|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 02 2018 21:35 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2018 21:29 Excludos wrote:On April 02 2018 19:48 zlefin wrote:
Ok, that's clear. personally, I don' find it surprising that some people dislike snowden, as there's some reasonable basis for doing so. I'm not sure why you'd find ti baffling, as it's extremely common that some people support and some people oppose. it's not like snowden is a paragon of integrity. decent integrity, maybe; but not a paragon. I'm not sure who you're responding to here, as I couldn't find any posts mentioning Snowden since the last thread got locked. But I on the other hand do find it surprising...Well, maybe not surprising, but disappointing at least. I'm not sure how anyone could possibly questions someone's integrity when he literally upended his entire life for what he thought was the best for humanity. Whether he was wrong or right about doing it can be questioned sure, but his integrity should not be. And please no conspiracy theories. Base your discussions around evidence please. This "Oh but he must have sold information to the Chinese/Russia/Lichtenstein to stay alive" is just random nonsense until there's actually proof of it. This guy literally gave you proof of a government conspiracy, and instead of being up in arms about it, people are bringing in more conspiracy theories to somehow prove that he's wrong. The last thread really went to shit fast on this subject because of this nonsense. I was responding to the person who posted on this same page, literally right before my post, and was replying to me, who mentioned snowden. and i'm not gonna argue with you on this, as you're evincing unreasonableness. if you think the thread went bad on this subject maybe it's because your own view is unreasonable.
1. Huh, you're right. I must be blind.
2. That's a very reasonable view to hold. I'm glad to have had this discussion with you. You sure come across as a reasonable man yourself who is able to relate your views to other people with the equivalent of: "Nhuhu, you're wrong!". But I guess asking for a reasonable discussion based on evidence instead of conspiracy theories (Which is, literally, what I did) is too much to ask.
|
Speculating that Snowden may have used the intelligence he took to obtain passage to Russia does not rise to the level of conspiracy theory. There is a lot that isn’t known about what Snowden did after he left the US and little way for anyone for verify exactly what happened during the 2 weeks he was in Hong Kong. But he secured a way out of that city and spent another 40 days in a Russia airport until he was granted asylum. I believe it is naïve to assume that that no deals were cut to obtain passage out of Hong Kong or asylum.
Also, I have not followed Snowden's output in a while. Has he been critical of Trump or commented on what is going on in the US?
|
It is also undisputed that Snowden's information dump contained a wide variety of non-smoking gun intelligence that served no public interest purpose, yet endangered the lives of US operatives. He was quite indiscriminate with his release.
|
On April 02 2018 22:38 Plansix wrote:
Speculating that Snowden may have used the intelligence he took to obtain passage to Russia does not rise to the level of conspiracy theory. There is a lot that isn’t known about what Snowden did after he left the US and little way for anyone for verify exactly what happened during the 2 weeks he was in Hong Kong. But he secured a way out of that city and spent another 40 days in a Russia airport until he was granted asylum. I believe it is naïve to assume that that no deals were cut to obtain passage out of Hong Kong or asylum.
Also, I have not followed Snowden's output in a while. Has he been critical of Trump or commented on what is going on in the US?
He has, but as far as I know only small tidbits and comments here and there. I think he's trying to not inject himself into politics as much as he can, so he can be a nonpartisan voice.
It's all well and fine to have suspicions, but it's also just that. "We don't know" is a perfectly legit answer. "He totally cut a deal by reporting on X thing which put X lives in danger" is not (Which various people are saying. Not you specifically). As you say, we have no idea, and there's a perfectly valid chance he did not give them anything (He gave away everything he had to the journalists anyways, and made a point of doing exactly that in case he got captured. So he wouldn't really have anything to give away except from memory).
On April 02 2018 22:42 farvacola wrote:
It is also undisputed that Snowden's information dump contained a wide variety of non-smoking gun intelligence that served no public interest purpose, yet endangered the lives of US operatives. He was quite indiscriminate with his release.
