|
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 04 2018 06:17 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2018 05:55 Kyadytim wrote:On April 04 2018 05:27 TheLordofAwesome wrote:The theft of 31,000 such documents is not the work of a whistleblower. It's the work of a spy. Edward Snowden is a traitor through and through, which is why he has hidden in Putin's Russia and will likely remain there for the rest of his life. On April 04 2018 04:38 TheLordofAwesome wrote:1. Snowden has acted as a spy and not a whistleblower in the way he stole so many documents, most of which he had no idea what they were.
-------------------------------------SNIP-------------------------------------
3. He’s been in Russia for almost 5 years now and shows no sign of leaving. I already covered that actually reading every document while keeping up with his actual job and not suddenly changing his behavior at home leaves taking everything and sorting it out (or leaving it for journalists to sort out) later is the only reasonable course of action to get the documents he wanted to take. Also, if you want to attack Snowden for spending 5 years in Russia and not showing signs of leaving, first please answer the questions "Where would he go?" and "How would he get there?" First of all, removal of TS//SCI material from a SCIF is in itself a felony, even if you just take a paper document home and burn it immediately. People have been caught taking TS//SCI info home before and they got jail time for it even if they didn't give the info to anybody else. For instance, Matthew Aid spent a year in prison for exactly that. That NSA guy who was caught about a year ago, I think his name was Harold Martin, in on trial for exactly the same thing and is almost certainly going to prison as well. There are loads more who have gone to jail for precisely this crime, unauthorized removal and retention of classified material. EDIT: This was exactly what brought down Dave Petraeus as CIA director, for those of you who remember. But let us set that aside for the moment and let us also assume that Snowden's intentions are pure. Would you agree that a very, very generous estimate of the number of supporting documents he read with clear evidence of illegal government spying is 10,000? If he has identified 10k specific supporting documents that provided evidence for mass illegal domestic spying, why not just save those specific ones and get rid of the rest?? The justification of "Well, these 10k documents are the real evidence I have , but there's also 1,490,000 other documents here. I have no idea what they contain, my very possession of them is a felony, their presence in this room is a different felony, but maybe, possibly, conceivably there's a couple more in there that also have info about this domestic spying" is obviously totally ridiculous. Where would he go? Somewhere that isn't Russia, China, or Iran would be a good start. He could just walk into the US embassy in Moscow and surrender himself for trial. He could try to walk up to Russia's border with Finland or Norway or Latvia or Estonia or Lithuania or Poland and ask for asylum there. Really, his options are endless if Russia doesn't want to keep him there by force and he's not afraid of a trial for his actions. Obama was president for 4 years after he pulled his stunt. Do you really think Obama would have given him a sham trial, because that's what you're really saying if you think that Snowden could not have returned to the USA.
I.E. somewhere that has extradition treaties with or could be pressured to hand him over for the sham trial he suspects he will receive.
Why will the US government not officially, publically offer him a fair trial? He's asked for one repeatedly and said he'd gladly come back to stand trial under those circumstances. Hardly the words of a Russian spy who doesn't want to come home. That female spy who actually WAS a spy is now a Russian model and political commentator, having been richly rewarded for her service to her country.
Snowden... what's Snowden got out of this, again?
|
On April 04 2018 06:47 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2018 06:17 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On April 04 2018 05:55 Kyadytim wrote:On April 04 2018 05:27 TheLordofAwesome wrote:The theft of 31,000 such documents is not the work of a whistleblower. It's the work of a spy. Edward Snowden is a traitor through and through, which is why he has hidden in Putin's Russia and will likely remain there for the rest of his life. On April 04 2018 04:38 TheLordofAwesome wrote:1. Snowden has acted as a spy and not a whistleblower in the way he stole so many documents, most of which he had no idea what they were.
-------------------------------------SNIP-------------------------------------
3. He’s been in Russia for almost 5 years now and shows no sign of leaving. I already covered that actually reading every document while keeping up with his actual job and not suddenly changing his behavior at home leaves taking everything and sorting it out (or leaving it for journalists to sort out) later is the only reasonable course of action to get the documents he wanted to take. Also, if you want to attack Snowden for spending 5 years in Russia and not showing signs of leaving, first please answer the questions "Where would he go?" and "How would he get there?" First of all, removal of TS//SCI material from a SCIF is in itself a felony, even if you just take a paper document home and burn it immediately. People have been caught taking TS//SCI info home before and they got jail time for it even if they didn't give the info to anybody else. For instance, Matthew Aid spent a year in prison for exactly that. That NSA guy who was caught about a year ago, I think his name was Harold Martin, in on trial for exactly the same thing and is almost certainly going to prison as well. There are loads more who have gone to jail for precisely this crime, unauthorized removal and retention of classified material. EDIT: This was exactly what brought down Dave Petraeus as CIA director, for those of you who remember. But let us set that aside for the moment and let us also assume that Snowden's intentions are pure. Would you agree that a very, very generous estimate of the number of supporting documents he read with clear evidence of illegal government spying is 10,000? If he has identified 10k specific supporting documents that provided evidence for mass illegal domestic spying, why not just save those specific ones and get rid of the rest?? The justification of "Well, these 10k documents are the real evidence I have , but there's also 1,490,000 other documents here. I have no idea what they contain, my very possession of them is a felony, their presence in this room is a different felony, but maybe, possibly, conceivably there's a couple more in there that also have info about this domestic spying" is obviously totally ridiculous. Where would he go? Somewhere that isn't Russia, China, or Iran would be a good start. He could just walk into the US embassy in Moscow and surrender himself for trial. He could try to walk up to Russia's border with Finland or Norway or Latvia or Estonia or Lithuania or Poland and ask for asylum there. Really, his options are endless if Russia doesn't want to keep him there by force and he's not afraid of a trial for his actions. Obama was president for 4 years after he pulled his stunt. Do you really think Obama would have given him a sham trial, because that's what you're really saying if you think that Snowden could not have returned to the USA. I.E. somewhere that has extradition treaties with or could be pressured to hand him over for the sham trial he suspects he will receive. Why will the US government not officially, publically offer him a fair trial? He's asked for one repeatedly and said he'd gladly come back to stand trial under those circumstances. Hardly the words of a Russian spy who doesn't want to come home. That female spy who actually WAS a spy is now a Russian model and political commentator, having been richly rewarded for her service to her country. Snowden... what's Snowden got out of this, again?
