|
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 |
United States42283 Posts
On April 04 2018 09:44 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2018 09:30 KwarK wrote: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.
You're setting up a straw man.
My argument was that Snowden was not a foreign spy and instead acted out of a sincere love for the US constitution and a patriotic desire to protect the US people from what he saw as unconstitutional surveillance.
Please respond to my argument and not one of your own creation which you have ascribed to me.
|
On April 04 2018 09:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I actually considered this as a possible benefit. Still, dont see how he gets past Posse Commitatus. Immigration control is domestic law and out of the military's scope.
|
On April 04 2018 09:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2018 09:44 Wulfey_LA wrote:On April 04 2018 09:30 KwarK wrote: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. You're setting up a straw man. My argument was that Snowden was not a foreign spy and instead acted out of a sincere love for the US constitution and a patriotic desire to protect the US people from what he saw as unconstitutional surveillance. Please respond to my argument and not one of your own creation which you have ascribed to me.
How do you balance on the one hand (1) patriotism with (2) defection and fleeing from justice? Manning got a fairish trial. Defectors who hand intel to intelligence rivals make poor patriots. You need to show how his actions square with your patriot claim.
EDIT: surprise surprise, congressional report finds that Snowden was in contact with Russian intelligence since 2013. Such patriotism!
https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/22/politics/edward-snowden-russia-intelligence/index.html
EDIT2: On the one hand, you have intelligence professionals who call this the worst disaster in intelligence history. They have the law, history, and expertise on their side. On the other hand you have Greenwald/Assange/Intercept (ruskie stooges) saying that these leaks that damaged USA intelligence capabilities are super great. The Ruskie stooge take only works if you share their anti-american priors. If you talk to someone who doesn't have those priors, how will you convince them that was Snowden did was good? Can you point to some kind of not-stooge take justifying his actions?
|
United States42283 Posts
On April 04 2018 09:52 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2018 09:46 KwarK wrote:On April 04 2018 09:44 Wulfey_LA wrote:On April 04 2018 09:30 KwarK wrote: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. You're setting up a straw man. My argument was that Snowden was not a foreign spy and instead acted out of a sincere love for the US constitution and a patriotic desire to protect the US people from what he saw as unconstitutional surveillance. Please respond to my argument and not one of your own creation which you have ascribed to me. How do you balance on the one hand (1) patriotism with (2) defection and fleeing from justice? Manning got a fairish trial. Defectors who hand intel to intelligence rivals make poor patriots. You need to show how his actions square with your patriot claim.
Honestly at this point it feels like you're just unfamiliar with the case.
Snowden's background is absolutely unimpeachable. Born in America to an American family, went to an American school, joined up to serve in Iraq, followed his military service with government contracting etc. He's as American as apple pie.
While working for the NSA he discovered that
All the American telecoms companies were passing all call data for all calls they had access to, foreign, domestic, all of them, to the NSA and that they were gagged from discussing it, to the point that it had never been publicly authorized.
The big tech companies of Silicon Valley were forced to share data with the NSA and again, were gagged from disclosing it. Again, no judicial or political debate took place, they couldn't ask for one because they couldn't say what they were asking for. And again, this was spying on Americans.
The NSA had GCHQ (Britain) mass spy on Americans on their behalf as a loophole, sharing the intelligence it received against their common target (the American people).
All internet traffic, foreign and domestic, was being monitored by the NSA. Again, the American people were targeted.
The NSA had broken into and physically intercepted the telecoms and internet giant's datacenters to avoid having to force legal compliance from these entities.
Just a handful of the Snowden revelations. And these weren't targeted at foreign citizens or nations, these were targeted at American citizens.
After discovering this he chose to steal the files he could and secretly made contact with a number of journalists who were known for their credentials when dealing with confidential material. No foreign nations were involved, he knew that America's allies were complicit and he certainly had no desire to give it to America's enemies. He also deliberately refused to be the arbiter of what was released out of a fear that by acting as a gatekeeper he would inadvertently politicize what was released. He believed that the material was too important to be entrusted to anyone, even himself. LoA keeps insisting that the reason he didn't go through and select what he thought should be released was because he was a spy (apparently a spy for the Guardian newspaper?) but the guy is on tape in 2014 saying exactly why he was choosing to do that at the time. He then left behind his hot girlfriend, his super well paying job, his house, his life, and headed to Hong Kong to meet up with Glenn Greenwald.