The report this is based on based their findings on what he took with him (Which, to be fair, was a lot of random stuff), not on what he released. It's all well and fine to question if he used the right methods (And you might say he did not, but I would object with the situation he was in and the methods he had available at the time), but I still wouldn't question his integrity on this just purely based on what he had to endure and leave behind to inform the American people about their own governments wrongdoings.
edit: I should also note that these reports came from the very same people that he exposed. Of course they're going to paint him in the worst light possible. We talked about naive earlier, and I think it's naive to take everything the American government states about him at face value. They haven't exactly proven themselves to be trustworthy
edit 2: Snowden has something to say about releasing government secrets himself, directed at Nunes:
|
I do not think it is unreasonable to express roughly equal distrust Snowden and the NSA on this subject. Both are operating in ways that prevent the public from being fully informed.
|
Excludos, you're taking Snowden's version and the versions of those who consider him a hero at face value just as those who consiser him a villain do the converse. The point is that without more direct information, the likes of which may never come to light given Snowden's journey, labels like hero or villain necessarily rely on something aside from scrutable evidence.
And in terms of that tweet, being better with information or more upright with it than Devin Nunez is not a bar I'd hope anyone would aim for lol. Snowden could have been more responsible than shitlord Nunez and still be culpable in terms of how he managed things.
|
On April 02 2018 23:07 farvacola wrote:
You're taking Snowden's version and the versions of those who consider him a hero at face value just as those who are hesitant to apply such a label are doing the converse. The point is that without more direct information, the likes of which may never come to light given Snowden's journey, labels like hero or villain necessarily rely on something aside from scrutable evidence.
Well the point we must consider here is: Who has anything to lose? Snowden upended his entire life, left his girlfriend, home and an extremely well paying job to release this information, took a lot of care to make sure nothing bad or harmful was released, and got rid of everything else. Why would he do that if he was just a villain who wanted to see people burn? He has already lost everything. On the other hand you have a government who got caught with their pants down spying on their own civilian population, and is now desperately attempting to do damage control... You're damn right I'm going to take Snowden's words at face value.
|
If you think Snowden has no discernible interest in downplaying the extent to which he was indiscriminate with his improper handling of information, you need to take a better look at what kinds of protections are afforded by whistleblower laws. There exists a universe in which Snowden acts differently and does not have anywhere near the reason to flee the US, contrary to what "deep state gonna get you" types may say.
|
Looks like Trump has been watching Fox and Friends lately; he's got policy opinions to voice (regardless of whether they conflict entirely with his administration's previous negotiations with Congress). His tweet rampage about DACA while he was at Mar a Logo getting ready to play golf was immediately after Fox and Friends.
|
On April 02 2018 23:12 farvacola wrote:
If you think Snowden has no discernible interest in downplaying the extent to which he was indiscriminate with his improper handling of information, you need to take a better look at what kinds of protections are afforded by whistleblower laws. There exists a universe in which Snowden acts differently and does not have anywhere near the reason to flee the US, contrary to what "deep state gonna get you" types may say.
Because the US has a great history of dealing with whistle blowers you mean? We covered this last time. They would have thrown him in jail without a fair trial based on the espionage act.
edit: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/22/how-pentagon-punished-nsa-whistleblowers
The first is Thomas Drake, who blew the whistle on the very same NSA activities 10 years before Snowden did. Drake was a much higher-ranking NSA official than Snowden, and he obeyed US whistleblower laws, raising his concerns through official channels. And he got crushed.
Drake was fired, arrested at dawn by gun-wielding FBI agents, stripped of his security clearance, charged with crimes that could have sent him to prison for the rest of his life, and all but ruined financially and professionally. The only job he could find afterwards was working in an Apple store in suburban Washington, where he remains today. Adding insult to injury, his warnings about the dangers of the NSA’s surveillance programme were largely ignored.
and
But there is another man whose story has never been told before, who is speaking out publicly for the first time here. His name is John Crane, and he was a senior official in the Department of Defense who fought to provide fair treatment for whistleblowers such as Thomas Drake – until Crane himself was forced out of his job and became a whistleblower as well.
