opinions, and that if someone says "no," you take their answer and respect the sovereignty of their nation. For a country that was founded on the principle that foreign monarchs and powers shouldn't have say over sovereignty instead of the people, the US certainly doesn't seem to extend that courtesy to other nations.
and they're not above telling other countries to do certain things.
Like, oh, non-US countries do to the US and to each other all the time...
Yeah: the US chooses to acquiesce or ignore those things, and the non-US countries deal with it.
What's more, the US intervenes/puts pressure on countries even when the events in question have practically nothing to do with them (e.g. quietly pressuring Swedish authorities to raid The Pirate Bay way back when).
This isn't even taking into account the number of foreign military actions that the US has engaged in since WWII. There is no other Western nation that does those kinds of things with any regularity these days.
America does have a tendency to believe that it can do basically whatever it wants and everyone else will get out of the way.
lolwut
9 times out of 10 America bends over backwards to get people to go along with it. Which has resulted in some bad relationships like say with the Egyptian government under Sadat and Mubarak or the Royal House of Saud. 5 times out of that 10 the American goal is maintaining the liberal internationalist order that gives most other countries influence far beyond their own national capability, and the 1 time out of 10 America actually does remember that it doesn't need permission to act in its national-interest, people get the vapors. America, acting without our leave? We are disappoint.
"National interest" seems to be your catch-all for any action you wish to justify. Every nation has hypothetical "interests" that they can't realize because doing so would require them to do something really illegal, destructive, or immoral. Just because something plausibly benefits America in some way is not in any way moral justification for such an action. I'm not saying that America's actions always usually or even commonly immoral, but that something being a "national interest" doesn't make it justifiable alone.
tl;dr who cares if other countries also spy? It's still wrong for America to do it. A country saying something possibly hypocritical doesn't invalidate the criticism itself. Besides, none of the people on this forum are governments or heads of state; we're criticizing America spying because that's what this thread is about. If a massive European spying program is unveiled, we'll criticize that too.
Bluntly, the US seems to have an official opinion on every event that occurs anywhere in the world,
As does everyone other country in the world... so what. What you mean is the US has the capability to do something about its opinion and get its opinion satisfied most of the time... which oddly only seems to really piss off people who also have an official opinion about every event that happens anywhere in the world and aren't getting their opinion satisfied most of the time.
That's because everyone is entitled to an opinion, whereas the US seems to think that it's entitled to exercise its influence in other sovereign nations to coerce/demand them to do things.
The problem isn't with having the opinion. It's with being arrogant enough to presume that your opinion somehow trumps sovereignty and/or shit that's none of your business simply because you're strong enough to make it so regardless. Compare it to the way politics plays out in America. Nobody really cares if Bob or Alice have differing views about gay marriage. They care if there are so many Bobs in high places that pressure starts to mount on people who disagree with them. That's the point. Nobody is mad that the US expresses a concern on a certain issue; it's when they have a history of doing shit behind the scenes outside of their jurisdiction that people call them presumptuous and/or arrogant.
It doesn't really matter if other nations have strong opinions on things. Most of them are either too quiet to be of any serious concern or more or less fine with the fact that strong opinions on things are still opinions, and that if someone says "no," you take their answer and respect the sovereignty of their nation. For a country that was founded on the principle that foreign monarchs and powers shouldn't have say over sovereignty instead of the people, the US certainly doesn't seem to extend that courtesy to other nations.
Like, oh, non-US countries do to the US and to each other all the time...
Yeah: the US chooses to acquiesce or ignore those things, and the non-US countries deal with it.
What's more, the US intervenes/puts pressure on countries even when the events in question have practically nothing to do with them (e.g. quietly pressuring Swedish authorities to raid The Pirate Bay way back when).
This isn't even taking into account the number of foreign military actions that the US has engaged in since WWII. There is no other Western nation that does those kinds of things with any regularity these days.
9 times out of 10 America bends over backwards to get people to go along with it. Which has resulted in some bad relationships like say with the Egyptian government under Sadat and Mubarak or the Royal House of Saud. 5 times out of that 10 the American goal is maintaining the liberal internationalist order that gives most other countries influence far beyond their own national capability, and the 1 time out of 10 America actually does remember that it doesn't need permission to act in its national-interest, people get the vapors. America, acting without our leave? We are disappoint.
"National interest" seems to be your catch-all for any action you wish to justify. Every nation has hypothetical "interests" that they can't realize because doing so would require them to do something really illegal, destructive, or immoral. Just because something plausibly benefits America in some way is not in any way moral justification for such an action. I'm not saying that America's actions always usually or even commonly immoral, but that something being a "national interest" doesn't make it justifiable alone.
tl;dr who cares if other countries also spy? It's still wrong for America to do it. A country saying something possibly hypocritical doesn't invalidate the criticism itself. Besides, none of the people on this forum are governments or heads of state; we're criticizing America spying because that's what this thread is about. If a massive European spying program is unveiled, we'll criticize that too.
Breaking out moralistic argument when dealing with nations and their safety, is frankly, naive. National intrest doesn't justify everything, but saying that spying is illegal, destructive, or immoral just comes across as some pie in the sky point of view.
Hey, if people really believe that every nation is the would who are "allies" should never keep tabs or attempt to spy on each other, I guess they can believe that. History has shown otherwise and that even allies make efforts to find out what is happening behind closed doors, but maybe we are all beyond that.
Breaking out moralistic argument when dealing with nations and their safety, is frankly, naive. National intrest doesn't justify everything, but saying that spying is illegal, destructive, or immoral just comes across as some pie in the sky point of view.
The only ostensible reason for concerning oneself with national safety is morality. If a government wants to protect its citizens, it's doing so because it (ideally) feels that it's its duty to protect them i.e. a moral imperative. There are obviously pragmatic reasons, but I'm not so cynical as to think that countries don't at least try to believe that what they're doing is morally justified.
Like, preserving safety is a moral concern. You can't dismiss moral reasoning from any situation, because moral reason founds all sorts of different decisions, and because judging decision-making without morality is totally baseless because a lack of moral jurisdiction implies arbitrarily constructed value systems that have no real meaning.
The NSA exists because someone somewhere in the administration thought that it was a good way of protecting the people from these evil people called terrorists; that is a moral justification, at the core.
Hey, if people really believe that every nation is the would who are "allies" should never keep tabs or attempt to spy on each other, I guess they can believe that. History has shown otherwise and that even allies make efforts to find out what is happening behind closed doors, but maybe we are all beyond that.
There's a pretty big difference between "keeping tabs," "attempting to spy on each other," and creating massive surveillance programs with near-universal scope that not only collect data regarding the actions of other governments, but also of private citizens.
Countries that are allied to each other nowadays (in a real sense e.g. Britain and the US) tend to agree with each other on most major aspects of foreign policy. Yes, they're domestically different. It's not like the US needs to keep tabs on Britain as if there's a chance that Britain is going to suddenly declare war on them tomorrow, or start funneling money to Al Qaeda. I'm not saying that the US or Britain shouldn't try to stay in the know, but, for the most part, it's more of a matter of convenience than actual threats/safety.
Bluntly, the US seems to have an official opinion on every event that occurs anywhere in the world,
As does everyone other country in the world... so what. What you mean is the US has the capability to do something about its opinion and get its opinion satisfied most of the time... which oddly only seems to really piss off people who also have an official opinion about every event that happens anywhere in the world and aren't getting their opinion satisfied most of the time.
That's because everyone is entitled to an opinion, whereas the US seems to think that it's entitled to exercise its influence in other sovereign nations to coerce/demand them to do things.
The problem isn't with having the opinion. It's with being arrogant enough to presume that your opinion somehow trumps sovereignty and/or shit that's none of your business simply because you're strong enough to make it so regardless. Compare it to the way politics plays out in America. Nobody really cares if Bob or Alice have differing views about gay marriage. They care if there are so many Bobs in high places that pressure starts to mount on people who disagree with them. That's the point. Nobody is mad that the US expresses a concern on a certain issue; it's when they have a history of doing shit behind the scenes outside of their jurisdiction that people call them presumptuous and/or arrogant.
It doesn't really matter if other nations have strong opinions on things. Most of them are either too quiet to be of any serious concern or more or less fine with the fact that strong opinions on things are still opinions, and that if someone says "no," you take their answer and respect the sovereignty of their nation. For a country that was founded on the principle that foreign monarchs and powers shouldn't have say over sovereignty instead of the people, the US certainly doesn't seem to extend that courtesy to other nations.
and they're not above telling other countries to do certain things.
Like, oh, non-US countries do to the US and to each other all the time...
Yeah: the US chooses to acquiesce or ignore those things, and the non-US countries deal with it.
What's more, the US intervenes/puts pressure on countries even when the events in question have practically nothing to do with them (e.g. quietly pressuring Swedish authorities to raid The Pirate Bay way back when).
This isn't even taking into account the number of foreign military actions that the US has engaged in since WWII. There is no other Western nation that does those kinds of things with any regularity these days.
America does have a tendency to believe that it can do basically whatever it wants and everyone else will get out of the way.
lolwut
9 times out of 10 America bends over backwards to get people to go along with it. Which has resulted in some bad relationships like say with the Egyptian government under Sadat and Mubarak or the Royal House of Saud. 5 times out of that 10 the American goal is maintaining the liberal internationalist order that gives most other countries influence far beyond their own national capability, and the 1 time out of 10 America actually does remember that it doesn't need permission to act in its national-interest, people get the vapors. America, acting without our leave? We are disappoint.
"National interest" seems to be your catch-all for any action you wish to justify. Every nation has hypothetical "interests" that they can't realize because doing so would require them to do something really illegal, destructive, or immoral. Just because something plausibly benefits America in some way is not in any way moral justification for such an action. I'm not saying that America's actions always usually or even commonly immoral, but that something being a "national interest" doesn't make it justifiable alone.
tl;dr who cares if other countries also spy? It's still wrong for America to do it. A country saying something possibly hypocritical doesn't invalidate the criticism itself. Besides, none of the people on this forum are governments or heads of state; we're criticizing America spying because that's what this thread is about. If a massive European spying program is unveiled, we'll criticize that too.
Breaking out moralistic argument when dealing with nations and their safety, is frankly, naive. National intrest doesn't justify everything, but saying that spying is illegal, destructive, or immoral just comes across as some pie in the sky point of view.
Hey, if people really believe that every nation is the would who are "allies" should never keep tabs or attempt to spy on each other, I guess they can believe that. History has shown otherwise and that even allies make efforts to find out what is happening behind closed doors, but maybe we are all beyond that.
You want to live in a world where every phone call you make, every conversation you have on skype (video or not), all your emails/text messages - are recorded and stored indefinitely by people hidden behind the scenes?
Bluntly, the US seems to have an official opinion on every event that occurs anywhere in the world,
As does everyone other country in the world... so what. What you mean is the US has the capability to do something about its opinion and get its opinion satisfied most of the time... which oddly only seems to really piss off people who also have an official opinion about every event that happens anywhere in the world and aren't getting their opinion satisfied most of the time.
That's because everyone is entitled to an opinion, whereas the US seems to think that it's entitled to exercise its influence in other sovereign nations to coerce/demand them to do things.
The problem isn't with having the opinion. It's with being arrogant enough to presume that your opinion somehow trumps sovereignty and/or shit that's none of your business simply because you're strong enough to make it so regardless. Compare it to the way politics plays out in America. Nobody really cares if Bob or Alice have differing views about gay marriage. They care if there are so many Bobs in high places that pressure starts to mount on people who disagree with them. That's the point. Nobody is mad that the US expresses a concern on a certain issue; it's when they have a history of doing shit behind the scenes outside of their jurisdiction that people call them presumptuous and/or arrogant.
It doesn't really matter if other nations have strong opinions on things. Most of them are either too quiet to be of any serious concern or more or less fine with the fact that strong opinions on things are still opinions, and that if someone says "no," you take their answer and respect the sovereignty of their nation. For a country that was founded on the principle that foreign monarchs and powers shouldn't have say over sovereignty instead of the people, the US certainly doesn't seem to extend that courtesy to other nations.
and they're not above telling other countries to do certain things.
Like, oh, non-US countries do to the US and to each other all the time...
Yeah: the US chooses to acquiesce or ignore those things, and the non-US countries deal with it.
What's more, the US intervenes/puts pressure on countries even when the events in question have practically nothing to do with them (e.g. quietly pressuring Swedish authorities to raid The Pirate Bay way back when).
This isn't even taking into account the number of foreign military actions that the US has engaged in since WWII. There is no other Western nation that does those kinds of things with any regularity these days.
America does have a tendency to believe that it can do basically whatever it wants and everyone else will get out of the way.
lolwut
9 times out of 10 America bends over backwards to get people to go along with it. Which has resulted in some bad relationships like say with the Egyptian government under Sadat and Mubarak or the Royal House of Saud. 5 times out of that 10 the American goal is maintaining the liberal internationalist order that gives most other countries influence far beyond their own national capability, and the 1 time out of 10 America actually does remember that it doesn't need permission to act in its national-interest, people get the vapors. America, acting without our leave? We are disappoint.
"National interest" seems to be your catch-all for any action you wish to justify. Every nation has hypothetical "interests" that they can't realize because doing so would require them to do something really illegal, destructive, or immoral. Just because something plausibly benefits America in some way is not in any way moral justification for such an action. I'm not saying that America's actions always usually or even commonly immoral, but that something being a "national interest" doesn't make it justifiable alone.
tl;dr who cares if other countries also spy? It's still wrong for America to do it. A country saying something possibly hypocritical doesn't invalidate the criticism itself. Besides, none of the people on this forum are governments or heads of state; we're criticizing America spying because that's what this thread is about. If a massive European spying program is unveiled, we'll criticize that too.
Breaking out moralistic argument when dealing with nations and their safety, is frankly, naive. National intrest doesn't justify everything, but saying that spying is illegal, destructive, or immoral just comes across as some pie in the sky point of view.
Hey, if people really believe that every nation is the would who are "allies" should never keep tabs or attempt to spy on each other, I guess they can believe that. History has shown otherwise and that even allies make efforts to find out what is happening behind closed doors, but maybe we are all beyond that.
You want to live in a world where every phone call you make, every conversation you have on skype (video or not), all your emails/text messages - are recorded and stored indefinitely by people hidden behind the scenes?
they already are. Just not necessarily by the govt
Bluntly, the US seems to have an official opinion on every event that occurs anywhere in the world,
As does everyone other country in the world... so what. What you mean is the US has the capability to do something about its opinion and get its opinion satisfied most of the time... which oddly only seems to really piss off people who also have an official opinion about every event that happens anywhere in the world and aren't getting their opinion satisfied most of the time.
That's because everyone is entitled to an opinion, whereas the US seems to think that it's entitled to exercise its influence in other sovereign nations to coerce/demand them to do things.
The problem isn't with having the opinion. It's with being arrogant enough to presume that your opinion somehow trumps sovereignty and/or shit that's none of your business simply because you're strong enough to make it so regardless. Compare it to the way politics plays out in America. Nobody really cares if Bob or Alice have differing views about gay marriage. They care if there are so many Bobs in high places that pressure starts to mount on people who disagree with them. That's the point. Nobody is mad that the US expresses a concern on a certain issue; it's when they have a history of doing shit behind the scenes outside of their jurisdiction that people call them presumptuous and/or arrogant.
It doesn't really matter if other nations have strong opinions on things. Most of them are either too quiet to be of any serious concern or more or less fine with the fact that strong opinions on things are still opinions, and that if someone says "no," you take their answer and respect the sovereignty of their nation. For a country that was founded on the principle that foreign monarchs and powers shouldn't have say over sovereignty instead of the people, the US certainly doesn't seem to extend that courtesy to other nations.
and they're not above telling other countries to do certain things.
Like, oh, non-US countries do to the US and to each other all the time...
Yeah: the US chooses to acquiesce or ignore those things, and the non-US countries deal with it.
What's more, the US intervenes/puts pressure on countries even when the events in question have practically nothing to do with them (e.g. quietly pressuring Swedish authorities to raid The Pirate Bay way back when).
This isn't even taking into account the number of foreign military actions that the US has engaged in since WWII. There is no other Western nation that does those kinds of things with any regularity these days.
America does have a tendency to believe that it can do basically whatever it wants and everyone else will get out of the way.
lolwut
9 times out of 10 America bends over backwards to get people to go along with it. Which has resulted in some bad relationships like say with the Egyptian government under Sadat and Mubarak or the Royal House of Saud. 5 times out of that 10 the American goal is maintaining the liberal internationalist order that gives most other countries influence far beyond their own national capability, and the 1 time out of 10 America actually does remember that it doesn't need permission to act in its national-interest, people get the vapors. America, acting without our leave? We are disappoint.
"National interest" seems to be your catch-all for any action you wish to justify. Every nation has hypothetical "interests" that they can't realize because doing so would require them to do something really illegal, destructive, or immoral. Just because something plausibly benefits America in some way is not in any way moral justification for such an action. I'm not saying that America's actions always usually or even commonly immoral, but that something being a "national interest" doesn't make it justifiable alone.
tl;dr who cares if other countries also spy? It's still wrong for America to do it. A country saying something possibly hypocritical doesn't invalidate the criticism itself. Besides, none of the people on this forum are governments or heads of state; we're criticizing America spying because that's what this thread is about. If a massive European spying program is unveiled, we'll criticize that too.
Breaking out moralistic argument when dealing with nations and their safety, is frankly, naive. National intrest doesn't justify everything, but saying that spying is illegal, destructive, or immoral just comes across as some pie in the sky point of view.
Hey, if people really believe that every nation is the would who are "allies" should never keep tabs or attempt to spy on each other, I guess they can believe that. History has shown otherwise and that even allies make efforts to find out what is happening behind closed doors, but maybe we are all beyond that.
