Export thread

The identity of the man who leaked the info about the NSA's Verizon/cell carrier activities has been revealed. He has fled to Hong Kong, and he's apparently worried that the CIA will try to assassinate him in the near future. He suggested he might seek asylum in a country that would respect his attempts at government transparency, such as Iceland.

So, what should happen to him? Be honest.

Just to be clear, this is what you think should happen to him, not what you think will happen to him.

I think he did a great thing bringing this to light. The one quote from that article that really confused me.

[China has] a spirited commitment to free speech and the right of political dissent.

Click to expand...

Bwah?

He did the right thing, and he should be charged with a crime, treason if it fits.

Then the courts should force full disclosure of all the evidence brought forth during the trial.

I'm sad because I can't pick two options.

--Patrick

I agree with stienman. The dude broke some serious laws against his access level that may well border on the treasonous. On the other hand, the things he is releasing is very, very important to the American citizen. So the military guy in me is saying, "Charge him!" and the citizen side of me is saying, "Give Obama's Nobel Peace Prize because that dude hasn't done shit to earn it."

I had to choose Blacklisted, because it comes closest to my overall feelings on this. Yes, it needed to be brought to light, yes he did a crime (just like the Manning dude with Wikileaks), but I'm personally not sure what the fitting punishment should be at this time due to lack of knowledge.

Personally, I don't think treason would really apply here. One of our founding pricipals is that our government is supposed to be serving the people, not the other way around, he betrayed the government, not the people. In that sense, I feel like no treason was committed.

PatrThom said:

I'm sad because I can't pick two options.

--Patrick

Click to expand...

blotsfan said:

I think he did a great thing bringing this to light. The one quote from that article that really confused me.



Bwah?

Click to expand...

He went to Hong Kong.

He chose the city because "they have a spirited commitment to free speech and the right of political dissent", and because he believed that it was one of the few places in the world that both could and would resist the dictates of the US government.

Click to expand...

Which is true. Not only does Hk value free speech, but they'd probably also wouldn't mind thumbing their nose at the US government either.

Terrik said:

He went to Hong Kong.



Which is true. Not only does Hk value free speech, but they'd probably also wouldn't mind thumbing their nose at the US government either.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but the phrasing in Tress's article is

He said he chose China because "they have a spirited commitment to free speech and the right of political dissent."

Click to expand...

Which deservedly gets a few double-takes.

bhamv3 said:

Yeah, but the phrasing in Tress's article is

Which deservedly gets a few double-takes.

Click to expand...

Seems the 五毛党 work for Yahoo too.

bhamv3 said:

Yeah, but the phrasing in Tress's article is

Which deservedly gets a few double-takes.

Click to expand...

The guardian article makes it clear he said Hong Kong, and I believe they are the ones he approached.

Yeah but then he said China. I'm not too knowledgeable on the relationship between China and Hong Kong I guess. I thought china owns it and has a decent say in what happens there. Guess maybe not?

Treason seemingly doesn't fit, since he's seemingly not trying to overthrow the government, or wage war against it.

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Click to expand...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381

However he can be seen as singlehandedly destroying a weapon of war that the government has been using to great effect in the ongoing war on terror. Even if his intent isn't to overthrow the government, destroying a critical piece of infrastructure during a war can still be considered treason.

But that'll be up to legal people to determine.

The reason he went to Hong Kong is to avoid any extradition laws. The reason he publicized his deed is to avoid being quietly taken care of. He seems to be following a fairly reasonable play book.

I think if he was tried for Treason he would be found not guilty.

Article III Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution said:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Click to expand...

He's been very open in his motivations and decision making process, while you can say he gave Aid and Comfort to our enemies, it has to be in adhering to them, which is certainly not the case. Then again I'm no lawyer or even a Constitutional Scholar.

The conspiracy guy in me worries that the government is collecting data to crush it's enemies (J. Edgar style). For this, I think this guy is a hero, cause the government doesn't need more power.

The lawful neutral part of me thinks that this dude broke the law and should pay some sort of penalty.

However, who is watching the Watchmen?

drawn_inward said:

The conspiracy guy in me

Click to expand...