After arriving there he surrendered the files he had taken to journalists. Not to a foreign nation. He purposefully removed himself from any power in the situation so that he could not be pressured by either threats to himself and his liberty (as would later come from Russia) or pressure through his girlfriend and family which he left behind in America. Once the documents were in the hands of the journalists he felt that his duty was complete. He got on a plane to
As I keep saying, you're more than welcome to argue that the leaks were a bad thing. That's fine. But there is no possible narrative in which it makes sense for this all American kid from North Carolina to be a foreign agent who refused to cooperate with any foreign government. The idea that Snowden wasn't driven by his patriotism is objectively ludicrous. The man is not insane, you can look at his actions and compare them to various motivations to see whether they agree or disagree. The man's actions perfectly match those of someone who believes that Americans have a patriotic duty to place the constitution before themselves. They do not remotely line up with any other potential motivation.
|
The Wikipedia article on Snowden has a quote from him saying that he personally reviewed every single document given to journalists in order to ensure they wouldn’t damage US national security. The article also says that Chinese and Russian intelligence got access to the bulk of Snowden’s (unreleased) documents, whether voluntarily or by hacking. These are facts that need to be addressed if you’re going to make a credible argument in favor of Snowden.
|
United States42283 Posts
On April 04 2018 10:26 Doodsmack wrote:
The Wikipedia article on Snowden has a quote from him saying that he personally reviewed every single document given to journalists in order to ensure they wouldn’t damage US national security. The article also says that Chinese and Russian intelligence got access to the bulk of Snowden’s (unreleased) documents, whether voluntarily or by hacking. These are facts that need to be addressed if you’re going to make a credible argument in favor of Snowden.
Again, whether or not the leaks were a bad thing is simply not relevant to whether or not Snowden was a foreign agent.
What I am arguing and what you are trying to argue against are two completely separate things.
My argument is that Snowden was motivated by his interpretation of the demands of American patriotism and service to the US constitution. Whether China hacked journalists after the fact is completely immaterial to that.
|
Snowden's background and claims sound sympathetic. Maybe he deserves some trust based on his pleasant white background and pretty girlfriend, but him running from the USA really sours me on him. He lives as some kind of FSB pet that is kept away from places where the Russian public might hear him speak.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/russian-investigative-journalist-snowden-sort-ghost-170357193.html
This list of 10 big leaks just doesn't sound that bad. I can see how adversaries might really like to know about the NSA's programs. But most of these things are about hunting the bad guys. The bulk data programs were ridiculous and unconstitutional and have since been curtailed**. But in the era of FB, GOOG, et al. constantly logging everything about me ... I sort of trust the NSA with that information more than I do the corps. At least the NSA does catch terrorists from time to time. FB just sells my data to Trumpkin/Mercer data firms.
https://mashable.com/2014/06/05/edward-snowden-revelations/#UBjA5MuV0Pqk
** That reforms were implemented post Snowden was the most convincing and sympathetic take I read on Snowden. The intel community did make substantial changes post Snowden and these changes were good.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/three-years-later-how-snowden-helped-us-intelligence-community
|
United States42283 Posts
Just don't attempt the argument "he left the US therefore he is a spy" and we're good. The man is pretty obviously not a spy.
And the NSA is still doing everything it was doing before with no more constitutional oversight than they had before. A large part of the point of the Snowden files is that the regular means for judicial oversight have been sidestepped. Google can't demand that the NSA come back with a warrant for their demands because they're not allowed to talk about the demand at all. Verizon aren't able to demand a warrant before handing over phone data because the NSA agents broke into the Verizon switchboard and intercepted all the calls themselves without asking Verizon.