You want to live in a world where every phone call you make, every conversation you have on skype (video or not), all your emails/text messages - are recorded and stored indefinitely by people hidden behind the scenes?
they already are. Just not necessarily by the govt
Bluntly, the US seems to have an official opinion on every event that occurs anywhere in the world,
As does everyone other country in the world... so what. What you mean is the US has the capability to do something about its opinion and get its opinion satisfied most of the time... which oddly only seems to really piss off people who also have an official opinion about every event that happens anywhere in the world and aren't getting their opinion satisfied most of the time.
That's because everyone is entitled to an opinion, whereas the US seems to think that it's entitled to exercise its influence in other sovereign nations to coerce/demand them to do things.
The problem isn't with having the opinion. It's with being arrogant enough to presume that your opinion somehow trumps sovereignty and/or shit that's none of your business simply because you're strong enough to make it so regardless. Compare it to the way politics plays out in America. Nobody really cares if Bob or Alice have differing views about gay marriage. They care if there are so many Bobs in high places that pressure starts to mount on people who disagree with them. That's the point. Nobody is mad that the US expresses a concern on a certain issue; it's when they have a history of doing shit behind the scenes outside of their jurisdiction that people call them presumptuous and/or arrogant.
It doesn't really matter if other nations have strong opinions on things. Most of them are either too quiet to be of any serious concern or more or less fine with the fact that strong opinions on things are still opinions, and that if someone says "no," you take their answer and respect the sovereignty of their nation. For a country that was founded on the principle that foreign monarchs and powers shouldn't have say over sovereignty instead of the people, the US certainly doesn't seem to extend that courtesy to other nations.
and they're not above telling other countries to do certain things.
Like, oh, non-US countries do to the US and to each other all the time...
Yeah: the US chooses to acquiesce or ignore those things, and the non-US countries deal with it.
What's more, the US intervenes/puts pressure on countries even when the events in question have practically nothing to do with them (e.g. quietly pressuring Swedish authorities to raid The Pirate Bay way back when).
This isn't even taking into account the number of foreign military actions that the US has engaged in since WWII. There is no other Western nation that does those kinds of things with any regularity these days.
America does have a tendency to believe that it can do basically whatever it wants and everyone else will get out of the way.
lolwut
9 times out of 10 America bends over backwards to get people to go along with it. Which has resulted in some bad relationships like say with the Egyptian government under Sadat and Mubarak or the Royal House of Saud. 5 times out of that 10 the American goal is maintaining the liberal internationalist order that gives most other countries influence far beyond their own national capability, and the 1 time out of 10 America actually does remember that it doesn't need permission to act in its national-interest, people get the vapors. America, acting without our leave? We are disappoint.
"National interest" seems to be your catch-all for any action you wish to justify. Every nation has hypothetical "interests" that they can't realize because doing so would require them to do something really illegal, destructive, or immoral. Just because something plausibly benefits America in some way is not in any way moral justification for such an action. I'm not saying that America's actions always usually or even commonly immoral, but that something being a "national interest" doesn't make it justifiable alone.
tl;dr who cares if other countries also spy? It's still wrong for America to do it. A country saying something possibly hypocritical doesn't invalidate the criticism itself. Besides, none of the people on this forum are governments or heads of state; we're criticizing America spying because that's what this thread is about. If a massive European spying program is unveiled, we'll criticize that too.
Breaking out moralistic argument when dealing with nations and their safety, is frankly, naive. National intrest doesn't justify everything, but saying that spying is illegal, destructive, or immoral just comes across as some pie in the sky point of view.
Hey, if people really believe that every nation is the would who are "allies" should never keep tabs or attempt to spy on each other, I guess they can believe that. History has shown otherwise and that even allies make efforts to find out what is happening behind closed doors, but maybe we are all beyond that.
You want to live in a world where every phone call you make, every conversation you have on skype, all your emails/text messages - are recorded and stored indefinitely by people hidden behind the scenes?
I already live in that world. My texts go through a third party company, my emails go through google and any of these groups could look at them if they wanted and I would never know. One more set of people copying them isn't that big of a deal for me. I already understand that everything I put online isn't really mine any more. I can claim it and say I wrote it, but its not stored on my PC or on a system that I own. Even what we type here is stored on Team Liquids servers and if they lock this account, I can't force them to delete anything. Facebook owns everything you put up there and even if you delete something, they likley still store it. My skype calls could be recorded by anyone at Microsoft if they wanted to be creepy.
I would rather people face the idea on what the internet is, a network of computers you don't know and storage that you don't own. None of this stuff is protected like physical things and may not be practial for it to have the same protections. Email is not the same as mail sent through the US postal service.
Bluntly, the US seems to have an official opinion on every event that occurs anywhere in the world,
As does everyone other country in the world... so what. What you mean is the US has the capability to do something about its opinion and get its opinion satisfied most of the time... which oddly only seems to really piss off people who also have an official opinion about every event that happens anywhere in the world and aren't getting their opinion satisfied most of the time.
That's because everyone is entitled to an opinion, whereas the US seems to think that it's entitled to exercise its influence in other sovereign nations to coerce/demand them to do things.
The problem isn't with having the opinion. It's with being arrogant enough to presume that your opinion somehow trumps sovereignty and/or shit that's none of your business simply because you're strong enough to make it so regardless. Compare it to the way politics plays out in America. Nobody really cares if Bob or Alice have differing views about gay marriage. They care if there are so many Bobs in high places that pressure starts to mount on people who disagree with them. That's the point. Nobody is mad that the US expresses a concern on a certain issue; it's when they have a history of doing shit behind the scenes outside of their jurisdiction that people call them presumptuous and/or arrogant.
It doesn't really matter if other nations have strong opinions on things. Most of them are either too quiet to be of any serious concern or more or less fine with the fact that strong opinions on things are still opinions, and that if someone says "no," you take their answer and respect the sovereignty of their nation. For a country that was founded on the principle that foreign monarchs and powers shouldn't have say over sovereignty instead of the people, the US certainly doesn't seem to extend that courtesy to other nations.
and they're not above telling other countries to do certain things.
Like, oh, non-US countries do to the US and to each other all the time...
Yeah: the US chooses to acquiesce or ignore those things, and the non-US countries deal with it.
What's more, the US intervenes/puts pressure on countries even when the events in question have practically nothing to do with them (e.g. quietly pressuring Swedish authorities to raid The Pirate Bay way back when).
This isn't even taking into account the number of foreign military actions that the US has engaged in since WWII. There is no other Western nation that does those kinds of things with any regularity these days.
America does have a tendency to believe that it can do basically whatever it wants and everyone else will get out of the way.
lolwut
9 times out of 10 America bends over backwards to get people to go along with it. Which has resulted in some bad relationships like say with the Egyptian government under Sadat and Mubarak or the Royal House of Saud. 5 times out of that 10 the American goal is maintaining the liberal internationalist order that gives most other countries influence far beyond their own national capability, and the 1 time out of 10 America actually does remember that it doesn't need permission to act in its national-interest, people get the vapors. America, acting without our leave? We are disappoint.
"National interest" seems to be your catch-all for any action you wish to justify. Every nation has hypothetical "interests" that they can't realize because doing so would require them to do something really illegal, destructive, or immoral. Just because something plausibly benefits America in some way is not in any way moral justification for such an action. I'm not saying that America's actions always usually or even commonly immoral, but that something being a "national interest" doesn't make it justifiable alone.
tl;dr who cares if other countries also spy? It's still wrong for America to do it. A country saying something possibly hypocritical doesn't invalidate the criticism itself. Besides, none of the people on this forum are governments or heads of state; we're criticizing America spying because that's what this thread is about. If a massive European spying program is unveiled, we'll criticize that too.
Breaking out moralistic argument when dealing with nations and their safety, is frankly, naive. National intrest doesn't justify everything, but saying that spying is illegal, destructive, or immoral just comes across as some pie in the sky point of view.
Hey, if people really believe that every nation is the would who are "allies" should never keep tabs or attempt to spy on each other, I guess they can believe that. History has shown otherwise and that even allies make efforts to find out what is happening behind closed doors, but maybe we are all beyond that.
You want to live in a world where every phone call you make, every conversation you have on skype (video or not), all your emails/text messages - are recorded and stored indefinitely by people hidden behind the scenes?
they already are. Just not necessarily by the govt
Like who?
Like anyone to interact with on the internet. Amazon to Facebook to Skype. They all keep your data and sell your information to other companies, or sell ads based on your internet habits. The Government is late to the game, really.
You guys seriously think nations don't spy on their "allies"? Your friends today might very well be your enemies tomorrow. It's a country's best interest to keep tabs on what their "enemies" as well as their "allies" are up to at all times provided they have the resources to.
Hell, Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were allied during WWII and look what happened.....
On July 19 2013 03:58 ref4 wrote: You guys seriously think nations don't spy on their "allies"? Your friends today might very well be your enemies tomorrow. It's a country's best interest to keep tabs on what their "enemies" as well as their "allies" are up to at all times provided they have the resources to.
Hell, Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were allied during WWII and look what happened.....
Everyone just wants to act like they are victims of some massive crime against humanity. People dying all over the world due to horrible circumstances and/or corrupt governments, but here they can act like their lives were violated. Most of the countries on here complaining are some of the biggest countries involved in piracy. They have no problem stealing everything they can, but oh my god someone is listening in on what the government is doing? RAAAGE.
Like I said earlier: this thread is a complete joke. The guy wanted attention, he wanted to act like a hero. He knows very well the positive impact the program he exposed has had at protecting public safety. Why not include that in his leaks? Hes a traitor, and I hope they get their hands on him and lock him up with Bradley Manning
On July 19 2013 03:58 ref4 wrote: You guys seriously think nations don't spy on their "allies"? Your friends today might very well be your enemies tomorrow. It's a country's best interest to keep tabs on what their "enemies" as well as their "allies" are up to at all times provided they have the resources to.
Hell, Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were allied during WWII and look what happened.....
And the US was an ally with Japan. I think they gave us medals of friendship a few months before the bombing at Pearl Harbor.
I wasn't aware that the world was in a state of total war. In fact, it's interesting that you bring up WWII, since that is the most recent instance of the US being in total war with major European Union powers.
If the world were actually in a state of such uncertainty; if bombs were raining on London; if Germany had just taken over France; if Japan was ravaging China; and/or if there were powerful coalitions of serious, ideological, and threatening countries engaged in a campaign to take over Europe or North America (or anywhere, really) then I would have no problem whatsoever with spying.
But that isn't happening, and there's no indication that it's happening, and there's even less indication that, if it were happening, these major powers would be communicating with Skype rather than, you know, an intranet.
Everyone just wants to act like they are victims of some massive crime against humanity. People dying all over the world due to horrible circumstances and/or corrupt governments, but here they can act like their lives were violated. Most of the countries on here complaining are some of the biggest countries involved in piracy. They have no problem stealing everything they can, but oh my god someone is listening in on what the government is doing? RAAAGE.
Wtf does piracy have to do with this? Let me get this straight: it's not okay to copy data that someone else put on the internet, for your own personal use and without making any money from it, but it is okay to intercept any and all electronic communications made by private citizens anywhere?
Like I said earlier: this thread is a complete joke. The guy wanted attention, he wanted to act like a hero. He knows very well the positive impact the program he exposed has had at protecting public safety. Why not include that in his leaks? Hes a traitor, and I hope they get their hands on him and lock him up with Bradley Manning.
What impact has this program had? Nobody has provided any real evidence that huge conspiracies are being uncovered on a daily basis.
Yeah, Bradley Manning was so horrible. Never mind that he was mentally unstable and that his requests for counseling were basically ridiculed, or that the military/government actually did do some terrible shit for which there was little retribution. Manning was, by all means, a criminal, and he did put lives at risk. For that, he received a military trial and was convicted. But what about all the shit he brought to light? Why is there no pressing desire to convict anyone guilty of committing some offense over in Iraq or Afghanistan? Why isn't there even a public/serious investigation?
And Snowden is in no way similar to Manning except that they both leaked information. Snowden didn't really put anyone in any immediate danger (except maybe himself). Manning ostensibly did.
Bluntly, the US seems to have an official opinion on every event that occurs anywhere in the world,
As does everyone other country in the world... so what. What you mean is the US has the capability to do something about its opinion and get its opinion satisfied most of the time... which oddly only seems to really piss off people who also have an official opinion about every event that happens anywhere in the world and aren't getting their opinion satisfied most of the time.
That's because everyone is entitled to an opinion, whereas the US seems to think that it's entitled to exercise its influence in other sovereign nations to coerce/demand them to do things.
The problem isn't with having the opinion. It's with being arrogant enough to presume that your opinion somehow trumps sovereignty and/or shit that's none of your business simply because you're strong enough to make it so regardless. Compare it to the way politics plays out in America. Nobody really cares if Bob or Alice have differing views about gay marriage. They care if there are so many Bobs in high places that pressure starts to mount on people who disagree with them. That's the point. Nobody is mad that the US expresses a concern on a certain issue; it's when they have a history of doing shit behind the scenes outside of their jurisdiction that people call them presumptuous and/or arrogant.
It doesn't really matter if other nations have strong opinions on things. Most of them are either too quiet to be of any serious concern or more or less fine with the fact that strong opinions on things are still opinions, and that if someone says "no," you take their answer and respect the sovereignty of their nation. For a country that was founded on the principle that foreign monarchs and powers shouldn't have say over sovereignty instead of the people, the US certainly doesn't seem to extend that courtesy to other nations.
and they're not above telling other countries to do certain things.
Like, oh, non-US countries do to the US and to each other all the time...
Yeah: the US chooses to acquiesce or ignore those things, and the non-US countries deal with it.
What's more, the US intervenes/puts pressure on countries even when the events in question have practically nothing to do with them (e.g. quietly pressuring Swedish authorities to raid The Pirate Bay way back when).
This isn't even taking into account the number of foreign military actions that the US has engaged in since WWII. There is no other Western nation that does those kinds of things with any regularity these days.
America does have a tendency to believe that it can do basically whatever it wants and everyone else will get out of the way.
lolwut
9 times out of 10 America bends over backwards to get people to go along with it. Which has resulted in some bad relationships like say with the Egyptian government under Sadat and Mubarak or the Royal House of Saud. 5 times out of that 10 the American goal is maintaining the liberal internationalist order that gives most other countries influence far beyond their own national capability, and the 1 time out of 10 America actually does remember that it doesn't need permission to act in its national-interest, people get the vapors. America, acting without our leave? We are disappoint.
"National interest" seems to be your catch-all for any action you wish to justify. Every nation has hypothetical "interests" that they can't realize because doing so would require them to do something really illegal, destructive, or immoral. Just because something plausibly benefits America in some way is not in any way moral justification for such an action. I'm not saying that America's actions always usually or even commonly immoral, but that something being a "national interest" doesn't make it justifiable alone.
tl;dr who cares if other countries also spy? It's still wrong for America to do it. A country saying something possibly hypocritical doesn't invalidate the criticism itself. Besides, none of the people on this forum are governments or heads of state; we're criticizing America spying because that's what this thread is about. If a massive European spying program is unveiled, we'll criticize that too.
Breaking out moralistic argument when dealing with nations and their safety, is frankly, naive. National intrest doesn't justify everything, but saying that spying is illegal, destructive, or immoral just comes across as some pie in the sky point of view.
Hey, if people really believe that every nation is the would who are "allies" should never keep tabs or attempt to spy on each other, I guess they can believe that. History has shown otherwise and that even allies make efforts to find out what is happening behind closed doors, but maybe we are all beyond that.
You want to live in a world where every phone call you make, every conversation you have on skype, all your emails/text messages - are recorded and stored indefinitely by people hidden behind the scenes?
I already live in that world. My texts go through a third party company, my emails go through google and any of these groups could look at them if they wanted and I would never know. One more set of people copying them isn't that big of a deal for me. I already understand that everything I put online isn't really mine any more. I can claim it and say I wrote it, but its not stored on my PC or on a system that I own. Even what we type here is stored on Team Liquids servers and if they lock this account, I can't force them to delete anything. Facebook owns everything you put up there and even if you delete something, they likley still store it. My skype calls could be recorded by anyone at Microsoft if they wanted to be creepy.
I would rather people face the idea on what the internet is, a network of computers you don't know and storage that you don't own. None of this stuff is protected like physical things and may not be practial for it to have the same protections. Email is not the same as mail sent through the US postal service.
Bluntly, the US seems to have an official opinion on every event that occurs anywhere in the world,
As does everyone other country in the world... so what. What you mean is the US has the capability to do something about its opinion and get its opinion satisfied most of the time... which oddly only seems to really piss off people who also have an official opinion about every event that happens anywhere in the world and aren't getting their opinion satisfied most of the time.
That's because everyone is entitled to an opinion, whereas the US seems to think that it's entitled to exercise its influence in other sovereign nations to coerce/demand them to do things.
The problem isn't with having the opinion. It's with being arrogant enough to presume that your opinion somehow trumps sovereignty and/or shit that's none of your business simply because you're strong enough to make it so regardless. Compare it to the way politics plays out in America. Nobody really cares if Bob or Alice have differing views about gay marriage. They care if there are so many Bobs in high places that pressure starts to mount on people who disagree with them. That's the point. Nobody is mad that the US expresses a concern on a certain issue; it's when they have a history of doing shit behind the scenes outside of their jurisdiction that people call them presumptuous and/or arrogant.