What would they need to do to prove to Snowden that the trial would be “fair”? I’ve never heard any government official saying he wouldn’t receive a trial.
|
On April 04 2018 06:47 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2018 06:17 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On April 04 2018 05:55 Kyadytim wrote:On April 04 2018 05:27 TheLordofAwesome wrote:The theft of 31,000 such documents is not the work of a whistleblower. It's the work of a spy. Edward Snowden is a traitor through and through, which is why he has hidden in Putin's Russia and will likely remain there for the rest of his life. On April 04 2018 04:38 TheLordofAwesome wrote:1. Snowden has acted as a spy and not a whistleblower in the way he stole so many documents, most of which he had no idea what they were.
-------------------------------------SNIP-------------------------------------
3. He’s been in Russia for almost 5 years now and shows no sign of leaving. I already covered that actually reading every document while keeping up with his actual job and not suddenly changing his behavior at home leaves taking everything and sorting it out (or leaving it for journalists to sort out) later is the only reasonable course of action to get the documents he wanted to take. Also, if you want to attack Snowden for spending 5 years in Russia and not showing signs of leaving, first please answer the questions "Where would he go?" and "How would he get there?" First of all, removal of TS//SCI material from a SCIF is in itself a felony, even if you just take a paper document home and burn it immediately. People have been caught taking TS//SCI info home before and they got jail time for it even if they didn't give the info to anybody else. For instance, Matthew Aid spent a year in prison for exactly that. That NSA guy who was caught about a year ago, I think his name was Harold Martin, in on trial for exactly the same thing and is almost certainly going to prison as well. There are loads more who have gone to jail for precisely this crime, unauthorized removal and retention of classified material. EDIT: This was exactly what brought down Dave Petraeus as CIA director, for those of you who remember. But let us set that aside for the moment and let us also assume that Snowden's intentions are pure. Would you agree that a very, very generous estimate of the number of supporting documents he read with clear evidence of illegal government spying is 10,000? If he has identified 10k specific supporting documents that provided evidence for mass illegal domestic spying, why not just save those specific ones and get rid of the rest?? The justification of "Well, these 10k documents are the real evidence I have , but there's also 1,490,000 other documents here. I have no idea what they contain, my very possession of them is a felony, their presence in this room is a different felony, but maybe, possibly, conceivably there's a couple more in there that also have info about this domestic spying" is obviously totally ridiculous. Where would he go? Somewhere that isn't Russia, China, or Iran would be a good start. He could just walk into the US embassy in Moscow and surrender himself for trial. He could try to walk up to Russia's border with Finland or Norway or Latvia or Estonia or Lithuania or Poland and ask for asylum there. Really, his options are endless if Russia doesn't want to keep him there by force and he's not afraid of a trial for his actions. Obama was president for 4 years after he pulled his stunt. Do you really think Obama would have given him a sham trial, because that's what you're really saying if you think that Snowden could not have returned to the USA. I.E. somewhere that has extradition treaties with or could be pressured to hand him over for the sham trial he suspects he will receive. Why will the US government not officially, publically offer him a fair trial? He's asked for one repeatedly and said he'd gladly come back to stand trial under those circumstances. Hardly the words of a Russian spy who doesn't want to come home. That female spy who actually WAS a spy is now a Russian model and political commentator, having been richly rewarded for her service to her country. Snowden... what's Snowden got out of this, again?
“He's broken the law in my view. He needs to get lawyers, come on back, and decide, see what he wants to do: Go to trial, try to cut a deal. I think there has to be a consequence for what he has done,” Holder said during Monday's episode of "The Axe Files" with former top Obama aide David Axelrod. "I think in deciding what an appropriate sentence should be, I think a judge could take into account the usefulness of having had that national debate."
After reciting that quote, Earnest said that Holder is articulating "the view of the administration, which is specifically that Mr. Snowden has been charged with serious crimes, he should return to the United States, he should be afforded due process and that’s essentially how the situation should be handled, but Mr. Snowden has not done so.”
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/white-house-obama-edward-snowden-223742
Both Holder and Obama stated that they would give Snowden due process if he returned to the USA. If you think Snowden would not have been afforded a fair trial, then you think Obama and Holder were lying about this. Do you believe that?
EDIT: Snowden says he just wants a fair trial and he'd return to the USA. Obama and Holder both repeatedly said for years that they'd give him one. Snowden's response was that he wouldn't get a fair trial if he returned to the USA. In what world is Snowden NOT accusing Obama of flat out lying?
|
On April 04 2018 06:17 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2018 05:55 Kyadytim wrote:On April 04 2018 05:27 TheLordofAwesome wrote:The theft of 31,000 such documents is not the work of a whistleblower. It's the work of a spy. Edward Snowden is a traitor through and through, which is why he has hidden in Putin's Russia and will likely remain there for the rest of his life. On April 04 2018 04:38 TheLordofAwesome wrote:1. Snowden has acted as a spy and not a whistleblower in the way he stole so many documents, most of which he had no idea what they were.