They're not collecting data on bad guys. They're collecting everything on everyone. Every Google search for example. Think back to Hoover's harassment of MLK. If Hoover and MLK were around today there is a 0% chance that MLK wouldn't be blackmailed with his porn search history and the dickpics he sent his mistresses. The reason we build in constitutional safeguards is because we can't assume that every tool is only directed at the bad guys, and indeed we would have to be intentionally blind to history to make that assumption. The whole point of the constitution is to create limitations on the power of the government over the people, it's a pretty big deal when the government starts sidestepping it, regardless of whether you trust them to only target the right people.
|
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.
I do actually think that some of what Snowden exposed was overreach in domestic spying by NSA. As Dr. John Schindler put it, it was "Shamrock 2.0." If the only files he had taken had provided direct evidence of such programs, if all he had revealed was the few domestic spying programs by NSA, and if he had then surrendered himself to the US to face a fair trial, I would consider him a man motivated by genuine patriotism. Unfortunately, none of my three hypotheticals are true.
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.
You are absolutely right that the essential point in the Snowden narrative, the one upon which everything else is built, is that the system was morally bankrupt. That's what the driver for the 1.5 million document theft, the flight to first China and then Russia, and the release of the documents to journalists is all based on, right?
Snowden claimed that he took his concerns about NSA domestic spying to higher ups and was shut down super hard. What evidence does Snowden provide for this claim? Absolutely none. Literally absolutely nothing at all. He didn't have with him a single printout of a single email or letter that he sent about domestic spying programs, asking "are we the real bad guys?" Not one. Nor did he have a single copy of a response from anyone at NSA saying, "these domestic spying programs are for your own good and you should shut up about this yesterday." Not one. I know if I were in Snowden's shoes and if I were truly motivated by patriotism and loyalty to my country, I'd sure take advantage of the amazing technology of the printer and document the shit out of every question and answer I asked about domestic spying programs. He managed to take 1.5 million Top Secret documents out of the Agency, a couple emails should be peanuts in comparison. Instead, there was nothing.
On the other hand, NSA released publicly all the emails Snowden had ever sent about domestic spying. It was a grand total of one and it was actually a question about the correct answer on an internal exam he had to take. It in no way said "aren't these domestic spying programs wrong?" The answer he got back was something like "The correct answer is choice B": not exactly the kind of terrorizing response he claims he received. You could argue that NSA is just lying through its teeth, but that raises the obvious question again of why Snowden provided zero evidence to back up his central claim.
Second question: Why didn't this great patriot at least go to a U.S. Senator who is obviously anti-spying and very pro civil liberties? Ron Wyden and Rand Paul come to mind immediately as obvious candidates. (This was part of what helped save Daniel Ellsberg over the Pentagon Papers; he went to a U.S. Senator who obviously supported his cause and got the Papers read into the Congressional Record on the floor of the Senate. Senators can't be prosecuted for anything they say while the Senate is in session, according to the Speech and Debate Clause.) Instead, Snowden went to freaking China straight away.
I have watched citizenfour, actually. I found it an unconvincing piece of propaganda, to say the least. It notably glossed over the huge questions I have raised here, like "What evidence do you have that NSA internal authorities shut you down?" and "Why are you in Hong Kong celebrating your 30th birthday at the Russian embassy with your proof of horrible domestic surveillance instead of at the house of a sympathetic U.S. senator?"
Finally, I think that if he really loved his country, he would be here going through a trial. If NSA and DoJ really were oppressive and evil organizations, he could still stand and fight, even with very little chance of success, simply because some things are worth fighting for. Instead, he has hidden in Putin's Russia. That's the act of a coward and a spy.
|
United States42283 Posts
I can't tell if you're serious when you demand a NSA internal email from his boss agreeing that it's all unconstitutional but telling him not to worry about it in order for him to prove that he raised his concerns. You'll find them in the same box as the ones from the DuPont bosses saying that they don't care about the toxic chemical leaks into the water supply.
And again, a spy needs to spy for a foreign nation. That's a pretty crucial component. The recipients of the files Snowden took were the US public. He didn't turn them over to any foreign nation, nor receive any compensation from any foreign nation. It's all thoroughly documented.