It doesn't really matter if other nations have strong opinions on things. Most of them are either too quiet to be of any serious concern or more or less fine with the fact that strong opinions on things are still opinions, and that if someone says "no," you take their answer and respect the sovereignty of their nation. For a country that was founded on the principle that foreign monarchs and powers shouldn't have say over sovereignty instead of the people, the US certainly doesn't seem to extend that courtesy to other nations.
and they're not above telling other countries to do certain things.
Like, oh, non-US countries do to the US and to each other all the time...
Yeah: the US chooses to acquiesce or ignore those things, and the non-US countries deal with it.
What's more, the US intervenes/puts pressure on countries even when the events in question have practically nothing to do with them (e.g. quietly pressuring Swedish authorities to raid The Pirate Bay way back when).
This isn't even taking into account the number of foreign military actions that the US has engaged in since WWII. There is no other Western nation that does those kinds of things with any regularity these days.
America does have a tendency to believe that it can do basically whatever it wants and everyone else will get out of the way.
lolwut
9 times out of 10 America bends over backwards to get people to go along with it. Which has resulted in some bad relationships like say with the Egyptian government under Sadat and Mubarak or the Royal House of Saud. 5 times out of that 10 the American goal is maintaining the liberal internationalist order that gives most other countries influence far beyond their own national capability, and the 1 time out of 10 America actually does remember that it doesn't need permission to act in its national-interest, people get the vapors. America, acting without our leave? We are disappoint.
"National interest" seems to be your catch-all for any action you wish to justify. Every nation has hypothetical "interests" that they can't realize because doing so would require them to do something really illegal, destructive, or immoral. Just because something plausibly benefits America in some way is not in any way moral justification for such an action. I'm not saying that America's actions always usually or even commonly immoral, but that something being a "national interest" doesn't make it justifiable alone.
tl;dr who cares if other countries also spy? It's still wrong for America to do it. A country saying something possibly hypocritical doesn't invalidate the criticism itself. Besides, none of the people on this forum are governments or heads of state; we're criticizing America spying because that's what this thread is about. If a massive European spying program is unveiled, we'll criticize that too.
Breaking out moralistic argument when dealing with nations and their safety, is frankly, naive. National intrest doesn't justify everything, but saying that spying is illegal, destructive, or immoral just comes across as some pie in the sky point of view.
Hey, if people really believe that every nation is the would who are "allies" should never keep tabs or attempt to spy on each other, I guess they can believe that. History has shown otherwise and that even allies make efforts to find out what is happening behind closed doors, but maybe we are all beyond that.
You want to live in a world where every phone call you make, every conversation you have on skype (video or not), all your emails/text messages - are recorded and stored indefinitely by people hidden behind the scenes?
they already are. Just not necessarily by the govt
Like who?
Like anyone to interact with on the internet. Amazon to Facebook to Skype. They all keep your data and sell your information to other companies, or sell ads based on your internet habits. The Government is late to the game, really.
Bullshit justification. Just another angle to float much like the "if you have nothing to hide, then why do you care" line.
On July 19 2013 03:58 ref4 wrote: You guys seriously think nations don't spy on their "allies"? Your friends today might very well be your enemies tomorrow. It's a country's best interest to keep tabs on what their "enemies" as well as their "allies" are up to at all times provided they have the resources to.
Hell, Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were allied during WWII and look what happened.....
And the US was an ally with Japan. I think they gave us medals of friendship a few months before the bombing at Pearl Harbor.
I wasn't aware that the world was in a state of total war. In fact, it's interesting that you bring up WWII, since that is the most recent instance of the US being in total war with major European Union powers.
If the world were actually in a state of such uncertainty; if bombs were raining on London; if Germany had just taken over France; if Japan was ravaging China; and/or if there were powerful coalitions of serious, ideological, and threatening countries engaged in a campaign to take over Europe or North America (or anywhere, really) then I would have no problem whatsoever with spying.
But that isn't happening, and there's no indication that it's happening, and there's even less indication that, if it were happening, these major powers would be communicating with Skype rather than, you know, an intranet.
You clearly missed the point of that post in its entirety. Allies turn on eachother. It is a fact you cannot ignore. New people are elected, they do not agree with the previous leaders, they change the course of the government's foreign policy. Spying keeps an eye on that type of crap. I can't imagine any non-college student sane american would have a problem with our government spying on our allies.
On July 19 2013 03:58 ref4 wrote: You guys seriously think nations don't spy on their "allies"? Your friends today might very well be your enemies tomorrow. It's a country's best interest to keep tabs on what their "enemies" as well as their "allies" are up to at all times provided they have the resources to.
Hell, Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were allied during WWII and look what happened.....
And the US was an ally with Japan. I think they gave us medals of friendship a few months before the bombing at Pearl Harbor.
I wasn't aware that the world was in a state of total war. In fact, it's interesting that you bring up WWII, since that is the most recent instance of the US being in total war with major European Union powers.
If the world were actually in a state of such uncertainty; if bombs were raining on London; if Germany had just taken over France; if Japan was ravaging China; and/or if there were powerful coalitions of serious, ideological, and threatening countries engaged in a campaign to take over Europe or North America (or anywhere, really) then I would have no problem whatsoever with spying.
But that isn't happening, and there's no indication that it's happening, and there's even less indication that, if it were happening, these major powers would be communicating with Skype rather than, you know, an intranet.
You clearly missed the point of that post in its entirety. Allies turn on eachother. It is a fact you cannot ignore. New people are elected, they do not agree with the previous leaders, they change the course of the government's foreign policy. Spying keeps an eye on that type of crap. I can't imagine any non-college student sane american would have a problem with our government spying on our allies.
There's spying and spying. Nobody is saying America shouldn't keep its eyes open and quietly try to learn what the political beliefs of Japan's current leader are. But that's a lot different than a mass surveillance program which primarily affects private citizens (i.e. not government leaders). And it's pretty absurd to think that the current political climate is at all similar to that preceding WWII. Europe and North America aren't just incidentally stable. They're stable because there are a lot of things in place that make total war either unfeasible, unnecessary, or impossible to justify.
Bluntly, the US seems to have an official opinion on every event that occurs anywhere in the world,
As does everyone other country in the world... so what. What you mean is the US has the capability to do something about its opinion and get its opinion satisfied most of the time... which oddly only seems to really piss off people who also have an official opinion about every event that happens anywhere in the world and aren't getting their opinion satisfied most of the time.
That's because everyone is entitled to an opinion, whereas the US seems to think that it's entitled to exercise its influence in other sovereign nations to coerce/demand them to do things.
The problem isn't with having the opinion. It's with being arrogant enough to presume that your opinion somehow trumps sovereignty and/or shit that's none of your business simply because you're strong enough to make it so regardless. Compare it to the way politics plays out in America. Nobody really cares if Bob or Alice have differing views about gay marriage. They care if there are so many Bobs in high places that pressure starts to mount on people who disagree with them. That's the point. Nobody is mad that the US expresses a concern on a certain issue; it's when they have a history of doing shit behind the scenes outside of their jurisdiction that people call them presumptuous and/or arrogant.
It doesn't really matter if other nations have strong opinions on things. Most of them are either too quiet to be of any serious concern or more or less fine with the fact that strong opinions on things are still opinions, and that if someone says "no," you take their answer and respect the sovereignty of their nation. For a country that was founded on the principle that foreign monarchs and powers shouldn't have say over sovereignty instead of the people, the US certainly doesn't seem to extend that courtesy to other nations.
and they're not above telling other countries to do certain things.
Like, oh, non-US countries do to the US and to each other all the time...
Yeah: the US chooses to acquiesce or ignore those things, and the non-US countries deal with it.
What's more, the US intervenes/puts pressure on countries even when the events in question have practically nothing to do with them (e.g. quietly pressuring Swedish authorities to raid The Pirate Bay way back when).
This isn't even taking into account the number of foreign military actions that the US has engaged in since WWII. There is no other Western nation that does those kinds of things with any regularity these days.
America does have a tendency to believe that it can do basically whatever it wants and everyone else will get out of the way.
lolwut
9 times out of 10 America bends over backwards to get people to go along with it. Which has resulted in some bad relationships like say with the Egyptian government under Sadat and Mubarak or the Royal House of Saud. 5 times out of that 10 the American goal is maintaining the liberal internationalist order that gives most other countries influence far beyond their own national capability, and the 1 time out of 10 America actually does remember that it doesn't need permission to act in its national-interest, people get the vapors. America, acting without our leave? We are disappoint.
"National interest" seems to be your catch-all for any action you wish to justify. Every nation has hypothetical "interests" that they can't realize because doing so would require them to do something really illegal, destructive, or immoral. Just because something plausibly benefits America in some way is not in any way moral justification for such an action. I'm not saying that America's actions always usually or even commonly immoral, but that something being a "national interest" doesn't make it justifiable alone.
tl;dr who cares if other countries also spy? It's still wrong for America to do it. A country saying something possibly hypocritical doesn't invalidate the criticism itself. Besides, none of the people on this forum are governments or heads of state; we're criticizing America spying because that's what this thread is about. If a massive European spying program is unveiled, we'll criticize that too.
Breaking out moralistic argument when dealing with nations and their safety, is frankly, naive. National intrest doesn't justify everything, but saying that spying is illegal, destructive, or immoral just comes across as some pie in the sky point of view.
Hey, if people really believe that every nation is the would who are "allies" should never keep tabs or attempt to spy on each other, I guess they can believe that. History has shown otherwise and that even allies make efforts to find out what is happening behind closed doors, but maybe we are all beyond that.
You want to live in a world where every phone call you make, every conversation you have on skype, all your emails/text messages - are recorded and stored indefinitely by people hidden behind the scenes?
I already live in that world. My texts go through a third party company, my emails go through google and any of these groups could look at them if they wanted and I would never know. One more set of people copying them isn't that big of a deal for me. I already understand that everything I put online isn't really mine any more. I can claim it and say I wrote it, but its not stored on my PC or on a system that I own. Even what we type here is stored on Team Liquids servers and if they lock this account, I can't force them to delete anything. Facebook owns everything you put up there and even if you delete something, they likley still store it. My skype calls could be recorded by anyone at Microsoft if they wanted to be creepy.
I would rather people face the idea on what the internet is, a network of computers you don't know and storage that you don't own. None of this stuff is protected like physical things and may not be practial for it to have the same protections. Email is not the same as mail sent through the US postal service.
On July 19 2013 03:56 AnomalySC2 wrote:
On July 19 2013 03:50 packrat386 wrote:
On July 19 2013 03:48 AnomalySC2 wrote:
On July 19 2013 03:34 Plansix wrote:
On July 19 2013 03:19 Shiori wrote:
On July 19 2013 02:55 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Bluntly, the US seems to have an official opinion on every event that occurs anywhere in the world,
As does everyone other country in the world... so what. What you mean is the US has the capability to do something about its opinion and get its opinion satisfied most of the time... which oddly only seems to really piss off people who also have an official opinion about every event that happens anywhere in the world and aren't getting their opinion satisfied most of the time.
That's because everyone is entitled to an opinion, whereas the US seems to think that it's entitled to exercise its influence in other sovereign nations to coerce/demand them to do things.
The problem isn't with having the opinion. It's with being arrogant enough to presume that your opinion somehow trumps sovereignty and/or shit that's none of your business simply because you're strong enough to make it so regardless. Compare it to the way politics plays out in America. Nobody really cares if Bob or Alice have differing views about gay marriage. They care if there are so many Bobs in high places that pressure starts to mount on people who disagree with them. That's the point. Nobody is mad that the US expresses a concern on a certain issue; it's when they have a history of doing shit behind the scenes outside of their jurisdiction that people call them presumptuous and/or arrogant.
It doesn't really matter if other nations have strong opinions on things. Most of them are either too quiet to be of any serious concern or more or less fine with the fact that strong opinions on things are still opinions, and that if someone says "no," you take their answer and respect the sovereignty of their nation. For a country that was founded on the principle that foreign monarchs and powers shouldn't have say over sovereignty instead of the people, the US certainly doesn't seem to extend that courtesy to other nations.
and they're not above telling other countries to do certain things.
Like, oh, non-US countries do to the US and to each other all the time...
Yeah: the US chooses to acquiesce or ignore those things, and the non-US countries deal with it.
What's more, the US intervenes/puts pressure on countries even when the events in question have practically nothing to do with them (e.g. quietly pressuring Swedish authorities to raid The Pirate Bay way back when).
This isn't even taking into account the number of foreign military actions that the US has engaged in since WWII. There is no other Western nation that does those kinds of things with any regularity these days.
America does have a tendency to believe that it can do basically whatever it wants and everyone else will get out of the way.
lolwut
9 times out of 10 America bends over backwards to get people to go along with it. Which has resulted in some bad relationships like say with the Egyptian government under Sadat and Mubarak or the Royal House of Saud. 5 times out of that 10 the American goal is maintaining the liberal internationalist order that gives most other countries influence far beyond their own national capability, and the 1 time out of 10 America actually does remember that it doesn't need permission to act in its national-interest, people get the vapors. America, acting without our leave? We are disappoint.
"National interest" seems to be your catch-all for any action you wish to justify. Every nation has hypothetical "interests" that they can't realize because doing so would require them to do something really illegal, destructive, or immoral. Just because something plausibly benefits America in some way is not in any way moral justification for such an action. I'm not saying that America's actions always usually or even commonly immoral, but that something being a "national interest" doesn't make it justifiable alone.
tl;dr who cares if other countries also spy? It's still wrong for America to do it. A country saying something possibly hypocritical doesn't invalidate the criticism itself. Besides, none of the people on this forum are governments or heads of state; we're criticizing America spying because that's what this thread is about. If a massive European spying program is unveiled, we'll criticize that too.
Breaking out moralistic argument when dealing with nations and their safety, is frankly, naive. National intrest doesn't justify everything, but saying that spying is illegal, destructive, or immoral just comes across as some pie in the sky point of view.
Hey, if people really believe that every nation is the would who are "allies" should never keep tabs or attempt to spy on each other, I guess they can believe that. History has shown otherwise and that even allies make efforts to find out what is happening behind closed doors, but maybe we are all beyond that.
You want to live in a world where every phone call you make, every conversation you have on skype (video or not), all your emails/text messages - are recorded and stored indefinitely by people hidden behind the scenes?
they already are. Just not necessarily by the govt
Like who?
Like anyone to interact with on the internet. Amazon to Facebook to Skype. They all keep your data and sell your information to other companies, or sell ads based on your internet habits. The Government is late to the game, really.
Bullshit justification. Just another angle to float much like the "if you have nothing to hide, then why do you care" line.
It wasn't a "justification". The 'imagine this big bad world if we keep this up' comment was made, and he simply made the point that the end of the world prophecy of internet monitoring has been happening for years. And he is right. Rage on sir, rage on.
Bluntly, the US seems to have an official opinion on every event that occurs anywhere in the world,
As does everyone other country in the world... so what. What you mean is the US has the capability to do something about its opinion and get its opinion satisfied most of the time... which oddly only seems to really piss off people who also have an official opinion about every event that happens anywhere in the world and aren't getting their opinion satisfied most of the time.
That's because everyone is entitled to an opinion, whereas the US seems to think that it's entitled to exercise its influence in other sovereign nations to coerce/demand them to do things.
The problem isn't with having the opinion. It's with being arrogant enough to presume that your opinion somehow trumps sovereignty and/or shit that's none of your business simply because you're strong enough to make it so regardless. Compare it to the way politics plays out in America. Nobody really cares if Bob or Alice have differing views about gay marriage. They care if there are so many Bobs in high places that pressure starts to mount on people who disagree with them. That's the point. Nobody is mad that the US expresses a concern on a certain issue; it's when they have a history of doing shit behind the scenes outside of their jurisdiction that people call them presumptuous and/or arrogant.
It doesn't really matter if other nations have strong opinions on things. Most of them are either too quiet to be of any serious concern or more or less fine with the fact that strong opinions on things are still opinions, and that if someone says "no," you take their answer and respect the sovereignty of their nation. For a country that was founded on the principle that foreign monarchs and powers shouldn't have say over sovereignty instead of the people, the US certainly doesn't seem to extend that courtesy to other nations.
and they're not above telling other countries to do certain things.
Like, oh, non-US countries do to the US and to each other all the time...
Yeah: the US chooses to acquiesce or ignore those things, and the non-US countries deal with it.
What's more, the US intervenes/puts pressure on countries even when the events in question have practically nothing to do with them (e.g. quietly pressuring Swedish authorities to raid The Pirate Bay way back when).
This isn't even taking into account the number of foreign military actions that the US has engaged in since WWII. There is no other Western nation that does those kinds of things with any regularity these days.
America does have a tendency to believe that it can do basically whatever it wants and everyone else will get out of the way.
lolwut
9 times out of 10 America bends over backwards to get people to go along with it. Which has resulted in some bad relationships like say with the Egyptian government under Sadat and Mubarak or the Royal House of Saud. 5 times out of that 10 the American goal is maintaining the liberal internationalist order that gives most other countries influence far beyond their own national capability, and the 1 time out of 10 America actually does remember that it doesn't need permission to act in its national-interest, people get the vapors. America, acting without our leave? We are disappoint.
"National interest" seems to be your catch-all for any action you wish to justify. Every nation has hypothetical "interests" that they can't realize because doing so would require them to do something really illegal, destructive, or immoral. Just because something plausibly benefits America in some way is not in any way moral justification for such an action. I'm not saying that America's actions always usually or even commonly immoral, but that something being a "national interest" doesn't make it justifiable alone.
tl;dr who cares if other countries also spy? It's still wrong for America to do it. A country saying something possibly hypocritical doesn't invalidate the criticism itself. Besides, none of the people on this forum are governments or heads of state; we're criticizing America spying because that's what this thread is about. If a massive European spying program is unveiled, we'll criticize that too.