-------------------------------------SNIP-------------------------------------
3. He’s been in Russia for almost 5 years now and shows no sign of leaving. I already covered that actually reading every document while keeping up with his actual job and not suddenly changing his behavior at home leaves taking everything and sorting it out (or leaving it for journalists to sort out) later is the only reasonable course of action to get the documents he wanted to take. Also, if you want to attack Snowden for spending 5 years in Russia and not showing signs of leaving, first please answer the questions "Where would he go?" and "How would he get there?" But let us set that aside for the moment and let us also assume that Snowden's intentions are pure. Would you agree that a very, very generous estimate of the number of supporting documents he read with clear evidence of illegal government spying is 10,000? No. I'd think it's more likely that he had seen fewer than those and figured he had the tip of the iceberg.
On April 04 2018 06:17 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Where would he go? Somewhere that isn't Russia, China, or Iran would be a good start. He could just walk into the US embassy in Moscow and surrender himself for trial. He could try to walk up to Russia's border with Finland or Norway or Latvia or Estonia or Lithuania or Poland and ask for asylum there. Really, his options are endless if Russia doesn't want to keep him there by force and he's not afraid of a trial for his actions. Obama was president for 4 years after he pulled his stunt. Do you really think Obama would have given him a sham trial, because that's what you're really saying if you think that Snowden could not have returned to the USA.
Finland, Norway, and Poland had already turned him down for asylum, along with a large list of other nations.
www.theguardian.com I can't speak for Latvia, Estonia, or Lithuania* - I have no idea what US diplomatic relations with them are like and if they'd be willing to piss of the US by hosting Snowden.
And yes, I think the Obama administration had already decided that that he was guilty, or at least that they wanted to make an example of him to prevent any more whistleblowing. The rhetoric coming out of the Obama administration about Snowden was really harsh - he was being called a traitor outright. And certainly I don't think he'd get a fair shot at justice from the Trump administration. As I said before, in Snowden's shoes I would not trust any offers of a fair trial and definitely wouldn't be returning except in the case of a full pardon.
It's not necessarily a sham trial, though. It's just a trial (or maybe military tribunal, I don't know) where the all of the technicalities of a legal trial are followed, but the outcome is already decided, mostly via manipulation of what the jury is allowed to hear. He doesn't really have the assumption of innocence until proven guilty; people had already decided that he was going to be prosecuted and sentenced for his actions, and the trial would be a formality to establish it legally.
In response to another post about trusting the intelligence community on Russia but not this, it's basically the same as trusting police statements after a police officer shot and killed another unarmed man. People are involved in authoritarian uses of power really, really like to keep the details about how they're using that power secret because it helps them get away with it. My perspective is that the backlash against Snowden was primarily fueled by people who were afraid of losing power or getting punished for abusing power and were trying to discredit the source and change the conversation. It's more or less the same thing as people digging up any possible criminal history on shooting victims in an effort to protect the shooter.
*Trump hosted the presidents of those three nations at the White House this morning. I would not recommend anyone seeking asylum from the United States look to those nations.
|
Trump fired back at China's tariffs. China's tariffs had been on about $3B of stuff, Trump is now proposing $50B in tariffs.
Arguably, China fired a warning shot. Trump has declared a trade war.
|
On April 04 2018 06:52 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2018 06:47 iamthedave wrote:On April 04 2018 06:17 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On April 04 2018 05:55 Kyadytim wrote:On April 04 2018 05:27 TheLordofAwesome wrote:The theft of 31,000 such documents is not the work of a whistleblower. It's the work of a spy. Edward Snowden is a traitor through and through, which is why he has hidden in Putin's Russia and will likely remain there for the rest of his life. On April 04 2018 04:38 TheLordofAwesome wrote:1. Snowden has acted as a spy and not a whistleblower in the way he stole so many documents, most of which he had no idea what they were.
-------------------------------------SNIP-------------------------------------
3. He’s been in Russia for almost 5 years now and shows no sign of leaving. I already covered that actually reading every document while keeping up with his actual job and not suddenly changing his behavior at home leaves taking everything and sorting it out (or leaving it for journalists to sort out) later is the only reasonable course of action to get the documents he wanted to take. Also, if you want to attack Snowden for spending 5 years in Russia and not showing signs of leaving, first please answer the questions "Where would he go?" and "How would he get there?" First of all, removal of TS//SCI material from a SCIF is in itself a felony, even if you just take a paper document home and burn it immediately. People have been caught taking TS//SCI info home before and they got jail time for it even if they didn't give the info to anybody else. For instance, Matthew Aid spent a year in prison for exactly that. That NSA guy who was caught about a year ago, I think his name was Harold Martin, in on trial for exactly the same thing and is almost certainly going to prison as well. There are loads more who have gone to jail for precisely this crime, unauthorized removal and retention of classified material. EDIT: This was exactly what brought down Dave Petraeus as CIA director, for those of you who remember. But let us set that aside for the moment and let us also assume that Snowden's intentions are pure. Would you agree that a very, very generous estimate of the number of supporting documents he read with clear evidence of illegal government spying is 10,000? If he has identified 10k specific supporting documents that provided evidence for mass illegal domestic spying, why not just save those specific ones and get rid of the rest?? The justification of "Well, these 10k documents are the real evidence I have , but there's also 1,490,000 other documents here. I have no idea what they contain, my very possession of them is a felony, their presence in this room is a different felony, but maybe, possibly, conceivably there's a couple more in there that also have info about this domestic spying" is obviously totally ridiculous. Where would he go? Somewhere that isn't Russia, China, or Iran would be a good start. He could just walk into the US embassy in Moscow and surrender himself for trial. He could try to walk up to Russia's border with Finland or Norway or Latvia or Estonia or Lithuania or Poland and ask for asylum there. Really, his options are endless if Russia doesn't want to keep him there by force and he's not afraid of a trial for his actions. Obama was president for 4 years after he pulled his stunt. Do you really think Obama would have given him a sham trial, because that's what you're really saying if you think that Snowden could not have returned to the USA. I.E. somewhere that has extradition treaties with or could be pressured to hand him over for the sham trial he suspects he will receive. Why will the US government not officially, publically offer him a fair trial? He's asked for one repeatedly and said he'd gladly come back to stand trial under those circumstances. Hardly the words of a Russian spy who doesn't want to come home. That female spy who actually WAS a spy is now a Russian model and political commentator, having been richly rewarded for her service to her country. Snowden... what's Snowden got out of this, again? Show nested quote +“He's broken the law in my view. He needs to get lawyers, come on back, and decide, see what he wants to do: Go to trial, try to cut a deal. I think there has to be a consequence for what he has done,” Holder said during Monday's episode of "The Axe Files" with former top Obama aide David Axelrod. "I think in deciding what an appropriate sentence should be, I think a judge could take into account the usefulness of having had that national debate."