Also he wasn't working for any foreign nation, nor derived any benefit from his actions. He had a sweet life in the US before he whistleblew. He threw all that away. Whistleblowing has resulted in exile and poverty for him.
Also you keep saying China as if he went directly to the Chinese government (or was it Putin? you can't seem to decide who he works for). He went to Hong Kong, that's a pretty huge difference. And if he was a Russian spy, wouldn't he just go straight to Russia? Without involving Der Spiegel?
As for that shit about Rand Paul, you need to stop getting your political news from websites selling precious metals.
As for "if I were in Snowden's shoes", you're not. You have literally no idea what the NSA is capable of. Nor do I. Neither of us had access to the NSA's resources for years. If you were drunkenly shouting at a game of cricket on a small tv screen in a bar your opinion would count for more.
The man was a patriot. You can go ahead and disagree with his ideas of patriotism if you like, but he's very obviously not a Russian or Chinese agent. Argue that he was misguided, overly idealistic, or just plain stupid, but don't try to insist that the southern boy who volunteered to serve in Iraq was secretly named Ivan Wong.
|
On April 04 2018 12:11 KwarK wrote:
I can't tell if you're serious when you demand a NSA internal email from his boss agreeing that it's all unconstitutional but telling him not to worry about it in order for him to prove that he raised his concerns. You'll find them in the same box as the ones from the DuPont bosses saying that they don't care about the toxic chemical leaks into the water supply.
I wouldn't expect them to provide that documentary evidence, but the point is that Snowden himself hasn't provided it either. Do you acknowledge that?
And again, a spy needs to spy for a foreign nation. That's a pretty crucial component. The recipients of the files Snowden took were the US public. He didn't turn them over to any foreign nation, nor receive any compensation from any foreign nation. It's all thoroughly documented.
It might not have been his original intention, but I don't know that it's as clear cut as you claim that Snowden didn't turn anything over to any foreign nation in exchange for his safety or what have you.
The man was a patriot. You can go ahead and disagree with his ideas of patriotism if you like, but he's very obviously not a Russian or Chinese agent. Argue that he was misguided, overly idealistic, or just plain stupid, but don't try to insist that the southern boy who volunteered to serve in Iraq was secretly named Ivan Wong.
Nobody is claiming that Snowden's main purpose was to provide information to Russia or China, or that he started with that in mind at all (as implied by your "Ivan Wong" crack). Do you acknowledge that?
|
On April 04 2018 12:11 KwarK wrote:
I can't tell if you're serious when you demand a NSA internal email from his boss agreeing that it's all unconstitutional but telling him not to worry about it in order for him to prove that he raised his concerns. You'll find them in the same box as the ones from the DuPont bosses saying that they don't care about the toxic chemical leaks into the water supply.
And again, a spy needs to spy for a foreign nation. That's a pretty crucial component. The recipients of the files Snowden took were the US public. He didn't turn them over to any foreign nation, nor receive any compensation from any foreign nation. It's all thoroughly documented.
Also he wasn't working for any foreign nation, nor derived any benefit from his actions. He had a sweet life in the US before he whistleblew. He threw all that away.
Also you keep saying China as if he went directly to the Chinese government (or was it Putin? you can't seem to decide who he works for). He went to Hong Kong, that's a pretty huge difference.
As for that shit about Rand Paul, you need to stop getting your political news from websites selling precious metals.
The man was a patriot. You can go ahead and disagree with his ideas of patriotism if you like, but he's very obviously not a Russian or Chinese agent. Argue that he was misguided, overly idealistic, or just plain stupid, but don't try to insist that the southern boy who volunteered to serve in Iraq was secretly named Ivan Wong.
I can't tell if you're serious when you demand a NSA internal email from his boss agreeing that it's all unconstitutional but telling him not to worry about it in order for him to prove that he raised his concerns. You'll find them in the same box as the ones from the DuPont bosses saying that they don't care about the toxic chemical leaks into the water supply.