His testimony reveals a crucial new chapter in the Snowden story – and Crane’s failed battle to protect earlier whistleblowers should now make it very clear that Snowden had good reasons to go public with his revelations.
During dozens of hours of interviews, Crane told me how senior Defense Department officials repeatedly broke the law to persecute Drake. First, he alleged, they revealed Drake’s identity to the Justice Department; then they withheld (and perhaps destroyed) evidence after Drake was indicted; finally, they lied about all this to a federal judge.
The supreme irony? In their zeal to punish Drake, these Pentagon officials unwittingly taught Snowden how to evade their clutches when the 29-year-old NSA contract employee blew the whistle himself. Snowden was unaware of the hidden machinations inside the Pentagon that undid Drake, but the outcome of those machinations – Drake’s arrest, indictment and persecution – sent an unmistakable message: raising concerns within the system promised doom.
Yeah no. Beliving the best thing Snowden could have done was to not flee is bullshit
|
Snowden’s argument was that he would be thrown in jail without trial and the information would never get out. In both of the cases you linked that did not happen and calls into question if the risk Snowden was really in. Also, everyone who leaks loses their security clearance, even if it is with cause.
|
Well he's angry today. DoJ, the Post Office and more fake news cries. Totally stable.
User was warned for this post
|
On April 02 2018 23:25 Plansix wrote:
Snowden’s argument was that he would be thrown in jail without trial and the information would never get out. In both of the cases you linked that did not happen and calls into question if the risk Snowden was really in. Also, everyone who leaks loses their security clearance, even if it is with cause.
If you're taking the articles at face value then your argument seems uncharacteristicly disingenuous. Whether he would have gone to jail without a trial vs. getting a farce of a trial seems a minor detail compared to the more important point that based off precedent, the necessary changes wouldn't have taken place (and the public would not have known about it). If his goal is to right the NSA wrongs he had seen, his actions seem reasonable.
I'm assuming you don't agree with the reported treatment of the whistleblowers in the articles. I feel like addressing those issues directly may be a better approach.
Alternatively, attacking the veracity of the articles themselves is another reasonable approach, but may be difficult.
|
United States43367 Posts
On April 02 2018 22:42 farvacola wrote:
It is also undisputed that Snowden's information dump contained a wide variety of non-smoking gun intelligence that served no public interest purpose, yet endangered the lives of US operatives. He was quite indiscriminate with his release.
This is simply untrue. Snowden explicitly refused to do a broad information dump, and to act as the arbiter of what should and should not be released. He felt the former would be irresponsible and the latter would potentially allow the leaks to be politicized by him, even if only inadvertently. Instead he removed himself for the equation and trusted in the experience and competence of a group of journalists. A small number of those fucked up at redacting.
Snowden himself has shown an ideological obsession with patriotism and integrity.
|
On April 03 2018 00:19 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2018 23:25 Plansix wrote:
Snowden’s argument was that he would be thrown in jail without trial and the information would never get out. In both of the cases you linked that did not happen and calls into question if the risk Snowden was really in. Also, everyone who leaks loses their security clearance, even if it is with cause. If you're taking the articles at face value then your argument seems uncharacteristicly disingenuous. Whether he would have gone to jail without a trial vs. getting a farce of a trial seems a minor detail compared to the more important point that based off precedent, the necessary changes wouldn't have taken place (and the public would not have known about it). If his goal is to right the NSA wrongs he had seen, his actions seem reasonable. I'm assuming you don't agree with the reported treatment of the whistleblowers in the articles. I feel like addressing those issues directly may be a better approach. Alternatively, attacking the veracity of the articles themselves is another reasonable approach, but may be difficult.
I don’t disagree with him fleeing the country if he felt that would provide him with enough time to release the information and gain public support. I initially agreed with his actions right up until he sought asylum in Russia. Since then, I have become more and more skeptical of his motives.