This isn't a shadowy conspiracy anymore. This is just stone, bold-faced fact at this point, and not in dispute by anyone.

All I know is that he government has its hands full right now, and has to walk a fine line it get out of this mess.

Given a promotion and as high an honor as the united states could give him.

drawn_inward said:

The conspiracy guy in me worries that the government is collecting data to crush it's enemies (J. Edgar style). For this, I think this guy is a hero, cause the government doesn't need more power.

The lawful neutral part of me thinks that this dude broke the law and should pay some sort of penalty.

However, who is watching the Watchmen?

Click to expand...

It brings to forefront the question of what treason is. If you're patriotic to your country, and want its fundamental principals upheld, is that treason? Or more specifically, if you expose laws that are probably unconstitutional, how is that treason? It's against the sitting government, but not against the country I think you could argue.

The first is way more broad, and interesting, though can cover some heinous things potentially. The second is more specific to this case, and harder to argue IMO.

Eriol said:

It brings to forefront the question of what treason is. If you're patriotic to your country, and want its fundamental principals upheld, is that treason? Or more specifically, if you expose laws that are probably unconstitutional, how is that treason? It's against the sitting government, but not against the country I think you could argue.

The first is way more broad, and interesting, though can cover some heinous things potentially. The second is more specific to this case, and harder to argue IMO.

Click to expand...

The United States Constitution specifically defines treason (The only crime defined and laid out in the constitution), and intent to harm in service of enemies of the states is required. This is a very important definition.

Covar said:

The United States Constitution specifically defines treason (The only crime defined and laid out in the constitution), and intent to harm in service of enemies of the states is required. This is a very important definition.

Click to expand...

My point being that the definition linked above, which I'm sure is directly from the text of your constitution, leaves open the idea that the current government could be an enemy of the USA. Thus wouldn't even working for/with them be treason, from a certain point of view?

It's exactly that ambiguity that I'm alluding to.

Many official oaths include the line:

I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic

Click to expand...

Just because it is the current sitting government, that does not make it above this oath. Nixon was wrong. If it is illegal, it is illegal. Doesn't matter if it's the president or not. And throwing lines like "protecting America", "keeping us safe", and "the average citizen has nothing to fear" is at best pure political cowardice.

DarkAudit said:

And throwing lines like "protecting America", "keeping us safe", and "the average citizen has nothing to fear" is at best pure political cowardice.

Click to expand...

I agree. Reminds me of this quote: "Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty." - Barnhill

(Not Jefferson: http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/when-government-fears-people-there-libertyquotation though often attributed)

What's that quote from Benjamin Franklin? Something like "Anyone who would give a little liberty to gain a little security deserves neither and will lose both."

Chad Sexington said:

What's that quote from Benjamin Franklin? Something like "Anyone who would give a little liberty to gain a little security deserves neither and will lose both."

Click to expand...

Topical:

But I do need weapons-grade plutonium, tyrant.[DOUBLEPOST=1370887815][/DOUBLEPOST]Also interesting that he says "Attributed to..." I wonder if that means the quote may not be Franklin after all. Hm.

Ya, it's the "essential liberty" and "temporary safety" that goes right through the weakest of examples. SMBC knows that, but many who quote the "abridged" versions of that quote do not.

This one is more relevant:

Benjamin Franklin said:

Republics and limited monarchies derive their strength and vigor from a popular examination into the action of the magistrates.

Click to expand...

Chad Sexington said:

But I do need weapons-grade plutonium, tyrant.

Click to expand...

Well yeah, how else are we going to build a time machine?

Garbage!

I'm tired of the big blackbox'o'government. This guy did the right thing.

GasBandit said:

I'm tired of the big blackbox'o'government. This guy did the right thing.

Click to expand...

And he should be punished for it.

I had one of my usually more intelligent employees today ask why this is a big deal. She was like, "So what? What will they do with it? I haven't done anything."

I tried to explain about privacy and blahblahblah but then I gave up.

That's one of the reasons it's so insidious, and why Obama is admitting it while saying, "if Americans don't trust the government, then we're going to have some problems."