Breaking out moralistic argument when dealing with nations and their safety, is frankly, naive. National intrest doesn't justify everything, but saying that spying is illegal, destructive, or immoral just comes across as some pie in the sky point of view.
Hey, if people really believe that every nation is the would who are "allies" should never keep tabs or attempt to spy on each other, I guess they can believe that. History has shown otherwise and that even allies make efforts to find out what is happening behind closed doors, but maybe we are all beyond that.
You want to live in a world where every phone call you make, every conversation you have on skype, all your emails/text messages - are recorded and stored indefinitely by people hidden behind the scenes?
I already live in that world. My texts go through a third party company, my emails go through google and any of these groups could look at them if they wanted and I would never know. One more set of people copying them isn't that big of a deal for me. I already understand that everything I put online isn't really mine any more. I can claim it and say I wrote it, but its not stored on my PC or on a system that I own. Even what we type here is stored on Team Liquids servers and if they lock this account, I can't force them to delete anything. Facebook owns everything you put up there and even if you delete something, they likley still store it. My skype calls could be recorded by anyone at Microsoft if they wanted to be creepy.
I would rather people face the idea on what the internet is, a network of computers you don't know and storage that you don't own. None of this stuff is protected like physical things and may not be practial for it to have the same protections. Email is not the same as mail sent through the US postal service.
On July 19 2013 03:56 AnomalySC2 wrote:
On July 19 2013 03:50 packrat386 wrote:
On July 19 2013 03:48 AnomalySC2 wrote:
On July 19 2013 03:34 Plansix wrote:
On July 19 2013 03:19 Shiori wrote:
On July 19 2013 02:55 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Bluntly, the US seems to have an official opinion on every event that occurs anywhere in the world,
As does everyone other country in the world... so what. What you mean is the US has the capability to do something about its opinion and get its opinion satisfied most of the time... which oddly only seems to really piss off people who also have an official opinion about every event that happens anywhere in the world and aren't getting their opinion satisfied most of the time.
That's because everyone is entitled to an opinion, whereas the US seems to think that it's entitled to exercise its influence in other sovereign nations to coerce/demand them to do things.
The problem isn't with having the opinion. It's with being arrogant enough to presume that your opinion somehow trumps sovereignty and/or shit that's none of your business simply because you're strong enough to make it so regardless. Compare it to the way politics plays out in America. Nobody really cares if Bob or Alice have differing views about gay marriage. They care if there are so many Bobs in high places that pressure starts to mount on people who disagree with them. That's the point. Nobody is mad that the US expresses a concern on a certain issue; it's when they have a history of doing shit behind the scenes outside of their jurisdiction that people call them presumptuous and/or arrogant.
It doesn't really matter if other nations have strong opinions on things. Most of them are either too quiet to be of any serious concern or more or less fine with the fact that strong opinions on things are still opinions, and that if someone says "no," you take their answer and respect the sovereignty of their nation. For a country that was founded on the principle that foreign monarchs and powers shouldn't have say over sovereignty instead of the people, the US certainly doesn't seem to extend that courtesy to other nations.
and they're not above telling other countries to do certain things.
Like, oh, non-US countries do to the US and to each other all the time...
Yeah: the US chooses to acquiesce or ignore those things, and the non-US countries deal with it.
What's more, the US intervenes/puts pressure on countries even when the events in question have practically nothing to do with them (e.g. quietly pressuring Swedish authorities to raid The Pirate Bay way back when).
This isn't even taking into account the number of foreign military actions that the US has engaged in since WWII. There is no other Western nation that does those kinds of things with any regularity these days.
America does have a tendency to believe that it can do basically whatever it wants and everyone else will get out of the way.
lolwut
9 times out of 10 America bends over backwards to get people to go along with it. Which has resulted in some bad relationships like say with the Egyptian government under Sadat and Mubarak or the Royal House of Saud. 5 times out of that 10 the American goal is maintaining the liberal internationalist order that gives most other countries influence far beyond their own national capability, and the 1 time out of 10 America actually does remember that it doesn't need permission to act in its national-interest, people get the vapors. America, acting without our leave? We are disappoint.
"National interest" seems to be your catch-all for any action you wish to justify. Every nation has hypothetical "interests" that they can't realize because doing so would require them to do something really illegal, destructive, or immoral. Just because something plausibly benefits America in some way is not in any way moral justification for such an action. I'm not saying that America's actions always usually or even commonly immoral, but that something being a "national interest" doesn't make it justifiable alone.
tl;dr who cares if other countries also spy? It's still wrong for America to do it. A country saying something possibly hypocritical doesn't invalidate the criticism itself. Besides, none of the people on this forum are governments or heads of state; we're criticizing America spying because that's what this thread is about. If a massive European spying program is unveiled, we'll criticize that too.
Breaking out moralistic argument when dealing with nations and their safety, is frankly, naive. National intrest doesn't justify everything, but saying that spying is illegal, destructive, or immoral just comes across as some pie in the sky point of view.
Hey, if people really believe that every nation is the would who are "allies" should never keep tabs or attempt to spy on each other, I guess they can believe that. History has shown otherwise and that even allies make efforts to find out what is happening behind closed doors, but maybe we are all beyond that.
You want to live in a world where every phone call you make, every conversation you have on skype (video or not), all your emails/text messages - are recorded and stored indefinitely by people hidden behind the scenes?
they already are. Just not necessarily by the govt
Like who?
Like anyone to interact with on the internet. Amazon to Facebook to Skype. They all keep your data and sell your information to other companies, or sell ads based on your internet habits. The Government is late to the game, really.
Bullshit justification. Just another angle to float much like the "if you have nothing to hide, then why do you care" line.
It wasn't a "justification". The 'imagine this big bad world if we keep this up' comment was made, and he simply made the point that the end of the world prophecy of internet monitoring has been happening for years. And he is right. Rage on sir, rage on.
I'm not raging, sir. Just pointing out that what they're goal is won't fly with people, and nor will the propaganda they're spewing to try and sway opinions. Notice how the hate for microsoft has gone through the roof now that documents have come out showing they aided the NSA in cracking encrypted hotmail messages. Oh, and gave them direct access to skype calls including video chat. It's not gonna work. It's absurd they even tried in the first place.
On July 19 2013 03:58 ref4 wrote: You guys seriously think nations don't spy on their "allies"? Your friends today might very well be your enemies tomorrow. It's a country's best interest to keep tabs on what their "enemies" as well as their "allies" are up to at all times provided they have the resources to.
Hell, Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were allied during WWII and look what happened.....
And the US was an ally with Japan. I think they gave us medals of friendship a few months before the bombing at Pearl Harbor.
I wasn't aware that the world was in a state of total war. In fact, it's interesting that you bring up WWII, since that is the most recent instance of the US being in total war with major European Union powers.
If the world were actually in a state of such uncertainty; if bombs were raining on London; if Germany had just taken over France; if Japan was ravaging China; and/or if there were powerful coalitions of serious, ideological, and threatening countries engaged in a campaign to take over Europe or North America (or anywhere, really) then I would have no problem whatsoever with spying.
But that isn't happening, and there's no indication that it's happening, and there's even less indication that, if it were happening, these major powers would be communicating with Skype rather than, you know, an intranet.
Yes we have moved beyond total war and most nations don't engage in all out conflict. But just because we dont do that doesn't mean we all just get along and are totally trust each other forever.
From The Telegraph, where they bring up the fact that France was well known for industrial espionage in the 90s and 00's. We were all allies at the time.
Its fun to jump up and down and act outraged, but at the end of the day, we all have glass houses.
On July 19 2013 03:58 ref4 wrote: You guys seriously think nations don't spy on their "allies"? Your friends today might very well be your enemies tomorrow. It's a country's best interest to keep tabs on what their "enemies" as well as their "allies" are up to at all times provided they have the resources to.
Hell, Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were allied during WWII and look what happened.....
And the US was an ally with Japan. I think they gave us medals of friendship a few months before the bombing at Pearl Harbor.
I wasn't aware that the world was in a state of total war. In fact, it's interesting that you bring up WWII, since that is the most recent instance of the US being in total war with major European Union powers.
If the world were actually in a state of such uncertainty; if bombs were raining on London; if Germany had just taken over France; if Japan was ravaging China; and/or if there were powerful coalitions of serious, ideological, and threatening countries engaged in a campaign to take over Europe or North America (or anywhere, really) then I would have no problem whatsoever with spying.
But that isn't happening, and there's no indication that it's happening, and there's even less indication that, if it were happening, these major powers would be communicating with Skype rather than, you know, an intranet.
You clearly missed the point of that post in its entirety. Allies turn on eachother. It is a fact you cannot ignore. New people are elected, they do not agree with the previous leaders, they change the course of the government's foreign policy. Spying keeps an eye on that type of crap. I can't imagine any non-college student sane american would have a problem with our government spying on our allies.
There's spying and spying. Nobody is saying America shouldn't keep its eyes open and quietly try to learn what the political beliefs of Japan's current leader are. But that's a lot different than a mass surveillance program which primarily affects private citizens (i.e. not government leaders). And it's pretty absurd to think that the current political climate is at all similar to that preceding WWII. Europe and North America aren't just incidentally stable. They're stable because there are a lot of things in place that make total war either unfeasible, unnecessary, or impossible to justify.
Honestly, everything you just said makes the need for a mass surveillance program more necessary. You are right, the days of WW2 are over. Now we live in a world of small terrorist cells embedded with civilians intending to kill as many people as possible. We live in a different time, new times call for new measures to keep us safe. People complain when they are not protected for not seeing the attack coming, but then the same people complain that government is going too far. Its one or the other.
Bluntly, the US seems to have an official opinion on every event that occurs anywhere in the world,
As does everyone other country in the world... so what. What you mean is the US has the capability to do something about its opinion and get its opinion satisfied most of the time... which oddly only seems to really piss off people who also have an official opinion about every event that happens anywhere in the world and aren't getting their opinion satisfied most of the time.
That's because everyone is entitled to an opinion, whereas the US seems to think that it's entitled to exercise its influence in other sovereign nations to coerce/demand them to do things.
The problem isn't with having the opinion. It's with being arrogant enough to presume that your opinion somehow trumps sovereignty and/or shit that's none of your business simply because you're strong enough to make it so regardless. Compare it to the way politics plays out in America. Nobody really cares if Bob or Alice have differing views about gay marriage. They care if there are so many Bobs in high places that pressure starts to mount on people who disagree with them. That's the point. Nobody is mad that the US expresses a concern on a certain issue; it's when they have a history of doing shit behind the scenes outside of their jurisdiction that people call them presumptuous and/or arrogant.
It doesn't really matter if other nations have strong opinions on things. Most of them are either too quiet to be of any serious concern or more or less fine with the fact that strong opinions on things are still opinions, and that if someone says "no," you take their answer and respect the sovereignty of their nation. For a country that was founded on the principle that foreign monarchs and powers shouldn't have say over sovereignty instead of the people, the US certainly doesn't seem to extend that courtesy to other nations.
and they're not above telling other countries to do certain things.
Like, oh, non-US countries do to the US and to each other all the time...
Yeah: the US chooses to acquiesce or ignore those things, and the non-US countries deal with it.
What's more, the US intervenes/puts pressure on countries even when the events in question have practically nothing to do with them (e.g. quietly pressuring Swedish authorities to raid The Pirate Bay way back when).
This isn't even taking into account the number of foreign military actions that the US has engaged in since WWII. There is no other Western nation that does those kinds of things with any regularity these days.
America does have a tendency to believe that it can do basically whatever it wants and everyone else will get out of the way.
lolwut
9 times out of 10 America bends over backwards to get people to go along with it. Which has resulted in some bad relationships like say with the Egyptian government under Sadat and Mubarak or the Royal House of Saud. 5 times out of that 10 the American goal is maintaining the liberal internationalist order that gives most other countries influence far beyond their own national capability, and the 1 time out of 10 America actually does remember that it doesn't need permission to act in its national-interest, people get the vapors. America, acting without our leave? We are disappoint.
"National interest" seems to be your catch-all for any action you wish to justify. Every nation has hypothetical "interests" that they can't realize because doing so would require them to do something really illegal, destructive, or immoral. Just because something plausibly benefits America in some way is not in any way moral justification for such an action. I'm not saying that America's actions always usually or even commonly immoral, but that something being a "national interest" doesn't make it justifiable alone.
tl;dr who cares if other countries also spy? It's still wrong for America to do it. A country saying something possibly hypocritical doesn't invalidate the criticism itself. Besides, none of the people on this forum are governments or heads of state; we're criticizing America spying because that's what this thread is about. If a massive European spying program is unveiled, we'll criticize that too.
Breaking out moralistic argument when dealing with nations and their safety, is frankly, naive. National intrest doesn't justify everything, but saying that spying is illegal, destructive, or immoral just comes across as some pie in the sky point of view.
Hey, if people really believe that every nation is the would who are "allies" should never keep tabs or attempt to spy on each other, I guess they can believe that. History has shown otherwise and that even allies make efforts to find out what is happening behind closed doors, but maybe we are all beyond that.
You want to live in a world where every phone call you make, every conversation you have on skype, all your emails/text messages - are recorded and stored indefinitely by people hidden behind the scenes?
I already live in that world. My texts go through a third party company, my emails go through google and any of these groups could look at them if they wanted and I would never know. One more set of people copying them isn't that big of a deal for me. I already understand that everything I put online isn't really mine any more. I can claim it and say I wrote it, but its not stored on my PC or on a system that I own. Even what we type here is stored on Team Liquids servers and if they lock this account, I can't force them to delete anything. Facebook owns everything you put up there and even if you delete something, they likley still store it. My skype calls could be recorded by anyone at Microsoft if they wanted to be creepy.
I would rather people face the idea on what the internet is, a network of computers you don't know and storage that you don't own. None of this stuff is protected like physical things and may not be practial for it to have the same protections. Email is not the same as mail sent through the US postal service.
On July 19 2013 03:56 AnomalySC2 wrote:
On July 19 2013 03:50 packrat386 wrote:
On July 19 2013 03:48 AnomalySC2 wrote:
On July 19 2013 03:34 Plansix wrote:
On July 19 2013 03:19 Shiori wrote:
On July 19 2013 02:55 DeepElemBlues wrote: [quote]
As does everyone other country in the world... so what. What you mean is the US has the capability to do something about its opinion and get its opinion satisfied most of the time... which oddly only seems to really piss off people who also have an official opinion about every event that happens anywhere in the world and aren't getting their opinion satisfied most of the time.
That's because everyone is entitled to an opinion, whereas the US seems to think that it's entitled to exercise its influence in other sovereign nations to coerce/demand them to do things.
The problem isn't with having the opinion. It's with being arrogant enough to presume that your opinion somehow trumps sovereignty and/or shit that's none of your business simply because you're strong enough to make it so regardless. Compare it to the way politics plays out in America. Nobody really cares if Bob or Alice have differing views about gay marriage. They care if there are so many Bobs in high places that pressure starts to mount on people who disagree with them. That's the point. Nobody is mad that the US expresses a concern on a certain issue; it's when they have a history of doing shit behind the scenes outside of their jurisdiction that people call them presumptuous and/or arrogant.
It doesn't really matter if other nations have strong opinions on things. Most of them are either too quiet to be of any serious concern or more or less fine with the fact that strong opinions on things are still opinions, and that if someone says "no," you take their answer and respect the sovereignty of their nation. For a country that was founded on the principle that foreign monarchs and powers shouldn't have say over sovereignty instead of the people, the US certainly doesn't seem to extend that courtesy to other nations.
and they're not above telling other countries to do certain things.
Like, oh, non-US countries do to the US and to each other all the time...
Yeah: the US chooses to acquiesce or ignore those things, and the non-US countries deal with it.
What's more, the US intervenes/puts pressure on countries even when the events in question have practically nothing to do with them (e.g. quietly pressuring Swedish authorities to raid The Pirate Bay way back when).
This isn't even taking into account the number of foreign military actions that the US has engaged in since WWII. There is no other Western nation that does those kinds of things with any regularity these days.
America does have a tendency to believe that it can do basically whatever it wants and everyone else will get out of the way.
lolwut
9 times out of 10 America bends over backwards to get people to go along with it. Which has resulted in some bad relationships like say with the Egyptian government under Sadat and Mubarak or the Royal House of Saud. 5 times out of that 10 the American goal is maintaining the liberal internationalist order that gives most other countries influence far beyond their own national capability, and the 1 time out of 10 America actually does remember that it doesn't need permission to act in its national-interest, people get the vapors. America, acting without our leave? We are disappoint.
"National interest" seems to be your catch-all for any action you wish to justify. Every nation has hypothetical "interests" that they can't realize because doing so would require them to do something really illegal, destructive, or immoral. Just because something plausibly benefits America in some way is not in any way moral justification for such an action. I'm not saying that America's actions always usually or even commonly immoral, but that something being a "national interest" doesn't make it justifiable alone.
tl;dr who cares if other countries also spy? It's still wrong for America to do it. A country saying something possibly hypocritical doesn't invalidate the criticism itself. Besides, none of the people on this forum are governments or heads of state; we're criticizing America spying because that's what this thread is about. If a massive European spying program is unveiled, we'll criticize that too.
Breaking out moralistic argument when dealing with nations and their safety, is frankly, naive. National intrest doesn't justify everything, but saying that spying is illegal, destructive, or immoral just comes across as some pie in the sky point of view.
Hey, if people really believe that every nation is the would who are "allies" should never keep tabs or attempt to spy on each other, I guess they can believe that. History has shown otherwise and that even allies make efforts to find out what is happening behind closed doors, but maybe we are all beyond that.