After reciting that quote, Earnest said that Holder is articulating "the view of the administration, which is specifically that Mr. Snowden has been charged with serious crimes, he should return to the United States, he should be afforded due process and that’s essentially how the situation should be handled, but Mr. Snowden has not done so.” https://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/white-house-obama-edward-snowden-223742Both Holder and Obama stated that they would give Snowden due process if he returned to the USA. If you think Snowden would not have been afforded a fair trial, then you think Obama and Holder were lying about this. Do you believe that? EDIT: Snowden says he just wants a fair trial and he'd return to the USA. Obama and Holder both repeatedly said for years that they'd give him one. Snowden's response was that he wouldn't get a fair trial if he returned to the USA. In what world is Snowden NOT accusing Obama of flat out lying?
The article you quoted outright says that Holder isn't interested in Snowden having a fair trial. "He's broken the law in my view." Holder has already decided that Snowden is guilty and needs to face consequences. " I think there has to be a consequence for what he has done."
And we've already gone over how due process actually works out for whistleblowers.
|
On April 04 2018 06:16 Ayaz2810 wrote:
WTF. Shooter was a female and is dead.
Forgive me, but in this case it feels somewhat appropriate. Do we mean born with female anatomy, or identifies as female? This would be like...the first female mass shooter ever, right?
On April 04 2018 07:11 ticklishmusic wrote:
Trump fired back at China's tariffs. China's tariffs had been on about $3B of stuff, Trump is now proposing $50B in tariffs.
Arguably, China fired a warning shot. Trump has declared a trade war.
Hard to even call China's "shot" a warning shot. $3B is insanely, insanely small relative to what they could have started with. They really did skirt the minimum when doing this. They truly do not want it to happen.
That being said, I won't be surprised when they fire back with $100B.
|
|
|
On April 04 2018 07:10 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2018 06:17 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On April 04 2018 05:55 Kyadytim wrote:On April 04 2018 05:27 TheLordofAwesome wrote:The theft of 31,000 such documents is not the work of a whistleblower. It's the work of a spy. Edward Snowden is a traitor through and through, which is why he has hidden in Putin's Russia and will likely remain there for the rest of his life. On April 04 2018 04:38 TheLordofAwesome wrote:1. Snowden has acted as a spy and not a whistleblower in the way he stole so many documents, most of which he had no idea what they were.
-------------------------------------SNIP-------------------------------------
3. He’s been in Russia for almost 5 years now and shows no sign of leaving. I already covered that actually reading every document while keeping up with his actual job and not suddenly changing his behavior at home leaves taking everything and sorting it out (or leaving it for journalists to sort out) later is the only reasonable course of action to get the documents he wanted to take. Also, if you want to attack Snowden for spending 5 years in Russia and not showing signs of leaving, first please answer the questions "Where would he go?" and "How would he get there?" But let us set that aside for the moment and let us also assume that Snowden's intentions are pure. Would you agree that a very, very generous estimate of the number of supporting documents he read with clear evidence of illegal government spying is 10,000? No. I'd think it's more likely that he had seen fewer than those and figured he had the tip of the iceberg. Show nested quote +On April 04 2018 06:17 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Where would he go? Somewhere that isn't Russia, China, or Iran would be a good start. He could just walk into the US embassy in Moscow and surrender himself for trial. He could try to walk up to Russia's border with Finland or Norway or Latvia or Estonia or Lithuania or Poland and ask for asylum there. Really, his options are endless if Russia doesn't want to keep him there by force and he's not afraid of a trial for his actions. Obama was president for 4 years after he pulled his stunt. Do you really think Obama would have given him a sham trial, because that's what you're really saying if you think that Snowden could not have returned to the USA. Finland, Norway, and Poland had already turned him down for asylum, along with a large list of other nations. www.theguardian.com I can't speak for Latvia, Estonia, or Lithuania - I have no idea what US diplomatic relations with them are like and if they'd be willing to piss of the US by hosting Snowden. And yes, I think the Obama administration had already decided that that he was guilty, or at least that they wanted to make an example of him to prevent any more whistleblowing. The rhetoric coming out of the Obama administration about Snowden was really harsh - he was being called a traitor outright. And certainly I don't think he'd get a fair shot at justice from the Trump administration. As I said before, in Snowden's shoes I would not trust any offers of a fair trial and definitely wouldn't be returning except in the case of a full pardon. It's not necessarily a sham trial, though. It's just a trial (or maybe military tribunal, I don't know) where the all of the technicalities of a legal trial are followed, but the outcome is already decided, mostly via manipulation of what the jury is allowed to hear. He doesn't really have the assumption of innocence until proven guilty; people had already decided that he was going to be prosecuted and sentenced for his actions, and the trial would be a formality to establish it legally. In response to another post about trusting the intelligence community on Russia but not this, it's basically the same as trusting police statements after a police officer shot and killed another unarmed man. People are involved in authoritarian uses of power really, really like to keep the details about how they're using that power secret because it helps them get away with it. My perspective is that the backlash against Snowden was primarily fueled by people who were afraid of losing power or getting punished for abusing power and were trying to discredit the source and change the conversation. It's more or less the same thing as people digging up any possible criminal history on shooting victims in an effort to protect the shooter.