I do not assume that the trial would have been a farce or unfair if Snowden has simply released the information regarding the NSA data collection on US citizens. I think that is an equally disingenuous argument that assumes everyone involved with the justice system and national security is a bad actor, with the exception of Snowden and his supporters. If that is the case, then there is no point to having any discussion about the correct process for a leaker, because no side can be trusted to be a good actor.
|
Norway28728 Posts
I think it's possible to retrospectively point towards ways Snowden could have done a better job making sure the information released would not be dangerously misused. But from the perspective where he's an individual kinda stumbling upon information about government surveillance that he feels (correctly, imo) the public absolutely deserves to know about, I have a hard time seeing what steps he could have been expected to take to succeed in goal a) inform the public and b) not go to jail for something that shouldn't be a crime. Total hero imo.
Also, I'm thining he had to choose a country that isn't really allied with the US because the US could exert considerable diplomatic pressure upon all the ones that are?
|
On April 03 2018 01:07 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think it's possible to retrospectively point towards ways Snowden could have done a better job making sure the information released would not be dangerously misused. But from the perspective where he's an individual kinda stumbling upon information about government surveillance that he feels (correctly, imo) the public absolutely deserves to know about, I have a hard time seeing what steps he could have been expected to take to succeed in goal a) inform the public and b) not go to jail for something that shouldn't be a crime. Total hero imo.
Also, I'm thining he had to choose a country that isn't really allied with the US because the US could exert considerable diplomatic pressure upon all the ones that are?
choosing a non-ally is one thing; choosing an enemy is another.
ex-cia employee gets asylum in russia really doesn't look good, and does not put you in good company.
on another note, we could question the appropriateness of B as a goal. I agree it's hard to see what he could've done to satisfy both of those goals, but whether that goal is appropriate is another, trickier, question.
|
On April 03 2018 00:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2018 00:19 Ryzel wrote:On April 02 2018 23:25 Plansix wrote:
Snowden’s argument was that he would be thrown in jail without trial and the information would never get out. In both of the cases you linked that did not happen and calls into question if the risk Snowden was really in. Also, everyone who leaks loses their security clearance, even if it is with cause. If you're taking the articles at face value then your argument seems uncharacteristicly disingenuous. Whether he would have gone to jail without a trial vs. getting a farce of a trial seems a minor detail compared to the more important point that based off precedent, the necessary changes wouldn't have taken place (and the public would not have known about it). If his goal is to right the NSA wrongs he had seen, his actions seem reasonable. I'm assuming you don't agree with the reported treatment of the whistleblowers in the articles. I feel like addressing those issues directly may be a better approach. Alternatively, attacking the veracity of the articles themselves is another reasonable approach, but may be difficult. I don’t disagree with him fleeing the country if he felt that would provide him with enough time to release the information and gain public support. I initially agreed with his actions right up until he sought asylum in Russia. Since then, I have become more and more skeptical of his motives. I do not assume that the trial would have been a farce or unfair if Snowden has simply released the information regarding the NSA data collection on US citizens. I think that is an equally disingenuous argument that assumes everyone involved with the justice system and national security is a bad actor, with the exception of Snowden and his supporters. If that is the case, then there is no point to having any discussion about the correct process for a leaker, because no side can be trusted to be a good actor.
I should clarify that when I stated the trial would be a farce, I was basing it off the precedent stated in the articles. One could surmise either that...
1) The NSA whistleblowing protections work fine in most cases and the public only learns about rare exceptions such as those in the articles (it's reasonable to think that if the system is working, issues would be addressed internally). In this case, Snowden took an unreasonable risk by not following NSA whistleblowing protocol.
2) The NSA whistleblowing protocol is corrupt and non-functional, in which case it would be reasonable to bypass it.
If you want to argue #1 then go for it, but #2 seems more likely to me given so much previous evidence of corruption in national security.