You want to live in a world where every phone call you make, every conversation you have on skype (video or not), all your emails/text messages - are recorded and stored indefinitely by people hidden behind the scenes?
they already are. Just not necessarily by the govt
Like who?
Like anyone to interact with on the internet. Amazon to Facebook to Skype. They all keep your data and sell your information to other companies, or sell ads based on your internet habits. The Government is late to the game, really.
Bullshit justification. Just another angle to float much like the "if you have nothing to hide, then why do you care" line.
It wasn't a "justification". The 'imagine this big bad world if we keep this up' comment was made, and he simply made the point that the end of the world prophecy of internet monitoring has been happening for years. And he is right. Rage on sir, rage on.
I'm not raging, sir. Just pointing out that what they're goal is won't fly with people, and nor will the propaganda they're spewing to try and sway opinions. Notice how the hate for microsoft has gone through the roof now that documents have come out showing they aided the NSA in cracking encrypted hotmail messages. Oh, and gave them direct access to skype calls including video chat. It's not gonna work. It's absurd they even tried in the first place.
That was not what you were pointing out in the post at all. You were attacking him for "justifying" things.
You want to live in a world where every phone call you make, every conversation you have on skype (video or not), all your emails/text messages - are recorded and stored indefinitely by people hidden behind the scenes?
they already are. Just not necessarily by the govt
Bullshit justification. Just another angle to float much like the "if you have nothing to hide, then why do you care" line.
If you want to change the subject and argue other stuff, fine. But I simply responded to that back and forth.
Bluntly, the US seems to have an official opinion on every event that occurs anywhere in the world,
As does everyone other country in the world... so what. What you mean is the US has the capability to do something about its opinion and get its opinion satisfied most of the time... which oddly only seems to really piss off people who also have an official opinion about every event that happens anywhere in the world and aren't getting their opinion satisfied most of the time.
That's because everyone is entitled to an opinion, whereas the US seems to think that it's entitled to exercise its influence in other sovereign nations to coerce/demand them to do things.
The problem isn't with having the opinion. It's with being arrogant enough to presume that your opinion somehow trumps sovereignty and/or shit that's none of your business simply because you're strong enough to make it so regardless. Compare it to the way politics plays out in America. Nobody really cares if Bob or Alice have differing views about gay marriage. They care if there are so many Bobs in high places that pressure starts to mount on people who disagree with them. That's the point. Nobody is mad that the US expresses a concern on a certain issue; it's when they have a history of doing shit behind the scenes outside of their jurisdiction that people call them presumptuous and/or arrogant.
It doesn't really matter if other nations have strong opinions on things. Most of them are either too quiet to be of any serious concern or more or less fine with the fact that strong opinions on things are still opinions, and that if someone says "no," you take their answer and respect the sovereignty of their nation. For a country that was founded on the principle that foreign monarchs and powers shouldn't have say over sovereignty instead of the people, the US certainly doesn't seem to extend that courtesy to other nations.
and they're not above telling other countries to do certain things.
Like, oh, non-US countries do to the US and to each other all the time...
Yeah: the US chooses to acquiesce or ignore those things, and the non-US countries deal with it.
What's more, the US intervenes/puts pressure on countries even when the events in question have practically nothing to do with them (e.g. quietly pressuring Swedish authorities to raid The Pirate Bay way back when).
This isn't even taking into account the number of foreign military actions that the US has engaged in since WWII. There is no other Western nation that does those kinds of things with any regularity these days.
America does have a tendency to believe that it can do basically whatever it wants and everyone else will get out of the way.
lolwut
9 times out of 10 America bends over backwards to get people to go along with it. Which has resulted in some bad relationships like say with the Egyptian government under Sadat and Mubarak or the Royal House of Saud. 5 times out of that 10 the American goal is maintaining the liberal internationalist order that gives most other countries influence far beyond their own national capability, and the 1 time out of 10 America actually does remember that it doesn't need permission to act in its national-interest, people get the vapors. America, acting without our leave? We are disappoint.
"National interest" seems to be your catch-all for any action you wish to justify. Every nation has hypothetical "interests" that they can't realize because doing so would require them to do something really illegal, destructive, or immoral. Just because something plausibly benefits America in some way is not in any way moral justification for such an action. I'm not saying that America's actions always usually or even commonly immoral, but that something being a "national interest" doesn't make it justifiable alone.
tl;dr who cares if other countries also spy? It's still wrong for America to do it. A country saying something possibly hypocritical doesn't invalidate the criticism itself. Besides, none of the people on this forum are governments or heads of state; we're criticizing America spying because that's what this thread is about. If a massive European spying program is unveiled, we'll criticize that too.
Breaking out moralistic argument when dealing with nations and their safety, is frankly, naive. National intrest doesn't justify everything, but saying that spying is illegal, destructive, or immoral just comes across as some pie in the sky point of view.
Hey, if people really believe that every nation is the would who are "allies" should never keep tabs or attempt to spy on each other, I guess they can believe that. History has shown otherwise and that even allies make efforts to find out what is happening behind closed doors, but maybe we are all beyond that.
You want to live in a world where every phone call you make, every conversation you have on skype, all your emails/text messages - are recorded and stored indefinitely by people hidden behind the scenes?
I already live in that world. My texts go through a third party company, my emails go through google and any of these groups could look at them if they wanted and I would never know. One more set of people copying them isn't that big of a deal for me. I already understand that everything I put online isn't really mine any more. I can claim it and say I wrote it, but its not stored on my PC or on a system that I own. Even what we type here is stored on Team Liquids servers and if they lock this account, I can't force them to delete anything. Facebook owns everything you put up there and even if you delete something, they likley still store it. My skype calls could be recorded by anyone at Microsoft if they wanted to be creepy.
I would rather people face the idea on what the internet is, a network of computers you don't know and storage that you don't own. None of this stuff is protected like physical things and may not be practial for it to have the same protections. Email is not the same as mail sent through the US postal service.
On July 19 2013 03:56 AnomalySC2 wrote:
On July 19 2013 03:50 packrat386 wrote:
On July 19 2013 03:48 AnomalySC2 wrote:
On July 19 2013 03:34 Plansix wrote:
On July 19 2013 03:19 Shiori wrote:
On July 19 2013 02:55 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Bluntly, the US seems to have an official opinion on every event that occurs anywhere in the world,
As does everyone other country in the world... so what. What you mean is the US has the capability to do something about its opinion and get its opinion satisfied most of the time... which oddly only seems to really piss off people who also have an official opinion about every event that happens anywhere in the world and aren't getting their opinion satisfied most of the time.
That's because everyone is entitled to an opinion, whereas the US seems to think that it's entitled to exercise its influence in other sovereign nations to coerce/demand them to do things.
The problem isn't with having the opinion. It's with being arrogant enough to presume that your opinion somehow trumps sovereignty and/or shit that's none of your business simply because you're strong enough to make it so regardless. Compare it to the way politics plays out in America. Nobody really cares if Bob or Alice have differing views about gay marriage. They care if there are so many Bobs in high places that pressure starts to mount on people who disagree with them. That's the point. Nobody is mad that the US expresses a concern on a certain issue; it's when they have a history of doing shit behind the scenes outside of their jurisdiction that people call them presumptuous and/or arrogant.
It doesn't really matter if other nations have strong opinions on things. Most of them are either too quiet to be of any serious concern or more or less fine with the fact that strong opinions on things are still opinions, and that if someone says "no," you take their answer and respect the sovereignty of their nation. For a country that was founded on the principle that foreign monarchs and powers shouldn't have say over sovereignty instead of the people, the US certainly doesn't seem to extend that courtesy to other nations.
and they're not above telling other countries to do certain things.
Like, oh, non-US countries do to the US and to each other all the time...
Yeah: the US chooses to acquiesce or ignore those things, and the non-US countries deal with it.
What's more, the US intervenes/puts pressure on countries even when the events in question have practically nothing to do with them (e.g. quietly pressuring Swedish authorities to raid The Pirate Bay way back when).
This isn't even taking into account the number of foreign military actions that the US has engaged in since WWII. There is no other Western nation that does those kinds of things with any regularity these days.
America does have a tendency to believe that it can do basically whatever it wants and everyone else will get out of the way.
lolwut
9 times out of 10 America bends over backwards to get people to go along with it. Which has resulted in some bad relationships like say with the Egyptian government under Sadat and Mubarak or the Royal House of Saud. 5 times out of that 10 the American goal is maintaining the liberal internationalist order that gives most other countries influence far beyond their own national capability, and the 1 time out of 10 America actually does remember that it doesn't need permission to act in its national-interest, people get the vapors. America, acting without our leave? We are disappoint.
"National interest" seems to be your catch-all for any action you wish to justify. Every nation has hypothetical "interests" that they can't realize because doing so would require them to do something really illegal, destructive, or immoral. Just because something plausibly benefits America in some way is not in any way moral justification for such an action. I'm not saying that America's actions always usually or even commonly immoral, but that something being a "national interest" doesn't make it justifiable alone.
tl;dr who cares if other countries also spy? It's still wrong for America to do it. A country saying something possibly hypocritical doesn't invalidate the criticism itself. Besides, none of the people on this forum are governments or heads of state; we're criticizing America spying because that's what this thread is about. If a massive European spying program is unveiled, we'll criticize that too.
Breaking out moralistic argument when dealing with nations and their safety, is frankly, naive. National intrest doesn't justify everything, but saying that spying is illegal, destructive, or immoral just comes across as some pie in the sky point of view.
Hey, if people really believe that every nation is the would who are "allies" should never keep tabs or attempt to spy on each other, I guess they can believe that. History has shown otherwise and that even allies make efforts to find out what is happening behind closed doors, but maybe we are all beyond that.
You want to live in a world where every phone call you make, every conversation you have on skype (video or not), all your emails/text messages - are recorded and stored indefinitely by people hidden behind the scenes?
they already are. Just not necessarily by the govt
Like who?
Like anyone to interact with on the internet. Amazon to Facebook to Skype. They all keep your data and sell your information to other companies, or sell ads based on your internet habits. The Government is late to the game, really.
Bullshit justification. Just another angle to float much like the "if you have nothing to hide, then why do you care" line.
No, thats not what I said. I said, "If you have something you don't want people to know, dont put it on the internet."
There was a similar phrase used before the era of the internet saying "If you have a secret, don't put it in a letter."
Of couse we should have some level of privacy on the internet, but its not unlimited. That is unreasonable. I don't even have unlimited privacy in my own home, and that is a physical real place that I own.
Bluntly, the US seems to have an official opinion on every event that occurs anywhere in the world,
As does everyone other country in the world... so what. What you mean is the US has the capability to do something about its opinion and get its opinion satisfied most of the time... which oddly only seems to really piss off people who also have an official opinion about every event that happens anywhere in the world and aren't getting their opinion satisfied most of the time.
That's because everyone is entitled to an opinion, whereas the US seems to think that it's entitled to exercise its influence in other sovereign nations to coerce/demand them to do things.
The problem isn't with having the opinion. It's with being arrogant enough to presume that your opinion somehow trumps sovereignty and/or shit that's none of your business simply because you're strong enough to make it so regardless. Compare it to the way politics plays out in America. Nobody really cares if Bob or Alice have differing views about gay marriage. They care if there are so many Bobs in high places that pressure starts to mount on people who disagree with them. That's the point. Nobody is mad that the US expresses a concern on a certain issue; it's when they have a history of doing shit behind the scenes outside of their jurisdiction that people call them presumptuous and/or arrogant.
It doesn't really matter if other nations have strong opinions on things. Most of them are either too quiet to be of any serious concern or more or less fine with the fact that strong opinions on things are still opinions, and that if someone says "no," you take their answer and respect the sovereignty of their nation. For a country that was founded on the principle that foreign monarchs and powers shouldn't have say over sovereignty instead of the people, the US certainly doesn't seem to extend that courtesy to other nations.
and they're not above telling other countries to do certain things.
Like, oh, non-US countries do to the US and to each other all the time...
Yeah: the US chooses to acquiesce or ignore those things, and the non-US countries deal with it.
What's more, the US intervenes/puts pressure on countries even when the events in question have practically nothing to do with them (e.g. quietly pressuring Swedish authorities to raid The Pirate Bay way back when).
This isn't even taking into account the number of foreign military actions that the US has engaged in since WWII. There is no other Western nation that does those kinds of things with any regularity these days.
America does have a tendency to believe that it can do basically whatever it wants and everyone else will get out of the way.
lolwut
9 times out of 10 America bends over backwards to get people to go along with it. Which has resulted in some bad relationships like say with the Egyptian government under Sadat and Mubarak or the Royal House of Saud. 5 times out of that 10 the American goal is maintaining the liberal internationalist order that gives most other countries influence far beyond their own national capability, and the 1 time out of 10 America actually does remember that it doesn't need permission to act in its national-interest, people get the vapors. America, acting without our leave? We are disappoint.
"National interest" seems to be your catch-all for any action you wish to justify. Every nation has hypothetical "interests" that they can't realize because doing so would require them to do something really illegal, destructive, or immoral. Just because something plausibly benefits America in some way is not in any way moral justification for such an action. I'm not saying that America's actions always usually or even commonly immoral, but that something being a "national interest" doesn't make it justifiable alone.
tl;dr who cares if other countries also spy? It's still wrong for America to do it. A country saying something possibly hypocritical doesn't invalidate the criticism itself. Besides, none of the people on this forum are governments or heads of state; we're criticizing America spying because that's what this thread is about. If a massive European spying program is unveiled, we'll criticize that too.
Breaking out moralistic argument when dealing with nations and their safety, is frankly, naive. National intrest doesn't justify everything, but saying that spying is illegal, destructive, or immoral just comes across as some pie in the sky point of view.
Hey, if people really believe that every nation is the would who are "allies" should never keep tabs or attempt to spy on each other, I guess they can believe that. History has shown otherwise and that even allies make efforts to find out what is happening behind closed doors, but maybe we are all beyond that.
You want to live in a world where every phone call you make, every conversation you have on skype, all your emails/text messages - are recorded and stored indefinitely by people hidden behind the scenes?
I already live in that world. My texts go through a third party company, my emails go through google and any of these groups could look at them if they wanted and I would never know. One more set of people copying them isn't that big of a deal for me. I already understand that everything I put online isn't really mine any more. I can claim it and say I wrote it, but its not stored on my PC or on a system that I own. Even what we type here is stored on Team Liquids servers and if they lock this account, I can't force them to delete anything. Facebook owns everything you put up there and even if you delete something, they likley still store it. My skype calls could be recorded by anyone at Microsoft if they wanted to be creepy.
I would rather people face the idea on what the internet is, a network of computers you don't know and storage that you don't own. None of this stuff is protected like physical things and may not be practial for it to have the same protections. Email is not the same as mail sent through the US postal service.
On July 19 2013 03:56 AnomalySC2 wrote:
On July 19 2013 03:50 packrat386 wrote:
On July 19 2013 03:48 AnomalySC2 wrote:
On July 19 2013 03:34 Plansix wrote:
On July 19 2013 03:19 Shiori wrote:
On July 19 2013 02:55 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Bluntly, the US seems to have an official opinion on every event that occurs anywhere in the world,
As does everyone other country in the world... so what. What you mean is the US has the capability to do something about its opinion and get its opinion satisfied most of the time... which oddly only seems to really piss off people who also have an official opinion about every event that happens anywhere in the world and aren't getting their opinion satisfied most of the time.
That's because everyone is entitled to an opinion, whereas the US seems to think that it's entitled to exercise its influence in other sovereign nations to coerce/demand them to do things.
The problem isn't with having the opinion. It's with being arrogant enough to presume that your opinion somehow trumps sovereignty and/or shit that's none of your business simply because you're strong enough to make it so regardless. Compare it to the way politics plays out in America. Nobody really cares if Bob or Alice have differing views about gay marriage. They care if there are so many Bobs in high places that pressure starts to mount on people who disagree with them. That's the point. Nobody is mad that the US expresses a concern on a certain issue; it's when they have a history of doing shit behind the scenes outside of their jurisdiction that people call them presumptuous and/or arrogant.
It doesn't really matter if other nations have strong opinions on things. Most of them are either too quiet to be of any serious concern or more or less fine with the fact that strong opinions on things are still opinions, and that if someone says "no," you take their answer and respect the sovereignty of their nation. For a country that was founded on the principle that foreign monarchs and powers shouldn't have say over sovereignty instead of the people, the US certainly doesn't seem to extend that courtesy to other nations.
and they're not above telling other countries to do certain things.
Like, oh, non-US countries do to the US and to each other all the time...
Yeah: the US chooses to acquiesce or ignore those things, and the non-US countries deal with it.
What's more, the US intervenes/puts pressure on countries even when the events in question have practically nothing to do with them (e.g. quietly pressuring Swedish authorities to raid The Pirate Bay way back when).
This isn't even taking into account the number of foreign military actions that the US has engaged in since WWII. There is no other Western nation that does those kinds of things with any regularity these days.
America does have a tendency to believe that it can do basically whatever it wants and everyone else will get out of the way.
lolwut
9 times out of 10 America bends over backwards to get people to go along with it. Which has resulted in some bad relationships like say with the Egyptian government under Sadat and Mubarak or the Royal House of Saud. 5 times out of that 10 the American goal is maintaining the liberal internationalist order that gives most other countries influence far beyond their own national capability, and the 1 time out of 10 America actually does remember that it doesn't need permission to act in its national-interest, people get the vapors. America, acting without our leave? We are disappoint.