Could you address the part of my post where I talk about how Snowden kept all 1.5 million documents, despite being utterly clueless about 99% of their actual contents, and how that means he committed espionage?
About the rest of your post, it's clear you think that the US judiciary system was fundamentally rigged against Snowden and that Obama's and Holder's promises of a fair trial were just bold faced lies. You seem to think that Snowden should not have had to face any trial at all, in fact. I think that would be a gross miscarriage of justice. I don't think there is really much point to continuing the conversation about trials and pardons since we obviously disagree on so many basic points.
|
On April 04 2018 07:16 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2018 06:52 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On April 04 2018 06:47 iamthedave wrote:On April 04 2018 06:17 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On April 04 2018 05:55 Kyadytim wrote:On April 04 2018 05:27 TheLordofAwesome wrote:The theft of 31,000 such documents is not the work of a whistleblower. It's the work of a spy. Edward Snowden is a traitor through and through, which is why he has hidden in Putin's Russia and will likely remain there for the rest of his life. On April 04 2018 04:38 TheLordofAwesome wrote:1. Snowden has acted as a spy and not a whistleblower in the way he stole so many documents, most of which he had no idea what they were.
-------------------------------------SNIP-------------------------------------
3. He’s been in Russia for almost 5 years now and shows no sign of leaving. I already covered that actually reading every document while keeping up with his actual job and not suddenly changing his behavior at home leaves taking everything and sorting it out (or leaving it for journalists to sort out) later is the only reasonable course of action to get the documents he wanted to take. Also, if you want to attack Snowden for spending 5 years in Russia and not showing signs of leaving, first please answer the questions "Where would he go?" and "How would he get there?" First of all, removal of TS//SCI material from a SCIF is in itself a felony, even if you just take a paper document home and burn it immediately. People have been caught taking TS//SCI info home before and they got jail time for it even if they didn't give the info to anybody else. For instance, Matthew Aid spent a year in prison for exactly that. That NSA guy who was caught about a year ago, I think his name was Harold Martin, in on trial for exactly the same thing and is almost certainly going to prison as well. There are loads more who have gone to jail for precisely this crime, unauthorized removal and retention of classified material. EDIT: This was exactly what brought down Dave Petraeus as CIA director, for those of you who remember. But let us set that aside for the moment and let us also assume that Snowden's intentions are pure. Would you agree that a very, very generous estimate of the number of supporting documents he read with clear evidence of illegal government spying is 10,000? If he has identified 10k specific supporting documents that provided evidence for mass illegal domestic spying, why not just save those specific ones and get rid of the rest?? The justification of "Well, these 10k documents are the real evidence I have , but there's also 1,490,000 other documents here. I have no idea what they contain, my very possession of them is a felony, their presence in this room is a different felony, but maybe, possibly, conceivably there's a couple more in there that also have info about this domestic spying" is obviously totally ridiculous. Where would he go? Somewhere that isn't Russia, China, or Iran would be a good start. He could just walk into the US embassy in Moscow and surrender himself for trial. He could try to walk up to Russia's border with Finland or Norway or Latvia or Estonia or Lithuania or Poland and ask for asylum there. Really, his options are endless if Russia doesn't want to keep him there by force and he's not afraid of a trial for his actions. Obama was president for 4 years after he pulled his stunt. Do you really think Obama would have given him a sham trial, because that's what you're really saying if you think that Snowden could not have returned to the USA. I.E. somewhere that has extradition treaties with or could be pressured to hand him over for the sham trial he suspects he will receive. Why will the US government not officially, publically offer him a fair trial? He's asked for one repeatedly and said he'd gladly come back to stand trial under those circumstances. Hardly the words of a Russian spy who doesn't want to come home. That female spy who actually WAS a spy is now a Russian model and political commentator, having been richly rewarded for her service to her country. Snowden... what's Snowden got out of this, again? “He's broken the law in my view. He needs to get lawyers, come on back, and decide, see what he wants to do: Go to trial, try to cut a deal. I think there has to be a consequence for what he has done,” Holder said during Monday's episode of "The Axe Files" with former top Obama aide David Axelrod. "I think in deciding what an appropriate sentence should be, I think a judge could take into account the usefulness of having had that national debate."