He should have at the very least had a box of his own emails he sent off raising concerns about domestic spying. Even if they all disappeared into a black hole en route to other inboxes, he NEEDED to prove he sent them. That's evidence 101. When you are making accusations like "top US spy agency has totally broken internal oversight mechanism," the minimum you must prove is that you actually raised your concerns with said oversight.... He provided literally no such proof. the ONLY evidence that we have that Snowden sent any emails or letters or talked to anyone about "NSA is literally a panopticon" is his word. NSA says it has no such records, and Snowden has provided ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE for his claim. That's my point.
And again, a spy needs to spy for a foreign nation. That's a pretty crucial component. The recipients of the files Snowden took were the US public. He didn't turn them over to any foreign nation, nor receive any compensation from any foreign nation. It's all thoroughly documented.
I'm glad you have such amazing sources from deep within Russia, right next to that FSB safehouse Ed's staying in.
As for that shit about Rand Paul, you need to stop getting your political news from websites selling precious metals.
??????? Paul and Wyden have been very consistently extremely pro civil liberties and anti spying. That's literally all I was saying.
|
Come on Kwark, LoA just wants a man to go to the head of a morally bankrupt organization to politely ask if he would change things.
|
United States42283 Posts
On April 04 2018 12:24 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2018 12:11 KwarK wrote:
I can't tell if you're serious when you demand a NSA internal email from his boss agreeing that it's all unconstitutional but telling him not to worry about it in order for him to prove that he raised his concerns. You'll find them in the same box as the ones from the DuPont bosses saying that they don't care about the toxic chemical leaks into the water supply. I wouldn't expect them to provide that documentary evidence, but the point is that Snowden himself hasn't provided it either. Do you acknowledge that? Show nested quote +And again, a spy needs to spy for a foreign nation. That's a pretty crucial component. The recipients of the files Snowden took were the US public. He didn't turn them over to any foreign nation, nor receive any compensation from any foreign nation. It's all thoroughly documented. It might not have been his original intention, but I don't know that it's as clear cut as you claim that Snowden didn't turn anything over to any foreign nation in exchange for his safety or what have you. Show nested quote +The man was a patriot. You can go ahead and disagree with his ideas of patriotism if you like, but he's very obviously not a Russian or Chinese agent. Argue that he was misguided, overly idealistic, or just plain stupid, but don't try to insist that the southern boy who volunteered to serve in Iraq was secretly named Ivan Wong. Nobody is claiming that Snowden's main purpose was to provide information to Russia or China, or that he started with that in mind at all (as implied by your "Ivan Wong" crack). Do you acknowledge that?
You don't email your boss asking him to confirm in writing that he's doing something illegal. Snowden doesn't have it because he didn't do it because he's not a moron.
Snowden didn't have access to any of the documents when he was stranded in Russia (by the US gov). Would you keep access to them in his position? I wouldn't. I'd rather not have my fingernails torn out. He publicly surrendered all access to them which was the only way to make himself and his loved ones safe.
TheLordofAwesome keeps insisting that Snowden was a spy for foreign agents.
|
On April 04 2018 12:24 Aquanim wrote:
Nobody is claiming that Snowden's main purpose was to provide information to Russia or China, or that he started with that in mind at all (as implied by your "Ivan Wong" crack). Do you acknowledge that?
No? How would you characterize LoA's obsession with calling Snowden a spy?
|
Yes, there are reports of Snowden celebrating his 30th birthday at the Russian Consulate in Hong Kong, just before he gets his flight to Moscow. This is a big stinking black mark on his patriotism report cart. The source for this is a Russian source, which does make it dubious. And I think Oliver Stone left this stinking turd out of his hagiography.
Kommersant reported Monday that Snowden purchased a ticket June 21 to travel on Aeroflot, Russia’s national airline, from Hong Kong to Havana, through Moscow. He planned to fly from Havana to Ecuador or some other Latin American country.
That same day, he celebrated his 30th birthday at the Russian Consulate in Hong Kong, the paper said — although several days earlier he had had an anticipatory birthday pizza with his lawyers at a private house.