"National interest" seems to be your catch-all for any action you wish to justify. Every nation has hypothetical "interests" that they can't realize because doing so would require them to do something really illegal, destructive, or immoral. Just because something plausibly benefits America in some way is not in any way moral justification for such an action. I'm not saying that America's actions always usually or even commonly immoral, but that something being a "national interest" doesn't make it justifiable alone.
tl;dr who cares if other countries also spy? It's still wrong for America to do it. A country saying something possibly hypocritical doesn't invalidate the criticism itself. Besides, none of the people on this forum are governments or heads of state; we're criticizing America spying because that's what this thread is about. If a massive European spying program is unveiled, we'll criticize that too.
Breaking out moralistic argument when dealing with nations and their safety, is frankly, naive. National intrest doesn't justify everything, but saying that spying is illegal, destructive, or immoral just comes across as some pie in the sky point of view.
Hey, if people really believe that every nation is the would who are "allies" should never keep tabs or attempt to spy on each other, I guess they can believe that. History has shown otherwise and that even allies make efforts to find out what is happening behind closed doors, but maybe we are all beyond that.
You want to live in a world where every phone call you make, every conversation you have on skype (video or not), all your emails/text messages - are recorded and stored indefinitely by people hidden behind the scenes?
they already are. Just not necessarily by the govt
Like who?
Like anyone to interact with on the internet. Amazon to Facebook to Skype. They all keep your data and sell your information to other companies, or sell ads based on your internet habits. The Government is late to the game, really.
Bullshit justification. Just another angle to float much like the "if you have nothing to hide, then why do you care" line.
No, thats not what I said. I said, "If you have something you don't want people to know, dont put it on the internet."
There was a similar phrase used before the era of the internet saying "If you have a secret, don't put it in a letter."
Of couse we should have some level of privacy on the internet, but its not unlimited. That is unreasonable. I don't even have unlimited privacy in my own home, and that is a physical real place that I own.
And what about privacy when talking on your phone? That is all recorded and analyzed as well. Hell, what about privacy in your own living room. Such as if you were to buy an xbone which comes with an advanced mandatory camera backed by microsoft's own data center to store everything?
Bluntly, the US seems to have an official opinion on every event that occurs anywhere in the world,
As does everyone other country in the world... so what. What you mean is the US has the capability to do something about its opinion and get its opinion satisfied most of the time... which oddly only seems to really piss off people who also have an official opinion about every event that happens anywhere in the world and aren't getting their opinion satisfied most of the time.
That's because everyone is entitled to an opinion, whereas the US seems to think that it's entitled to exercise its influence in other sovereign nations to coerce/demand them to do things.
The problem isn't with having the opinion. It's with being arrogant enough to presume that your opinion somehow trumps sovereignty and/or shit that's none of your business simply because you're strong enough to make it so regardless. Compare it to the way politics plays out in America. Nobody really cares if Bob or Alice have differing views about gay marriage. They care if there are so many Bobs in high places that pressure starts to mount on people who disagree with them. That's the point. Nobody is mad that the US expresses a concern on a certain issue; it's when they have a history of doing shit behind the scenes outside of their jurisdiction that people call them presumptuous and/or arrogant.
It doesn't really matter if other nations have strong opinions on things. Most of them are either too quiet to be of any serious concern or more or less fine with the fact that strong opinions on things are still opinions, and that if someone says "no," you take their answer and respect the sovereignty of their nation. For a country that was founded on the principle that foreign monarchs and powers shouldn't have say over sovereignty instead of the people, the US certainly doesn't seem to extend that courtesy to other nations.
and they're not above telling other countries to do certain things.
Like, oh, non-US countries do to the US and to each other all the time...
Yeah: the US chooses to acquiesce or ignore those things, and the non-US countries deal with it.
What's more, the US intervenes/puts pressure on countries even when the events in question have practically nothing to do with them (e.g. quietly pressuring Swedish authorities to raid The Pirate Bay way back when).
This isn't even taking into account the number of foreign military actions that the US has engaged in since WWII. There is no other Western nation that does those kinds of things with any regularity these days.
America does have a tendency to believe that it can do basically whatever it wants and everyone else will get out of the way.
lolwut
9 times out of 10 America bends over backwards to get people to go along with it. Which has resulted in some bad relationships like say with the Egyptian government under Sadat and Mubarak or the Royal House of Saud. 5 times out of that 10 the American goal is maintaining the liberal internationalist order that gives most other countries influence far beyond their own national capability, and the 1 time out of 10 America actually does remember that it doesn't need permission to act in its national-interest, people get the vapors. America, acting without our leave? We are disappoint.
"National interest" seems to be your catch-all for any action you wish to justify. Every nation has hypothetical "interests" that they can't realize because doing so would require them to do something really illegal, destructive, or immoral. Just because something plausibly benefits America in some way is not in any way moral justification for such an action. I'm not saying that America's actions always usually or even commonly immoral, but that something being a "national interest" doesn't make it justifiable alone.
tl;dr who cares if other countries also spy? It's still wrong for America to do it. A country saying something possibly hypocritical doesn't invalidate the criticism itself. Besides, none of the people on this forum are governments or heads of state; we're criticizing America spying because that's what this thread is about. If a massive European spying program is unveiled, we'll criticize that too.
Breaking out moralistic argument when dealing with nations and their safety, is frankly, naive. National intrest doesn't justify everything, but saying that spying is illegal, destructive, or immoral just comes across as some pie in the sky point of view.
Hey, if people really believe that every nation is the would who are "allies" should never keep tabs or attempt to spy on each other, I guess they can believe that. History has shown otherwise and that even allies make efforts to find out what is happening behind closed doors, but maybe we are all beyond that.
You want to live in a world where every phone call you make, every conversation you have on skype, all your emails/text messages - are recorded and stored indefinitely by people hidden behind the scenes?
I already live in that world. My texts go through a third party company, my emails go through google and any of these groups could look at them if they wanted and I would never know. One more set of people copying them isn't that big of a deal for me. I already understand that everything I put online isn't really mine any more. I can claim it and say I wrote it, but its not stored on my PC or on a system that I own. Even what we type here is stored on Team Liquids servers and if they lock this account, I can't force them to delete anything. Facebook owns everything you put up there and even if you delete something, they likley still store it. My skype calls could be recorded by anyone at Microsoft if they wanted to be creepy.
I would rather people face the idea on what the internet is, a network of computers you don't know and storage that you don't own. None of this stuff is protected like physical things and may not be practial for it to have the same protections. Email is not the same as mail sent through the US postal service.
On July 19 2013 03:56 AnomalySC2 wrote:
On July 19 2013 03:50 packrat386 wrote:
On July 19 2013 03:48 AnomalySC2 wrote:
On July 19 2013 03:34 Plansix wrote:
On July 19 2013 03:19 Shiori wrote:
On July 19 2013 02:55 DeepElemBlues wrote: [quote]
As does everyone other country in the world... so what. What you mean is the US has the capability to do something about its opinion and get its opinion satisfied most of the time... which oddly only seems to really piss off people who also have an official opinion about every event that happens anywhere in the world and aren't getting their opinion satisfied most of the time.
That's because everyone is entitled to an opinion, whereas the US seems to think that it's entitled to exercise its influence in other sovereign nations to coerce/demand them to do things.
The problem isn't with having the opinion. It's with being arrogant enough to presume that your opinion somehow trumps sovereignty and/or shit that's none of your business simply because you're strong enough to make it so regardless. Compare it to the way politics plays out in America. Nobody really cares if Bob or Alice have differing views about gay marriage. They care if there are so many Bobs in high places that pressure starts to mount on people who disagree with them. That's the point. Nobody is mad that the US expresses a concern on a certain issue; it's when they have a history of doing shit behind the scenes outside of their jurisdiction that people call them presumptuous and/or arrogant.
It doesn't really matter if other nations have strong opinions on things. Most of them are either too quiet to be of any serious concern or more or less fine with the fact that strong opinions on things are still opinions, and that if someone says "no," you take their answer and respect the sovereignty of their nation. For a country that was founded on the principle that foreign monarchs and powers shouldn't have say over sovereignty instead of the people, the US certainly doesn't seem to extend that courtesy to other nations.
and they're not above telling other countries to do certain things.
Like, oh, non-US countries do to the US and to each other all the time...
Yeah: the US chooses to acquiesce or ignore those things, and the non-US countries deal with it.
What's more, the US intervenes/puts pressure on countries even when the events in question have practically nothing to do with them (e.g. quietly pressuring Swedish authorities to raid The Pirate Bay way back when).
This isn't even taking into account the number of foreign military actions that the US has engaged in since WWII. There is no other Western nation that does those kinds of things with any regularity these days.
America does have a tendency to believe that it can do basically whatever it wants and everyone else will get out of the way.
lolwut
9 times out of 10 America bends over backwards to get people to go along with it. Which has resulted in some bad relationships like say with the Egyptian government under Sadat and Mubarak or the Royal House of Saud. 5 times out of that 10 the American goal is maintaining the liberal internationalist order that gives most other countries influence far beyond their own national capability, and the 1 time out of 10 America actually does remember that it doesn't need permission to act in its national-interest, people get the vapors. America, acting without our leave? We are disappoint.
"National interest" seems to be your catch-all for any action you wish to justify. Every nation has hypothetical "interests" that they can't realize because doing so would require them to do something really illegal, destructive, or immoral. Just because something plausibly benefits America in some way is not in any way moral justification for such an action. I'm not saying that America's actions always usually or even commonly immoral, but that something being a "national interest" doesn't make it justifiable alone.
tl;dr who cares if other countries also spy? It's still wrong for America to do it. A country saying something possibly hypocritical doesn't invalidate the criticism itself. Besides, none of the people on this forum are governments or heads of state; we're criticizing America spying because that's what this thread is about. If a massive European spying program is unveiled, we'll criticize that too.
Breaking out moralistic argument when dealing with nations and their safety, is frankly, naive. National intrest doesn't justify everything, but saying that spying is illegal, destructive, or immoral just comes across as some pie in the sky point of view.
Hey, if people really believe that every nation is the would who are "allies" should never keep tabs or attempt to spy on each other, I guess they can believe that. History has shown otherwise and that even allies make efforts to find out what is happening behind closed doors, but maybe we are all beyond that.
You want to live in a world where every phone call you make, every conversation you have on skype (video or not), all your emails/text messages - are recorded and stored indefinitely by people hidden behind the scenes?
they already are. Just not necessarily by the govt
Like who?
Like anyone to interact with on the internet. Amazon to Facebook to Skype. They all keep your data and sell your information to other companies, or sell ads based on your internet habits. The Government is late to the game, really.
Bullshit justification. Just another angle to float much like the "if you have nothing to hide, then why do you care" line.
No, thats not what I said. I said, "If you have something you don't want people to know, dont put it on the internet."
There was a similar phrase used before the era of the internet saying "If you have a secret, don't put it in a letter."
Of couse we should have some level of privacy on the internet, but its not unlimited. That is unreasonable. I don't even have unlimited privacy in my own home, and that is a physical real place that I own.
And what about privacy when talking on your phone? That is all recorded and analyzed as well. Hell, what about privacy in your own living room. Such as if you were to buy an xbone which comes with an advanced mandatory camera backed by microsoft's own data center to store everything?
My phone is protected by normal laws and they would need to get a wire tap to listen to my phone calls for any criminal case. If I was making international phone calls, I might be tagged by the prism system if I was somehow connected to one of the flagged phone numbers that they are watching. The rest of the time, they would need a wire tap, which requires a court order(which are also secret, FYI, because they don't issue public orders for wire taps, because that would be dumb). And even with the prism system, they only get the phone numbers not the names. Of course they can dig deeper if necessary, but that requires further oversite by the judge(from the reports on how the system works)
As for the Xbox thing, that isn't part of the issue. That system isn't going to be sending data back to some center or even be on. And if it does send data back at all times or something random like, there are people who will figure that out in 2 days of that system launching and I won't buy one.
But in generally, if you don't want people looking into your living room, don't put a camera there and then connect it to the internet.
Beyond the moral implication of spying on foreigners in foreign countries (where the US has no jurisdiction), the US are also most likely violating international law both in the form of signed treaties and customary international law. Americans should remember that US law is (almost) entirely irrelevant when the issue is the US State interfering with the rights of people outside its jurisdiction.
Edit: You have to understand that if my government starts invading my privacy I, as a citizen, can attempt to do something about it. If a foreign government does it, I have no direct means of interfering, especially if my own government doesn't have the resourses to stop it. In a sense, China's got this problem more figured out than every else.
“In many ways it’s even more troubling than [Bush era] warrantless wiretapping, in part because the program is purely domestic,” says Alex Abdo, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project.”But this is also an indiscriminate dragnet. Say what you will about warrantless wiretapping, at least it was targeted at agents of Al Qaeda. This includes every customer of Verizon Business Services.”
You all can try to defend what they've been doing in any way you want, but the truth is they want complete and total surveillance on anything you do in your life whether you're deemed dangerous or not.
On July 19 2013 03:58 ref4 wrote: You guys seriously think nations don't spy on their "allies"? Your friends today might very well be your enemies tomorrow. It's a country's best interest to keep tabs on what their "enemies" as well as their "allies" are up to at all times provided they have the resources to.
Hell, Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were allied during WWII and look what happened.....
And the US was an ally with Japan. I think they gave us medals of friendship a few months before the bombing at Pearl Harbor.
I wasn't aware that the world was in a state of total war. In fact, it's interesting that you bring up WWII, since that is the most recent instance of the US being in total war with major European Union powers.
If the world were actually in a state of such uncertainty; if bombs were raining on London; if Germany had just taken over France; if Japan was ravaging China; and/or if there were powerful coalitions of serious, ideological, and threatening countries engaged in a campaign to take over Europe or North America (or anywhere, really) then I would have no problem whatsoever with spying.
But that isn't happening, and there's no indication that it's happening, and there's even less indication that, if it were happening, these major powers would be communicating with Skype rather than, you know, an intranet.
Yes we have moved beyond total war and most nations don't engage in all out conflict. But just because we dont do that doesn't mean we all just get along and are totally trust each other forever.
From The Telegraph, where they bring up the fact that France was well known for industrial espionage in the 90s and 00's. We were all allies at the time.
Its fun to jump up and down and act outraged, but at the end of the day, we all have glass houses.
I am not the French government. Simply because "everyone else is doing it" doesn't mean that people can't object to particularly massive examples when they are exposed.
The argument you are making is a logical fallacy called tu quoque.
Honestly, everything you just said makes the need for a mass surveillance program more necessary. You are right, the days of WW2 are over. Now we live in a world of small terrorist cells embedded with civilians intending to kill as many people as possible. We live in a different time, new times call for new measures to keep us safe. People complain when they are not protected for not seeing the attack coming, but then the same people complain that government is going too far. Its one or the other.
But I thought we were spying on governments so that they don't stop being our allies! Now it's about terrorists (i.e. civilians who aren't affiliated with any army or particular nation)? Tell me: do you think that this program is going to catch a lot of terrorists? Do you think that terrorists, who are willing to wait years for a plan to come together, who are driven by religious fanaticism and ideological hatred of the West, are going to send Skype messages like "Hey, are you ready for tomorrow's operation "death to the infidels"? Are you looking forward to punishing American scum for its actions in [insert recent conflict here] and their ignorance of Allah's divine creation? Make sure you meet me in front of the White House at 9 a.m. tomorrow morning, and bring the nuclear weapons you have acquired from the Russian government through Putin, who is, as we both know, a communist, and who said "I hate America and miss Stalin." May the Force be with you. If you need to contact me, my current address is [insert] and after the bombing I will be staying at [insert]."
Unless you think that terrorists are as moronic as the ones listed above (which doesn't seem to be the case considering that most of the organized terrorists like those responsible for 9/11 were meticulous and educated) they're not going to advertise their plans, contact bin Laden from their work e-mail, or have nightly Skype conversations about terrorism.
You know what would be even more effective at getting rid of terrorists embedded in civilian populations? Disallowing any and all foreign communications without a written request form and government permission. How about making it illegal to leave your house without a request in writing and without being accompanied by an FBI agent? How about installing security cameras in every house? How about permitting raids without warrants on anyone who is known to have bought any household product that could hypothetically be used to manufacture a weapon?
The things I just listed are all obviously fucking retarded. But this surveillance program is also retarded, and the justification that it'll somehow increase safety is dubious at best. Even if it did, that alone doesn't justify the program eliminating all electronic privacy.
And even with the prism system, they only get the phone numbers not the names. Of course they can dig deeper if necessary, but that requires further oversite by the judge(from the reports on how the system works)
You can literally find the location of a phone number, its carrier, and possibly the owner simply by googling it or snooping around. It's so trivially easy that I'd be very surprised if searching for a phone number didn't immediately list address and last known owner right next to it. It makes no sense not to do so, given how easy it is.
On July 19 2013 04:50 Sbrubbles wrote: Beyond the moral implication of spying on foreigners in foreign countries (where the US has no jurisdiction), the US are also most likely violating international law both in the form of signed treaties and customary international law. Americans should remember that US law is (almost) entirely irrelevant when the issue is the US State interfering with the rights of people outside its jurisdiction.
Edit: You have to understand that if my government starts invading my privacy I, as a citizen, can attempt to do something about it. If a foreign government does it, I have no direct means of interfering, especially if my own government doesn't have the resourses to stop it. In a sense, China's got this problem more figured out than every else.
First off, you can't do anything about it. What are you as a peson going to do? You'd need a group of people behind you to do anything. The days of one man starting an armed revolt are over, they died a long time ago. Also, international laws are the ones that are violated most often; whenever I see people say "my international laws are violated" I just laugh. Few countries actually follow international laws, and even fewer attempt to hide the fact that they violate these laws time and time again. It doesn't matter if the spying program is legal, it's never supposed to be seen in the light of day.