After reciting that quote, Earnest said that Holder is articulating "the view of the administration, which is specifically that Mr. Snowden has been charged with serious crimes, he should return to the United States, he should be afforded due process and that’s essentially how the situation should be handled, but Mr. Snowden has not done so.” https://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/white-house-obama-edward-snowden-223742Both Holder and Obama stated that they would give Snowden due process if he returned to the USA. If you think Snowden would not have been afforded a fair trial, then you think Obama and Holder were lying about this. Do you believe that? EDIT: Snowden says he just wants a fair trial and he'd return to the USA. Obama and Holder both repeatedly said for years that they'd give him one. Snowden's response was that he wouldn't get a fair trial if he returned to the USA. In what world is Snowden NOT accusing Obama of flat out lying? The article you quoted outright says that Holder isn't interested in Snowden having a fair trial. "He's broken the law in my view." Holder has already decided that Snowden is guilty and needs to face consequences. " I think there has to be a consequence for what he has done." And we've already gone over how due process actually works out for whistleblowers.
Serious question, are you American, because you don't seem to know how the American judicial system works. Most American federal prosecutors think their targets have broken the law. Lots and lots of those targets are never convicted of anything at all. I know that some countries do things differently. I believe South Korea for one has a 99% conviction rate of people who get charged by prosecutors there.
|
The justice Department isn’t going to charge anyone with a crime if they think the person is innocent. They also are not part of the branch of government that determines if the law was broken.
|
On April 04 2018 05:59 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2018 01:32 Doodsmack wrote:Looks like Rosenstein's authorization to Mueller included much more than just Russian meddling. It actually authorized specific investigations including whether Manafort colluded or engaged in financial crimes. So presumably, there was some basis for those investigations in the first place. Not surprisingly, Republican attempts to cast doubt on Mueller's investigation are unfounded.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein told special counsel Robert Mueller in a classified August 2, 2017, memo that he should investigate allegations that President Donald Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort was "colluding with Russian government officials" to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, prosecutors in the Russia probe revealed late Monday night.
Mueller was also empowered by Rosenstein to investigate Manafort's payments from Ukrainian politicians, a cornerstone of the Trump adviser's decades-long lobbying career that has resulted in several financial criminal charges so far.
The revelation of the August 2 memo comes amid a broader court filing from Mueller's prosecutors that offers a full-throated defense of their investigative powers and indictments thus far. In the filing, the special counsel's office argues that a federal judge should not throw out Manafort's case. Manafort has sought to have the case dismissed, arguing that the charges against him are outside of Mueller's authority.
The filing Monday night crystallizes the extent to which Rosenstein, who has come under fire by President Donald Trump and others, has backed the investigation's actions. (Rosenstein oversees Mueller's investigation following Attorney General Jeff Sessions' recusal.)
The memo, attached to Monday night's court argument and not previously disclosed even to Manafort, describes how Rosenstein's public order that appointed Mueller in May left out some details so it didn't confirm "specific investigations involving specific individuals."
Most of the investigations and individuals that Rosenstein named in that memo are now redacted -- amounting to almost a full page of withheld information.
www.cnn.com The page of redactions in the memo is pretty intriguing. Wonder who else was named in that memo. To the posters in this thread who believe that Trump-Russia collusion is likely and also believe that Snowden is a hero: In virtually every case, the intelligence analysts and national security law experts of all political stripes who have argued that criminal conduct in the Trump-Russia affair is probable have also argued that Edward Snowden is a traitor and Russian asset. Why do you unhesitatingly accept their words on the former and dismiss their words on the latter?
are you really asking how someone could be persuaded by someone about point X and not be persuaded by the same person on point Y? especially when point Y is a story about how said someone was illegally spying on the american people?
|
On April 04 2018 05:02 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2018 04:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 04 2018 04:38 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On April 03 2018 12:05 KwarK wrote:
Snowden didn’t run to Russia, the US gov blocked his flight out of a Russian airport. Fortunately he had the good sense not to have any intel in his possession at that point. I know the official Snowden line about how the US revoked his passport while he was in midair on the way to Russia, and that he never intended to end up there. I find this story highly suspect because I believe that Snowden intended to end up in Russia all along. Why? 1. Snowden has acted as a spy and not a whistleblower in the way he stole so many documents, most of which he had no idea what they were. 2. When Snowden was in Hong Kong, he repeatedly visited the Russian embassy there, even celebrated his 30th birthday party at the embassy there. That seems very odd for a whistleblower but not so odd for a Russian spy. 3. He’s been in Russia for almost 5 years now and shows no sign of leaving. 4. Russia isn’t exactly the safest place for a real whistleblower who is truly committed to transparency and truth, considering how any whistleblowers in Russia would be brutally tortured and murdered. About Snowden’s possession of his stolen documents in Russia, Team Snowden has publicly said both that he has all the stolen documents with him in Russia and that he has none of the stolen documents with him in Russia. Interesting how they can’t even keep their story straight on one of the most important details of Ed’s saga. Needlesss to say, if Snowden did bring the documents with him to Russia, the Russians certainly have them now, assuming he didn’t just give it to them at the Hong Kong embassy. If Snowden was a spy, would that be worse than the massive domestic spying the US was doing that he exposed? What if it is possible to discuss a topic without whataboutism? What if it is possible to discuss Snowden without immediately shifting the conversation to the CIA? Both are legitimate topics, but you are trying to dissuade people from talking about the illegitimacy of Snowden. People should be able to discuss a topic without you immediately shifting the conversation using silly whataboutism comparisons. The world has a lot of bad people and bad organizations. We don't need to list them all in order of shittiness and only discuss the top 3 or whatever. Why does the idea of people discussing the idea of Snowden being a spy make you so uncomfortable? You are going out of your way to shift conversation away from an existing topic.
i think what GH is disturbed about is that LoA seems to think that it would be better if Snowden didn't warn the American people that they were constantly being spied upon by their own government because now the government might be less effective at spying on Russia. what's the real whataboutism here? is it saying "hold on, our government has destroyed privacy at home by illegally spying on everything everybody does resulting in the complete dissolution of civil rights critical to our cherished freedoms" or is it saying "snowden is a traitor, our freedom doesnt matter as much as our ability to spy on russians?"