Kommersant cited conflicting accounts as to what brought Snowden to the consulate, on the 21st floor of a skyscraper in a fashionable neighborhood. It quoted a Russian close to the Snowden case as saying that the former NSA contractor arrived on his own initiative and asked for help. But a Western official also interviewed by the newspaper alleged that Russia had invited him.
The Russian Foreign Ministry on Monday did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the article.
Until now, Russian officials have said that Snowden’s arrival in Moscow was a surprise, and not entirely welcome.
“It is true that Mr. Snowden arrived in Moscow, which was completely unexpected for us,” President Vladimir Putin told reporters in Finland in late June.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/report-snowden-stayed-at-russian-consulate-while-in-hong-kong/2013/08/26/8237cf9a-0e39-11e3-a2b3-5e107edf9897_story.html?utm_term=.1ff61e9f04a6
Kommersant, citing a source close to Snowden, said he spent time at the Russian consulate in Hong Kong before boarding an Aeroflot flight to Moscow on June 23. A Western source confirmed the information to the newspaper, adding that the West thought it was possible that Russian authorities had invited Snowden to come to Russia.
It is likely that "Russians themselves invited Snowden, passing the invitation on to him via the Chinese who were happy to get rid of him", the Western source was quoted as saying.
A source in the Russian government confirmed to Kommersant that Snowden was at the Russian consulate in Hong Kong for two days until he left for Moscow. But the source said Snowden turned up uninvited in Moscow, intending to fly to Latin America and asked for help, citing international conventions on the rights of refugees.
http://www.scmp.com/news/world/article/1299522/snowden-stayed-russias-consulate-while-hong-kong-report-says
|
On April 04 2018 12:11 KwarK wrote:
As for "if I were in Snowden's shoes", you're not. You have literally no idea what the NSA is capable of. Nor do I. Neither of us had access to the NSA's resources for years. If you were drunkenly shouting at a game of cricket on a small tv screen in a bar your opinion would count for more.
How do you know I'm not an employee of NSA? 
Sure, I wasn't in Snowden's shoes, but that doesn't mean I can't ask questions about how he handled things by trying to think through how I would have handled things if I were in his position. I find his choices to be awful, to say the least.
On April 04 2018 12:11 KwarK wrote: If you were drunkenly shouting at a game of cricket on a small tv screen in a bar your opinion would count for more.
How is this not a personal attack? It has nothing to do with what I've said. I've said no such thing about you.
|
On April 04 2018 12:24 Aquanim wrote:
Nobody is claiming that Snowden's main purpose was to provide information to Russia or China, or that he started with that in mind at all
I am.
|
United States42283 Posts
On April 04 2018 12:27 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
He should have at the very least had a box of his own emails he sent off raising concerns about domestic spying. Even if they all disappeared into a black hole en route to other inboxes, he NEEDED to prove he sent them. That's evidence 101. When you are making accusations like "top US spy agency has totally broken internal oversight mechanism," the minimum you must prove is that you actually raised your concerns with said oversight.... He provided literally no such proof. the ONLY evidence that we have that Snowden sent any emails or letters or talked to anyone about "NSA is literally a panopticon" is his word. NSA says it has no such records, and Snowden has provided ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE for his claim. That's my point.
I don't know why you think that I think Snowden was firing off emails to the head of the NSA saying "I think what you're doing is illegal, please confirm". I don't think he sent any such emails. I don't think he's a complete idiot. Only a complete idiot would do that. That was my point about it being in the same box as the DuPont emails admitting to leaking toxic chemicals.
It's also completely irrelevant. We know the NSA was acting without oversight, the leaks revealed that. What the head of the NSA might have hypothetically said in reply to that email is moot because we don't need a confession when we have the evidence of the crime.
Imagine you're a policeman and get a memo from the chief of police ordering cops under his command to plant evidence on citizens. You don't need to emaiil the chief asking him if he knows that this is unconstitutional. The memo is itself enough to whistleblow.
|
EDIT: Okay, I stand corrected.
For reference, my position is that Snowden started out trying to do the right thing by the public, which I would not precisely classify as "patriotism". I don't know whether that is where he ended up. I don't feel obliged to believe that Russia offered him effective asylum out of the goodness of their hearts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