And even with the prism system, they only get the phone numbers not the names. Of course they can dig deeper if necessary, but that requires further oversite by the judge(from the reports on how the system works)
You can literally find the location of a phone number, its carrier, and possibly the owner simply by googling it or snooping around. It's so trivially easy that I'd be very surprised if searching for a phone number didn't immediately list address and last known owner right next to it. It makes no sense not to do so, given how easy it is.
I am sorry, you are full of shit on this one. I often have to employee PIs to find out who is connected to a specific phone numbers and other information. Google searches get you shit and information that is often outdated or just flat out wrong. It also doesn't help when they use other names or phone not connected to contract.
On July 19 2013 04:50 Sbrubbles wrote: Beyond the moral implication of spying on foreigners in foreign countries (where the US has no jurisdiction), the US are also most likely violating international law both in the form of signed treaties and customary international law. Americans should remember that US law is (almost) entirely irrelevant when the issue is the US State interfering with the rights of people outside its jurisdiction.
Edit: You have to understand that if my government starts invading my privacy I, as a citizen, can attempt to do something about it. If a foreign government does it, I have no direct means of interfering, especially if my own government doesn't have the resourses to stop it. In a sense, China's got this problem more figured out than every else.
First off, you can't do anything about it. What are you as a peson going to do? You'd need a group of people behind you to do anything. The days of one man starting an armed revolt are over, they died a long time ago. Also, international laws are the ones that are violated most often; whenever I see people say "my international laws are violated" I just laugh. Few countries actually follow international laws, and even fewer attempt to hide the fact that they violate these laws time and time again. It doesn't matter if the spying program is legal, it's never supposed to be seen in the light of day.
Terrorism is disgusting but it's not only the act of mentally ill people. It actually has reasons which extremists use for their "benefits". But reasons are reasons and when a government violates the rights of a huge amount of people all over the world it should be seen as a cause of terrorism and not a measure against it.
Whistle-blowing is actually a step to open discussion about shit that goes wrong in this world. And discussion is the first step to fix shit that goes wrong in this world. Fixing shit that goes wrong in this world is the first step to peace.
I say give him this price not only because it's lost it's meaning anyway but because Snowden actually gave us a tool to create peace. It's not his fault that we are to much of power-obsessed, egocentric, disillusioned idiots to recognize what he did for us.
On July 19 2013 04:50 Sbrubbles wrote: Beyond the moral implication of spying on foreigners in foreign countries (where the US has no jurisdiction), the US are also most likely violating international law both in the form of signed treaties and customary international law. Americans should remember that US law is (almost) entirely irrelevant when the issue is the US State interfering with the rights of people outside its jurisdiction.
Edit: You have to understand that if my government starts invading my privacy I, as a citizen, can attempt to do something about it. If a foreign government does it, I have no direct means of interfering, especially if my own government doesn't have the resourses to stop it. In a sense, China's got this problem more figured out than every else.
First off, you can't do anything about it. What are you as a peson going to do? You'd need a group of people behind you to do anything. The days of one man starting an armed revolt are over, they died a long time ago. Also, international laws are the ones that are violated most often; whenever I see people say "my international laws are violated" I just laugh. Few countries actually follow international laws, and even fewer attempt to hide the fact that they violate these laws time and time again. It doesn't matter if the spying program is legal, it's never supposed to be seen in the light of day.
lol. Just lol.
He is 100% correct. Other countries flaw out ignores international law. China hacks US companies all the time and is part of the UN. We complain about it too, and they just ignore us and we continue trading with them. Russia just ignores sections of law of laws they don't like, like stuff about the Siberian sea or who should get weapons in a conflict.
We don't all get along as well as everyone thinks. International law is more of a suggestion, rather than an order.
On July 19 2013 04:50 Sbrubbles wrote: Beyond the moral implication of spying on foreigners in foreign countries (where the US has no jurisdiction), the US are also most likely violating international law both in the form of signed treaties and customary international law. Americans should remember that US law is (almost) entirely irrelevant when the issue is the US State interfering with the rights of people outside its jurisdiction.
Edit: You have to understand that if my government starts invading my privacy I, as a citizen, can attempt to do something about it. If a foreign government does it, I have no direct means of interfering, especially if my own government doesn't have the resourses to stop it. In a sense, China's got this problem more figured out than every else.
First off, you can't do anything about it. What are you as a peson going to do? You'd need a group of people behind you to do anything. The days of one man starting an armed revolt are over, they died a long time ago. Also, international laws are the ones that are violated most often; whenever I see people say "my international laws are violated" I just laugh. Few countries actually follow international laws, and even fewer attempt to hide the fact that they violate these laws time and time again. It doesn't matter if the spying program is legal, it's never supposed to be seen in the light of day.
It seems that you don't understand the purpose of international law nor the reason your country chose to be a determinant factor in establishing it as a system. But if you think international law just doesn't matter, then I have no reason to argue with you.
On July 19 2013 04:50 Sbrubbles wrote: Beyond the moral implication of spying on foreigners in foreign countries (where the US has no jurisdiction), the US are also most likely violating international law both in the form of signed treaties and customary international law. Americans should remember that US law is (almost) entirely irrelevant when the issue is the US State interfering with the rights of people outside its jurisdiction.
Edit: You have to understand that if my government starts invading my privacy I, as a citizen, can attempt to do something about it. If a foreign government does it, I have no direct means of interfering, especially if my own government doesn't have the resourses to stop it. In a sense, China's got this problem more figured out than every else.
First off, you can't do anything about it. What are you as a peson going to do? You'd need a group of people behind you to do anything. The days of one man starting an armed revolt are over, they died a long time ago. Also, international laws are the ones that are violated most often; whenever I see people say "my international laws are violated" I just laugh. Few countries actually follow international laws, and even fewer attempt to hide the fact that they violate these laws time and time again. It doesn't matter if the spying program is legal, it's never supposed to be seen in the light of day.
It seems that you don't understand the purpose of international law nor the reason your country chose to be a determinant factor in establishing it as a system. But if you think international law just doesn't matter, then I have no reason to argue with you.
Here is a question, what do you do to Russia or the US when they break international law?
On July 19 2013 04:50 Sbrubbles wrote: Beyond the moral implication of spying on foreigners in foreign countries (where the US has no jurisdiction), the US are also most likely violating international law both in the form of signed treaties and customary international law. Americans should remember that US law is (almost) entirely irrelevant when the issue is the US State interfering with the rights of people outside its jurisdiction.
Edit: You have to understand that if my government starts invading my privacy I, as a citizen, can attempt to do something about it. If a foreign government does it, I have no direct means of interfering, especially if my own government doesn't have the resourses to stop it. In a sense, China's got this problem more figured out than every else.
First off, you can't do anything about it. What are you as a peson going to do? You'd need a group of people behind you to do anything. The days of one man starting an armed revolt are over, they died a long time ago. Also, international laws are the ones that are violated most often; whenever I see people say "my international laws are violated" I just laugh. Few countries actually follow international laws, and even fewer attempt to hide the fact that they violate these laws time and time again. It doesn't matter if the spying program is legal, it's never supposed to be seen in the light of day.
lol. Just lol.
He is 100% correct. Other countries flaw out ignores international law. China hacks US companies all the time and is part of the UN. We complain about it too, and they just ignore us and we continue trading with them. Russia just ignores sections of law of laws they don't like, like stuff about the Siberian sea or who should get weapons in a conflict.
We don't all get along as well as everyone thinks. International law is more of a suggestion, rather than an order.
And what about the, who cares if it isn't legal purely because it wasn't supposed to be known about ? Meth Labs are all legal now, excellent logic.
On July 19 2013 04:50 Sbrubbles wrote: Beyond the moral implication of spying on foreigners in foreign countries (where the US has no jurisdiction), the US are also most likely violating international law both in the form of signed treaties and customary international law. Americans should remember that US law is (almost) entirely irrelevant when the issue is the US State interfering with the rights of people outside its jurisdiction.
Edit: You have to understand that if my government starts invading my privacy I, as a citizen, can attempt to do something about it. If a foreign government does it, I have no direct means of interfering, especially if my own government doesn't have the resourses to stop it. In a sense, China's got this problem more figured out than every else.
First off, you can't do anything about it. What are you as a peson going to do? You'd need a group of people behind you to do anything. The days of one man starting an armed revolt are over, they died a long time ago. Also, international laws are the ones that are violated most often; whenever I see people say "my international laws are violated" I just laugh. Few countries actually follow international laws, and even fewer attempt to hide the fact that they violate these laws time and time again. It doesn't matter if the spying program is legal, it's never supposed to be seen in the light of day.
lol. Just lol.
He is 100% correct. Other countries flaw out ignores international law. China hacks US companies all the time and is part of the UN. We complain about it too, and they just ignore us and we continue trading with them. Russia just ignores sections of law of laws they don't like, like stuff about the Siberian sea or who should get weapons in a conflict.
We don't all get along as well as everyone thinks. International law is more of a suggestion, rather than an order.
And what about the, who cares if it isn't legal purely because it wasn't supposed to be known about ? Meth Labs are all legal now, excellent logic.
You are fond of taking someones argument and just running to really stupid places with it. Spying is illegal by the UN laws, but a lot of countries do it anyways. Hacking computers is also illegal, but china does it all the time and doesn't give a shit. We yell at them all the time for it, but they do it. France spied on German companies between 200-2010 and there was nothing they could do about it either. The US caught a large number of Russian spies in the US a few years ago and we just traded them for a few things we wanted from Russia and moved on.
And let us not forget Putin stealing a Super Bowl ring from the owner of the Patriots front of everyone. That was pretty funny and he still claims was a gift to this day.
On July 19 2013 04:50 Sbrubbles wrote: Beyond the moral implication of spying on foreigners in foreign countries (where the US has no jurisdiction), the US are also most likely violating international law both in the form of signed treaties and customary international law. Americans should remember that US law is (almost) entirely irrelevant when the issue is the US State interfering with the rights of people outside its jurisdiction.
Edit: You have to understand that if my government starts invading my privacy I, as a citizen, can attempt to do something about it. If a foreign government does it, I have no direct means of interfering, especially if my own government doesn't have the resourses to stop it. In a sense, China's got this problem more figured out than every else.
First off, you can't do anything about it. What are you as a peson going to do? You'd need a group of people behind you to do anything. The days of one man starting an armed revolt are over, they died a long time ago. Also, international laws are the ones that are violated most often; whenever I see people say "my international laws are violated" I just laugh. Few countries actually follow international laws, and even fewer attempt to hide the fact that they violate these laws time and time again. It doesn't matter if the spying program is legal, it's never supposed to be seen in the light of day.
lol. Just lol.
He is 100% correct. Other countries flaw out ignores international law. China hacks US companies all the time and is part of the UN. We complain about it too, and they just ignore us and we continue trading with them. Russia just ignores sections of law of laws they don't like, like stuff about the Siberian sea or who should get weapons in a conflict.
We don't all get along as well as everyone thinks. International law is more of a suggestion, rather than an order.
And what about the, who cares if it isn't legal purely because it wasn't supposed to be known about ? Meth Labs are all legal now, excellent logic.
I really feel like you don't have a grasp of international politics at all. Also, your meth lab analogy is a non-sequitur. You seem to have no concept of what "covert" means. Covert means that a government knows that it is illegal, and is going to do it anyways because it is in their best interest and in their opinion, the people's best interest. Do you have any idea how long covert spying has been going on? It hasn't been this big for less than 10 years, I can tell you that lol. The fact that you said "lol. just lol." to me in response seems to make me think that your paradigm of the international law needs updating.
On July 19 2013 04:50 Sbrubbles wrote: Beyond the moral implication of spying on foreigners in foreign countries (where the US has no jurisdiction), the US are also most likely violating international law both in the form of signed treaties and customary international law. Americans should remember that US law is (almost) entirely irrelevant when the issue is the US State interfering with the rights of people outside its jurisdiction.
Edit: You have to understand that if my government starts invading my privacy I, as a citizen, can attempt to do something about it. If a foreign government does it, I have no direct means of interfering, especially if my own government doesn't have the resourses to stop it. In a sense, China's got this problem more figured out than every else.
First off, you can't do anything about it. What are you as a peson going to do? You'd need a group of people behind you to do anything. The days of one man starting an armed revolt are over, they died a long time ago. Also, international laws are the ones that are violated most often; whenever I see people say "my international laws are violated" I just laugh. Few countries actually follow international laws, and even fewer attempt to hide the fact that they violate these laws time and time again. It doesn't matter if the spying program is legal, it's never supposed to be seen in the light of day.
lol. Just lol.
He is 100% correct. Other countries flaw out ignores international law. China hacks US companies all the time and is part of the UN. We complain about it too, and they just ignore us and we continue trading with them. Russia just ignores sections of law of laws they don't like, like stuff about the Siberian sea or who should get weapons in a conflict.
We don't all get along as well as everyone thinks. International law is more of a suggestion, rather than an order.
And what about the, who cares if it isn't legal purely because it wasn't supposed to be known about ? Meth Labs are all legal now, excellent logic.
I really feel like you don't have a grasp of international politics at all. Also, your meth lab analogy is a non-sequitur. You seem to have no concept of what "covert" means. Covert means that a government knows that it is illegal, and is going to do it anyways because it is in their best interest and in their opinion, the people's best interest. Do you have any idea how long covert spying has been going on? It hasn't been this big for less than 10 years, I can tell you that lol. The fact that you said "lol. just lol." to me in response seems to make me think that your paradigm of the international law needs updating.
What they're doing now is beyond any amount of "spying" done ever before. And no I'm just saying your argument could be made for anything illegal, it doesn't make it right.
On July 19 2013 04:50 Sbrubbles wrote: Beyond the moral implication of spying on foreigners in foreign countries (where the US has no jurisdiction), the US are also most likely violating international law both in the form of signed treaties and customary international law. Americans should remember that US law is (almost) entirely irrelevant when the issue is the US State interfering with the rights of people outside its jurisdiction.
Edit: You have to understand that if my government starts invading my privacy I, as a citizen, can attempt to do something about it. If a foreign government does it, I have no direct means of interfering, especially if my own government doesn't have the resourses to stop it. In a sense, China's got this problem more figured out than every else.
First off, you can't do anything about it. What are you as a peson going to do? You'd need a group of people behind you to do anything. The days of one man starting an armed revolt are over, they died a long time ago. Also, international laws are the ones that are violated most often; whenever I see people say "my international laws are violated" I just laugh. Few countries actually follow international laws, and even fewer attempt to hide the fact that they violate these laws time and time again. It doesn't matter if the spying program is legal, it's never supposed to be seen in the light of day.
It seems that you don't understand the purpose of international law nor the reason your country chose to be a determinant factor in establishing it as a system. But if you think international law just doesn't matter, then I have no reason to argue with you.
Here is a question, what do you do to Russia or the US when they break international law?
Obviously there is no World Government to enforce international laws, but breaking them makes the country less trustworthy (even if restricted to the theme that was broken). It hampers future negotiations, emboldens retaliatory action and is generally hurtful to international relations.
Me? There's nothing I can do. But my country can use it to justify another action that is within its interests but objetionable to Russia or the US (in your case). And that always carries the risk of making everyone worse off. Specific to the case involving the american systems spying on Brazil (they didn't make as much media as the european ones, obviously), we could see the brazillian government possibly intervening on american internet-related companies on brazillian soil using the US spying as justification in order to guarantee sovereignty. Or Brazil could attempt to take the conflict to the international court in order to get the US to apologise (it's very, very unlikely that brazil would do so and the US probably wouldn't accept as well, but it's still possible).
The situations in which international law is broken is actually less than the situations in which it is followed and it is within the US's (and the world's) interest that it remain so.
I see a lot of "they spy so we spy" arguments here. This is a simple "eye for eye, blood for blood" doctrine. I have a hard time understanding where such thinking comes from. Please help.
On July 19 2013 04:50 Sbrubbles wrote: Beyond the moral implication of spying on foreigners in foreign countries (where the US has no jurisdiction), the US are also most likely violating international law both in the form of signed treaties and customary international law. Americans should remember that US law is (almost) entirely irrelevant when the issue is the US State interfering with the rights of people outside its jurisdiction.
Edit: You have to understand that if my government starts invading my privacy I, as a citizen, can attempt to do something about it. If a foreign government does it, I have no direct means of interfering, especially if my own government doesn't have the resourses to stop it. In a sense, China's got this problem more figured out than every else.
First off, you can't do anything about it. What are you as a peson going to do? You'd need a group of people behind you to do anything. The days of one man starting an armed revolt are over, they died a long time ago. Also, international laws are the ones that are violated most often; whenever I see people say "my international laws are violated" I just laugh. Few countries actually follow international laws, and even fewer attempt to hide the fact that they violate these laws time and time again. It doesn't matter if the spying program is legal, it's never supposed to be seen in the light of day.
lol. Just lol.
He is 100% correct. Other countries flaw out ignores international law. China hacks US companies all the time and is part of the UN. We complain about it too, and they just ignore us and we continue trading with them. Russia just ignores sections of law of laws they don't like, like stuff about the Siberian sea or who should get weapons in a conflict.
We don't all get along as well as everyone thinks. International law is more of a suggestion, rather than an order.
And what about the, who cares if it isn't legal purely because it wasn't supposed to be known about ? Meth Labs are all legal now, excellent logic.
I really feel like you don't have a grasp of international politics at all. Also, your meth lab analogy is a non-sequitur. You seem to have no concept of what "covert" means. Covert means that a government knows that it is illegal, and is going to do it anyways because it is in their best interest and in their opinion, the people's best interest. Do you have any idea how long covert spying has been going on? It hasn't been this big for less than 10 years, I can tell you that lol. The fact that you said "lol. just lol." to me in response seems to make me think that your paradigm of the international law needs updating.