|
On April 04 2018 08:55 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2018 05:02 Mohdoo wrote:On April 04 2018 04:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 04 2018 04:38 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On April 03 2018 12:05 KwarK wrote:
Snowden didn’t run to Russia, the US gov blocked his flight out of a Russian airport. Fortunately he had the good sense not to have any intel in his possession at that point. I know the official Snowden line about how the US revoked his passport while he was in midair on the way to Russia, and that he never intended to end up there. I find this story highly suspect because I believe that Snowden intended to end up in Russia all along. Why? 1. Snowden has acted as a spy and not a whistleblower in the way he stole so many documents, most of which he had no idea what they were. 2. When Snowden was in Hong Kong, he repeatedly visited the Russian embassy there, even celebrated his 30th birthday party at the embassy there. That seems very odd for a whistleblower but not so odd for a Russian spy. 3. He’s been in Russia for almost 5 years now and shows no sign of leaving. 4. Russia isn’t exactly the safest place for a real whistleblower who is truly committed to transparency and truth, considering how any whistleblowers in Russia would be brutally tortured and murdered. About Snowden’s possession of his stolen documents in Russia, Team Snowden has publicly said both that he has all the stolen documents with him in Russia and that he has none of the stolen documents with him in Russia. Interesting how they can’t even keep their story straight on one of the most important details of Ed’s saga. Needlesss to say, if Snowden did bring the documents with him to Russia, the Russians certainly have them now, assuming he didn’t just give it to them at the Hong Kong embassy. If Snowden was a spy, would that be worse than the massive domestic spying the US was doing that he exposed? What if it is possible to discuss a topic without whataboutism? What if it is possible to discuss Snowden without immediately shifting the conversation to the CIA? Both are legitimate topics, but you are trying to dissuade people from talking about the illegitimacy of Snowden. People should be able to discuss a topic without you immediately shifting the conversation using silly whataboutism comparisons. The world has a lot of bad people and bad organizations. We don't need to list them all in order of shittiness and only discuss the top 3 or whatever. Why does the idea of people discussing the idea of Snowden being a spy make you so uncomfortable? You are going out of your way to shift conversation away from an existing topic. i think what GH is disturbed about is that LoA seems to think that it would be better if Snowden didn't warn the American people that they were constantly being spied upon by their own government because now the government might be less effective at spying on Russia. what's the real whataboutism here? is it saying "hold on, our government has destroyed privacy at home by illegally spying on everything everybody does resulting in the complete dissolution of civil rights critical to our cherished freedoms" or is it saying "snowden is a traitor, our freedom doesnt matter as much as our ability to spy on russians?"
If Snowden's only concern was informing the public of spying, he would have done things verrrrrrry differently. He could have taken wayyyyy less risk and done everything much quicker.
|
I do not believe LoA has ever made that argument.
|
On April 04 2018 09:04 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2018 08:55 IgnE wrote:On April 04 2018 05:02 Mohdoo wrote:On April 04 2018 04:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 04 2018 04:38 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On April 03 2018 12:05 KwarK wrote:
Snowden didn’t run to Russia, the US gov blocked his flight out of a Russian airport. Fortunately he had the good sense not to have any intel in his possession at that point. I know the official Snowden line about how the US revoked his passport while he was in midair on the way to Russia, and that he never intended to end up there. I find this story highly suspect because I believe that Snowden intended to end up in Russia all along. Why? 1. Snowden has acted as a spy and not a whistleblower in the way he stole so many documents, most of which he had no idea what they were. 2. When Snowden was in Hong Kong, he repeatedly visited the Russian embassy there, even celebrated his 30th birthday party at the embassy there. That seems very odd for a whistleblower but not so odd for a Russian spy. 3. He’s been in Russia for almost 5 years now and shows no sign of leaving. 4. Russia isn’t exactly the safest place for a real whistleblower who is truly committed to transparency and truth, considering how any whistleblowers in Russia would be brutally tortured and murdered. About Snowden’s possession of his stolen documents in Russia, Team Snowden has publicly said both that he has all the stolen documents with him in Russia and that he has none of the stolen documents with him in Russia. Interesting how they can’t even keep their story straight on one of the most important details of Ed’s saga. Needlesss to say, if Snowden did bring the documents with him to Russia, the Russians certainly have them now, assuming he didn’t just give it to them at the Hong Kong embassy. If Snowden was a spy, would that be worse than the massive domestic spying the US was doing that he exposed? What if it is possible to discuss a topic without whataboutism? What if it is possible to discuss Snowden without immediately shifting the conversation to the CIA? Both are legitimate topics, but you are trying to dissuade people from talking about the illegitimacy of Snowden. People should be able to discuss a topic without you immediately shifting the conversation using silly whataboutism comparisons. The world has a lot of bad people and bad organizations. We don't need to list them all in order of shittiness and only discuss the top 3 or whatever. Why does the idea of people discussing the idea of Snowden being a spy make you so uncomfortable? You are going out of your way to shift conversation away from an existing topic. i think what GH is disturbed about is that LoA seems to think that it would be better if Snowden didn't warn the American people that they were constantly being spied upon by their own government because now the government might be less effective at spying on Russia. what's the real whataboutism here? is it saying "hold on, our government has destroyed privacy at home by illegally spying on everything everybody does resulting in the complete dissolution of civil rights critical to our cherished freedoms" or is it saying "snowden is a traitor, our freedom doesnt matter as much as our ability to spy on russians?" Of Snowden's only concern was informing the public of spying, he would have done things verrrrrrry differently. He could have taken wayyyyy less risk and done everything much quicker.