Granted, I don't know what the whistleblowing laws are that exist outside of NSA protocol. If you mean that he could have attempted to release the information and have the trial publicly and fairly (i.e. without influence from the NSA, who have been shown to be bad actors through precedent) then that seems reasonable, although I have my doubts that it would be remotely possible.
|
On April 03 2018 01:18 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2018 00:44 Plansix wrote:On April 03 2018 00:19 Ryzel wrote:On April 02 2018 23:25 Plansix wrote:
Snowden’s argument was that he would be thrown in jail without trial and the information would never get out. In both of the cases you linked that did not happen and calls into question if the risk Snowden was really in. Also, everyone who leaks loses their security clearance, even if it is with cause. If you're taking the articles at face value then your argument seems uncharacteristicly disingenuous. Whether he would have gone to jail without a trial vs. getting a farce of a trial seems a minor detail compared to the more important point that based off precedent, the necessary changes wouldn't have taken place (and the public would not have known about it). If his goal is to right the NSA wrongs he had seen, his actions seem reasonable. I'm assuming you don't agree with the reported treatment of the whistleblowers in the articles. I feel like addressing those issues directly may be a better approach. Alternatively, attacking the veracity of the articles themselves is another reasonable approach, but may be difficult. I don’t disagree with him fleeing the country if he felt that would provide him with enough time to release the information and gain public support. I initially agreed with his actions right up until he sought asylum in Russia. Since then, I have become more and more skeptical of his motives. I do not assume that the trial would have been a farce or unfair if Snowden has simply released the information regarding the NSA data collection on US citizens. I think that is an equally disingenuous argument that assumes everyone involved with the justice system and national security is a bad actor, with the exception of Snowden and his supporters. If that is the case, then there is no point to having any discussion about the correct process for a leaker, because no side can be trusted to be a good actor. I should clarify that when I stated the trial would be a farce, I was basing it off the precedent stated in the articles. One could surmise either that... 1) The NSA whistleblowing protections work fine in most cases and the public only learns about rare exceptions such as those in the articles (it's reasonable to think that if the system is working, issues would be addressed internally). In this case, Snowden took an unreasonable risk by not following NSA whistleblowing protocol. 2) The NSA whistleblowing protocol is corrupt and non-functional, in which case it would be reasonable to bypass it. Granted, I don't know what the whistleblowing laws are that exist outside of NSA protocol. If you mean that he could have attempted to release the information and have the trial publicly and fairly (i.e. without influence from the NSA, who have been shown to be bad actors through precedent) then that seems reasonable, although I have my doubts that it would be remotely possible.
I don’t think the NSA whistle blower laws are good enough or provide enough protection for someone like Snowden to simply walk in and use them. I agree on that front. I always felt that Snowden was correct in leaving the US assure he was able to tell his story and get the right information out to the public. Personally, I would have preferred he negotiated with the US to return for a fair and very public trial for actions. But I am convinced that he will never return to the US and intents to live in exile in Russia until something happens to him.
|
On April 03 2018 00:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2018 00:19 Ryzel wrote:On April 02 2018 23:25 Plansix wrote:
Snowden’s argument was that he would be thrown in jail without trial and the information would never get out. In both of the cases you linked that did not happen and calls into question if the risk Snowden was really in. Also, everyone who leaks loses their security clearance, even if it is with cause. If you're taking the articles at face value then your argument seems uncharacteristicly disingenuous. Whether he would have gone to jail without a trial vs. getting a farce of a trial seems a minor detail compared to the more important point that based off precedent, the necessary changes wouldn't have taken place (and the public would not have known about it). If his goal is to right the NSA wrongs he had seen, his actions seem reasonable. I'm assuming you don't agree with the reported treatment of the whistleblowers in the articles. I feel like addressing those issues directly may be a better approach. Alternatively, attacking the veracity of the articles themselves is another reasonable approach, but may be difficult. I don’t disagree with him fleeing the country if he felt that would provide him with enough time to release the information and gain public support. I initially agreed with his actions right up until he sought asylum in Russia. Since then, I have become more and more skeptical of his motives. I do not assume that the trial would have been a farce or unfair if Snowden has simply released the information regarding the NSA data collection on US citizens. I think that is an equally disingenuous argument that assumes everyone involved with the justice system and national security is a bad actor, with the exception of Snowden and his supporters. If that is the case, then there is no point to having any discussion about the correct process for a leaker, because no side can be trusted to be a good actor.
Yep. I would have called Snowden a patriot (even if I disagreed with the level of disclosure from his leak) up until he decided to cast his lot in with Russia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