What they're doing now is beyond any amount of "spying" done ever before. And no I'm just saying your argument could be made for anything illegal, it doesn't make it right.
Ok, its wrong, evil and illegal and the US are bad, bad people for being so not nice to Germany and others. Now that we have done that, we have this huge trade deal that we would like to offer that will make everyone tons of money. Is anyone so upset that they don't want in?
At worst case, we can give him one of Nobel Peace Prices we have ourselves, right? After all, if even EU and Obama have it, probably so does one in four people in this chat. /sarcasm over
Judge Roger Vinson, until recently a member of the court that reviews the government's surveillance requests, approved the order for "all call data records or telephony metadata" from customers of Verizon Business Services on 25 April. The court has reauthorized the bulk phone records collection, in secret, every 90 days for about seven years.
At least two other major telecoms, AT&T and Sprint, reportedly receive similar orders. The dates of their expiration are unclear.
Judge Roger Vinson, until recently a member of the court that reviews the government's surveillance requests, approved the order for "all call data records or telephony metadata" from customers of Verizon Business Services on 25 April. The court has reauthorized the bulk phone records collection, in secret, every 90 days for about seven years.
At least two other major telecoms, AT&T and Sprint, reportedly receive similar orders. The dates of their expiration are unclear.
You do know people already know this stuff. That is reviewed by a Judge and approved. This system is also overseen by members of congress as well. This is nothing new.
Judge Roger Vinson, until recently a member of the court that reviews the government's surveillance requests, approved the order for "all call data records or telephony metadata" from customers of Verizon Business Services on 25 April. The court has reauthorized the bulk phone records collection, in secret, every 90 days for about seven years.
At least two other major telecoms, AT&T and Sprint, reportedly receive similar orders. The dates of their expiration are unclear.
You do know people already know this stuff. That is reviewed by a Judge and approved. This system is also overseen by members of congress as well. This is nothing new.
The looming expiration of the order, issued by the secretive Fisa court, provides an early test of Barack Obama's claim to welcome debate over "how to strike this balance" between liberty and security. Beyond the question of the phone records collection, the court order authorizing it is a state secret.
Senator Jeff Merkley, a Democrat from Oregon, asked if he thought Obama should let the Verizon order expire, said: "Yes. This type of secret bulk data collection is an outrageous breach of Americans' privacy. If the administration feels this program is vital to our national security, it should declassify the secret court interpretations that justify broad data collection so Congress and the American public can debate it in the light of day."
Judge Roger Vinson, until recently a member of the court that reviews the government's surveillance requests, approved the order for "all call data records or telephony metadata" from customers of Verizon Business Services on 25 April. The court has reauthorized the bulk phone records collection, in secret, every 90 days for about seven years.
At least two other major telecoms, AT&T and Sprint, reportedly receive similar orders. The dates of their expiration are unclear.
You do know people already know this stuff. That is reviewed by a Judge and approved. This system is also overseen by members of congress as well. This is nothing new.
The looming expiration of the order, issued by the secretive Fisa court, provides an early test of Barack Obama's claim to welcome debate over "how to strike this balance" between liberty and security. Beyond the question of the phone records collection, the court order authorizing it is a state secret.
Senator Jeff Merkley, a Democrat from Oregon, asked if he thought Obama should let the Verizon order expire, said: "Yes. This type of secret bulk data collection is an outrageous breach of Americans' privacy. If the administration feels this program is vital to our national security, it should declassify the secret court interpretations that justify broad data collection so Congress and the American public can debate it in the light of day."
You just quoted a single section on the article you just posted. It is one person and they are likely going to add more oversite to the program. Could you be slightly less lazy with your arguments?
What do you want to happen? Do you want there to be no program and for the NSA to get a warrent for each phone number just to look at its call records? Because its not like they aren't looking for something when they do it.
On July 19 2013 04:50 Sbrubbles wrote: Beyond the moral implication of spying on foreigners in foreign countries (where the US has no jurisdiction), the US are also most likely violating international law both in the form of signed treaties and customary international law. Americans should remember that US law is (almost) entirely irrelevant when the issue is the US State interfering with the rights of people outside its jurisdiction.
Edit: You have to understand that if my government starts invading my privacy I, as a citizen, can attempt to do something about it. If a foreign government does it, I have no direct means of interfering, especially if my own government doesn't have the resourses to stop it. In a sense, China's got this problem more figured out than every else.
First off, you can't do anything about it. What are you as a peson going to do? You'd need a group of people behind you to do anything. The days of one man starting an armed revolt are over, they died a long time ago. Also, international laws are the ones that are violated most often; whenever I see people say "my international laws are violated" I just laugh. Few countries actually follow international laws, and even fewer attempt to hide the fact that they violate these laws time and time again. It doesn't matter if the spying program is legal, it's never supposed to be seen in the light of day.
lol. Just lol.
He is 100% correct. Other countries flaw out ignores international law. China hacks US companies all the time and is part of the UN. We complain about it too, and they just ignore us and we continue trading with them. Russia just ignores sections of law of laws they don't like, like stuff about the Siberian sea or who should get weapons in a conflict.
We don't all get along as well as everyone thinks. International law is more of a suggestion, rather than an order.
And what about the, who cares if it isn't legal purely because it wasn't supposed to be known about ? Meth Labs are all legal now, excellent logic.
I really feel like you don't have a grasp of international politics at all. Also, your meth lab analogy is a non-sequitur. You seem to have no concept of what "covert" means. Covert means that a government knows that it is illegal, and is going to do it anyways because it is in their best interest and in their opinion, the people's best interest. Do you have any idea how long covert spying has been going on? It hasn't been this big for less than 10 years, I can tell you that lol. The fact that you said "lol. just lol." to me in response seems to make me think that your paradigm of the international law needs updating.
What they're doing now is beyond any amount of "spying" done ever before. And no I'm just saying your argument could be made for anything illegal, it doesn't make it right.
Ok, its wrong, evil and illegal and the US are bad, bad people for being so not nice to Germany and others. Now that we have done that, we have this huge trade deal that we would like to offer that will make everyone tons of money. Is anyone so upset that they don't want in?
On July 19 2013 04:50 Sbrubbles wrote: Beyond the moral implication of spying on foreigners in foreign countries (where the US has no jurisdiction), the US are also most likely violating international law both in the form of signed treaties and customary international law. Americans should remember that US law is (almost) entirely irrelevant when the issue is the US State interfering with the rights of people outside its jurisdiction.
Edit: You have to understand that if my government starts invading my privacy I, as a citizen, can attempt to do something about it. If a foreign government does it, I have no direct means of interfering, especially if my own government doesn't have the resourses to stop it. In a sense, China's got this problem more figured out than every else.
First off, you can't do anything about it. What are you as a peson going to do? You'd need a group of people behind you to do anything. The days of one man starting an armed revolt are over, they died a long time ago. Also, international laws are the ones that are violated most often; whenever I see people say "my international laws are violated" I just laugh. Few countries actually follow international laws, and even fewer attempt to hide the fact that they violate these laws time and time again. It doesn't matter if the spying program is legal, it's never supposed to be seen in the light of day.
lol. Just lol.
He is 100% correct. Other countries flaw out ignores international law. China hacks US companies all the time and is part of the UN. We complain about it too, and they just ignore us and we continue trading with them. Russia just ignores sections of law of laws they don't like, like stuff about the Siberian sea or who should get weapons in a conflict.
We don't all get along as well as everyone thinks. International law is more of a suggestion, rather than an order.
And what about the, who cares if it isn't legal purely because it wasn't supposed to be known about ? Meth Labs are all legal now, excellent logic.
I really feel like you don't have a grasp of international politics at all. Also, your meth lab analogy is a non-sequitur. You seem to have no concept of what "covert" means. Covert means that a government knows that it is illegal, and is going to do it anyways because it is in their best interest and in their opinion, the people's best interest. Do you have any idea how long covert spying has been going on? It hasn't been this big for less than 10 years, I can tell you that lol. The fact that you said "lol. just lol." to me in response seems to make me think that your paradigm of the international law needs updating.
What they're doing now is beyond any amount of "spying" done ever before. And no I'm just saying your argument could be made for anything illegal, it doesn't make it right.
Ok, its wrong, evil and illegal and the US are bad, bad people for being so not nice to Germany and others. Now that we have done that, we have this huge trade deal that we would like to offer that will make everyone tons of money. Is anyone so upset that they don't want in?
Take your pick. Everything you have said on this topic is one of these, as far as I can remember.
So what is your solution, Shiori? Beyond just posting wikipedia links about logic arguments?
Should we appoligize to Germany and other countries and then what? Pledge to keep the CIA out of their country and no longer spy on them until we distrust them? When would that happen?
Or lets go for the root of all of this: When is a nation justified in spying? When is it ok for them to do so?
Hell, Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were allied during WWII and look what happened.....
read history first plz they got non-agression pact in the beginning of ww2 but they weren't allies thanks to one 3-man-summit
i'm ok with us spying every single country they meet, pretty sure other big8 countries doing this too. But man telling that all this only because they afraid of terrorists. Come OOOOON, that's some Bush jr stuff
The "they spy too" is pretty cut and dry nationalistic and a bit simple. The argument appeals to the fairness that both can do it. In case of PRISM it is privileged access to companies that are a lot easier to compel by NSA since they have their primary base of operation in USA and fear political or legal retribution. That is not exactly an equal playing field when most of the big players are american companies. EU parliament has already started corner-discussion of a "european internet" where they do not have to deal with US companies and their fundamentally different world. The international american companies are therefore obviously very vocal about pressuring NSA to give them some room to lobby against that. Btw. PRISM seems to have some international complicites, probably in line with ECHELON.
Spying on EUs politicians is what should be expected, while spying on consolates is problematic because of the nature of a consulate in itself being the non-secret counterpart to political espionage.
The leaks have started an EU lobby for finding what Obama is calling "the right balance". It is clear that Obama has to defend USAs position to some extend, but being a little less definitive than "I am convinced that we have already found that balance." would probably serve him well since everyone can see that the senate is in flames on the issue of legal interpretations.
The argument about respecting EU as allies is mostly to hide the embarrasment of how much clout the US government has in terms of manipulating the fundamentally divided EU to accept or refuse legislation.
On July 19 2013 04:50 Sbrubbles wrote: Beyond the moral implication of spying on foreigners in foreign countries (where the US has no jurisdiction), the US are also most likely violating international law both in the form of signed treaties and customary international law. Americans should remember that US law is (almost) entirely irrelevant when the issue is the US State interfering with the rights of people outside its jurisdiction.
Edit: You have to understand that if my government starts invading my privacy I, as a citizen, can attempt to do something about it. If a foreign government does it, I have no direct means of interfering, especially if my own government doesn't have the resourses to stop it. In a sense, China's got this problem more figured out than every else.
First off, you can't do anything about it. What are you as a peson going to do? You'd need a group of people behind you to do anything. The days of one man starting an armed revolt are over, they died a long time ago. Also, international laws are the ones that are violated most often; whenever I see people say "my international laws are violated" I just laugh. Few countries actually follow international laws, and even fewer attempt to hide the fact that they violate these laws time and time again. It doesn't matter if the spying program is legal, it's never supposed to be seen in the light of day.
lol. Just lol.
He is 100% correct. Other countries flaw out ignores international law. China hacks US companies all the time and is part of the UN. We complain about it too, and they just ignore us and we continue trading with them. Russia just ignores sections of law of laws they don't like, like stuff about the Siberian sea or who should get weapons in a conflict.
We don't all get along as well as everyone thinks. International law is more of a suggestion, rather than an order.
And what about the, who cares if it isn't legal purely because it wasn't supposed to be known about ? Meth Labs are all legal now, excellent logic.
I really feel like you don't have a grasp of international politics at all. Also, your meth lab analogy is a non-sequitur. You seem to have no concept of what "covert" means. Covert means that a government knows that it is illegal, and is going to do it anyways because it is in their best interest and in their opinion, the people's best interest. Do you have any idea how long covert spying has been going on? It hasn't been this big for less than 10 years, I can tell you that lol. The fact that you said "lol. just lol." to me in response seems to make me think that your paradigm of the international law needs updating.
What they're doing now is beyond any amount of "spying" done ever before. And no I'm just saying your argument could be made for anything illegal, it doesn't make it right.
Ok, its wrong, evil and illegal and the US are bad, bad people for being so not nice to Germany and others. Now that we have done that, we have this huge trade deal that we would like to offer that will make everyone tons of money. Is anyone so upset that they don't want in?
Take your pick. Everything you have said on this topic is one of these, as far as I can remember.
So what is your solution, Shiori? Beyond just posting wikipedia links about logic arguments?
Why do I need a solution to assert that something is wrong or bad? I'm not a policymaker. But I can see that the current policy is obviously immoral, prone to abuse, and doubtfully effective at achieving its stated ends; you don't need to be a policymaker to see that.
Should we appoligize to Germany and other countries and then what?
Apology should have happened the day after the NSA was revealed, but yes, the US should apologize.
Pledge to keep the CIA out of their country and no longer spy on them until we distrust them?
Ideally, yes, this is something the US should pledge to do. Since the US has some sort of complex about everyone being an enemy, though, and since the modern world does have a couple of lunatics every once in awhile, I wouldn't have a problem with the CIA remaining in their country and keeping tabs, in a general sense, on what's going on. Hell, that isn't even illegal. Should the US stop blanket surveillance of German communications? Yes, because that's a massive and unjustifiable infringement on the sovereignty of Germany with absolutely no immediate benefit, only a hypothetical long-term benefit, and no impending threat from Germany nor anyone in Germany.
When would that happen?
Hopefully never. I like to think that Germany isn't about to attack the US in the near or distant future. Considering we have absolutely no reason to believe Germany is going to attack the US, and I do mean absolutely no reason at all, I'd say that, whatever the case, the US definitely doesn't have any real reason to mistrust them right now.
Or lets go for the root of all of this: When is a nation justified in spying? When is it ok for them to do so?
Depends if the spying is actually illegal or not, and what it entails. Monitoring the private/secret communications of heads of state, governmental figures (acting in their capacity as such)? Only if there is serious reason to believe that those heads of state are an urgent and grave threat to either international stability or some particular nation; the nation in question may therefore spy on the threatening nation in the latter case, whereas in the former case, any nation may spy on them, provided their espionage is directed toward that purpose.
Massively monitoring and/or collecting metadata of millions and millions of private communications by foreign nationals in their own country? Only in the case of real, unilateral hostility or open war, and only until such time as those matters are resolved, with a latency of whatever period corresponds to the seriousness of the initial hostility.
tl;dr: nothing that applies to what the NSA does, unless the NSA is spying on North Korea or something.
When people say "if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't have anything to worry about" what they are really saying is "if you have nothing to hide, you don't need rights."
Apparently 1 senator(Graham) from the US considers proposing boycotting the next Sochi olympics because of the Snowden situation, and even compared Russia to Nazi Germany, and Putin to Hitler as using him for propaganda purposes.
On July 19 2013 04:50 Sbrubbles wrote: Beyond the moral implication of spying on foreigners in foreign countries (where the US has no jurisdiction), the US are also most likely violating international law both in the form of signed treaties and customary international law. Americans should remember that US law is (almost) entirely irrelevant when the issue is the US State interfering with the rights of people outside its jurisdiction.
Edit: You have to understand that if my government starts invading my privacy I, as a citizen, can attempt to do something about it. If a foreign government does it, I have no direct means of interfering, especially if my own government doesn't have the resourses to stop it. In a sense, China's got this problem more figured out than every else.
First off, you can't do anything about it. What are you as a peson going to do? You'd need a group of people behind you to do anything. The days of one man starting an armed revolt are over, they died a long time ago. Also, international laws are the ones that are violated most often; whenever I see people say "my international laws are violated" I just laugh. Few countries actually follow international laws, and even fewer attempt to hide the fact that they violate these laws time and time again. It doesn't matter if the spying program is legal, it's never supposed to be seen in the light of day.
lol. Just lol.
He is 100% correct. Other countries flaw out ignores international law. China hacks US companies all the time and is part of the UN. We complain about it too, and they just ignore us and we continue trading with them. Russia just ignores sections of law of laws they don't like, like stuff about the Siberian sea or who should get weapons in a conflict.
We don't all get along as well as everyone thinks. International law is more of a suggestion, rather than an order.
And what about the, who cares if it isn't legal purely because it wasn't supposed to be known about ? Meth Labs are all legal now, excellent logic.
You are fond of taking someones argument and just running to really stupid places with it. Spying is illegal by the UN laws, but a lot of countries do it anyways. Hacking computers is also illegal, but china does it all the time and doesn't give a shit. We yell at them all the time for it, but they do it. France spied on German companies between 200-2010 and there was nothing they could do about it either. The US caught a large number of Russian spies in the US a few years ago and we just traded them for a few things we wanted from Russia and moved on.
And let us not forget Putin stealing a Super Bowl ring from the owner of the Patriots front of everyone. That was pretty funny and he still claims was a gift to this day.
On July 19 2013 10:44 MostGroce wrote: Sadly, I doubt the US government will allow him to get the prize as they have more then enough power to make sure that he doesn't.
In America government has no power, the corporations and the Jews do, the government officials are just puppets who get lobbied for their decisions by leftovers towards their retirement homes.
On July 19 2013 10:44 MostGroce wrote: Sadly, I doubt the US government will allow him to get the prize as they have more then enough power to make sure that he doesn't.
If he gets the prize I'm pretty sure most of Europe would open their arms to welcome him to asylum, and he would most definitely get that prize. Given the current state of American and European relations it'd be a much more consequential blow for America to even attempt to try. Sadly, I'm pretty sure Obama would actually attempt it.
EPT
I did not know that. Thanks for the clarification.
.