oh yeah? how's that?
|
Chelsea Manning got a fair trial, but also got some rough solitary time. However, Obama eventually pardoned / commuted Manning. Snowden decided that fleeing and defecting was superior to having to stand trial like Manning did. Whatever 'patriot' bona fides Snowden had were lost when he defected and ran from the consequences of his actions. I get the 'ends justifies the means' take that Snowden's leaks were soooo good for the American public that it makes what he did okay. But there ought be a showing of how much better he made American society before putting that take up.
|
United States44283 Posts
On April 04 2018 02:18 On_Slaught wrote:
Trump just met one of the alt-right's wet dreams. He just said he is going to send the military to guard the southern border until a wall is built. I hope he does it. Im sure it will be drama-less and highly effective.
The military have significantly more training and better rules of engagement than the clowns currently doing the job.
|
United States44283 Posts
On April 04 2018 09:26 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Chelsea Manning got a fair trial, but also got some rough solitary time. However, Obama eventually pardoned / commuted Manning. Snowden decided that fleeing and defecting was superior to having to stand trial like Manning did. Whatever 'patriot' bona fides Snowden had were lost when he defected and ran from the consequences of his actions. I get the 'ends justifies the means' take that Snowden's leaks were soooo good for the American public that it makes what he did okay. But there ought be a showing of how much better he made American society before putting that take up.
This is a meaningless talking point that people who don't understand the position he was in trot out.
Snowden's whistleblowing was never going to be on trial, the case for or against the NSA programs he exposed was never going to be argued, nor whether the NSA misled congress or if congress lied to the American people. The huge lack of constitutional authority was never going to be debated. He was guilty under the Espionage Act, they'd have fasttracked him to a supermax and we'd never have heard of him again.
The whole point of Snowden's revelations was that the system was morally bankrupt. You can't insist that for his whistleblowing to be legitimate he must answer to the system he just revealed was broken.
I know it sounds absurd that the reason he whistleblew and the constitutionality of the things he revealed wouldn't be included in his trial but that's the reality of it. Reality is absurd sometimes.
TheLordofAwesome, I recommend you watch citizenfour. The time after his arrival in Hong Kong was documented by journalists at the time and turned into a documentary. Rather than parroting the opinions of others in the years that followed, why not hear his own words spoken at the time, before he knew how it'd all play out. The idea that he was a spy, or at the very least a foreign spy, is absolutely laughable. The guy volunteered to serve in the US army during Iraq, he was crazily well paid by the NSA, and had pretty much a dream life. He gave up all of that. Listen to the man speak, he elevates patriotism to zealotry.
You may not agree with how he expresses his patriotism, that's fine. But there is absolutely no question that he sincerely loves both America and the US constitution and acted out of a belief in the need to fight for them.
|
On April 04 2018 09:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2018 09:26 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Chelsea Manning got a fair trial, but also got some rough solitary time. However, Obama eventually pardoned / commuted Manning. Snowden decided that fleeing and defecting was superior to having to stand trial like Manning did. Whatever 'patriot' bona fides Snowden had were lost when he defected and ran from the consequences of his actions. I get the 'ends justifies the means' take that Snowden's leaks were soooo good for the American public that it makes what he did okay. But there ought be a showing of how much better he made American society before putting that take up. This is a meaningless talking point that people who don't understand the position he was in trot out. Snowden's whistleblowing was never going to be on trial, the case for or against the NSA programs he exposed was never going to be argued, nor whether the NSA misled congress or if congress lied to the American people. The huge lack of constitutional authority was never going to be debated. He was guilty under the Espionage Act, they'd have fasttracked him to a supermax and we'd never have heard of him again. The whole point of Snowden's revelations was that the system was morally bankrupt. You can't insist that for his whistleblowing to be legitimate he must answer to the system he just revealed was broken. I know it sounds absurd that the reason he whistleblew and the constitutionality of the things he revealed wouldn't be included in his trial but that's the reality of it. Reality is absurd sometimes. TheLordofAwesome, I recommend you watch citizenfour. The time after his arrival in Hong Kong was documented by journalists at the time and turned into a documentary. Rather than parroting the opinions of others in the years that followed, why not hear his own words spoken at the time, before he knew how it'd all play out. The idea that he was a spy, or at the very least a foreign spy, is absolutely laughable. The guy volunteered to serve in the US army during Iraq, he was crazily well paid by the NSA, and had pretty much a dream life. He gave up all of that. Listen to the man speak, he elevates patriotism to zealotry. You may not agree with how he expresses his patriotism, that's fine. But there is absolutely no question that he sincerely loves both America and the US constitution and acted out of a belief in the need to fight for them.
So what he revealed was good, great, and furthered American welfare? This is an interesting claim. Can you point me somewhere with some evidence to back it up? Thus far all the takes I have seen were that Snowden dropped a whole lot of details on our foreign rival surveillance actions. See the LOA posts above. Let's see the good stuff that made Snowden's actions justified.
EDIT: here is a quick search hit.
https://mashable.com/2014/06/05/edward-snowden-revelations/#UBjA5MuV0Pqk
I am still not seeing it. I get the Manning case. Manning showed us what was happening in a war that we deserved to hear about. Snowden revealed the capabilities and methods of NSA signals intelligence. My point is that the burden is on the person trying to show that the criminal actions were justified. And that that burden gets even higher when the potential defendant flees from justice and defects to our signals intelligence rival who would really like to review everything the defendant leaked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