He's honestly going for the, "the innocent need not worry" angle, and people at buying it.

The really, really fun thing about this type of secrecy is that it requires ongoing secrecy. If you are taken to court or investigated under it, then anyone involved becomes gagged. Thus there is no way to fight back about it publicly.

So we can never find out if it is affecting innocent people, even though they are innocent and their rights are being trampled and lives ruined, they can't talk about it, unless they do want to face prison for commiting the crime of speaking out against government corruption.

An interview with Edward Snowden

The Law, however, makes no real distinction for altruism. Blind Justice, and all. So there still remains the question of whether or not he should be punished for his actions. I have absolutely no idea how/if the Whistleblower Protection Act would apply here.

--Patrick

stienman said:

The really, really fun thing about this type of secrecy is that it requires ongoing secrecy. If you are taken to court or investigated under it, then anyone involved becomes gagged. Thus there is no way to fight back about it publicly.

So we can never find out if it is affecting innocent people, even though they are innocent and their rights are being trampled and lives ruined, they can't talk about it, unless they do want to face prison for commiting the crime of speaking out against government corruption.

Click to expand...

This needs to be re-quoted because you said it so well. That IS one of the bigger problems with it.

Dave said:

I agree with stienman. The dude broke some serious laws against his access level that may well border on the treasonous. On the other hand, the things he is releasing is very, very important to the American citizen. So the military guy in me is saying, "Charge him!" and the citizen side of me is saying, "Give Obama's Nobel Peace Prize because that dude hasn't done shit to earn it."

Click to expand...

The military side of you shouldn't say that. Or oath is to support and defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. What this administration is doing goes against that oath specifically the the fourth amendment so you should be defending him.

stienman said:

That's one of the reasons it's so insidious, and why Obama is admitting it while saying, "if Americans don't trust the government, then we're going to have some problems."

He's honestly going for the, "the innocent need not worry" angle, and people at buying it.

The really, really fun thing about this type of secrecy is that it requires ongoing secrecy. If you are taken to court or investigated under it, then anyone involved becomes gagged. Thus there is no way to fight back about it publicly.

So we can never find out if it is affecting innocent people, even though they are innocent and their rights are being trampled and lives ruined, they can't talk about it, unless they do want to face prison for commiting the crime of speaking out against government corruption.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if it's only affecting those guilty. If it is targeting any American citizen without a warrant being g issued then it is illegal

CrimsonSoul said:

The military side of you shouldn't say that. Or oath is to support and defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. What this administration is doing goes against that oath specifically the the fourth amendment so you should be defending him.

Click to expand...

You seen B5? Sheridan says this almost verbatim (the first part I mean) when he's starting to take out the tyrannical government.

Edit: and spoilers don't apply if a series ended more than 10 years ago, and I think this one ended about 15 years ago.

I'll take mysterious disappearance for one hundred please.

CrimsonSoul said:

It doesn't matter if it's only affecting those guilty. If it is targeting any American citizen without a warrant being g issued then it is illegal

Click to expand...

Not necessarily.

...they don’t need a warrant to get this information, because technically, in the eyes of the law, it doesn’t belong to you—it belongs to your phone company, or your Internet-service provider. This view dates back to 1979, when the Supreme Court ruled that while the content of your phone conversations is private and would require a warrant to monitor, the details of who you called and for how long (the “toll record”) belongs to the phone company.

Click to expand...

(source)

Details:

In Smith v. Maryland, the Supreme Court held that a pen register is not a search because the "petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company." Since the defendant had disclosed the dialed numbers to the telephone company so they could connect his call, he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the numbers he dialed. The court did not distinguish between disclosing the numbers to a human operator or just the automatic equipment used by the telephone company.

The Smith decision left pen registers completely outside constitutional protection. If there was to be any privacy protection, it would have to be enacted by Congress as statutory privacy law.

Click to expand...

(source)

Perhaps people now think of telephone metadata as private, but the supreme court didn't think so in 1979, and congress chose not to enact any privacy laws that would protect telephone metadata.

It may also be that they've overstepped their bounds. Perhaps the number dialed isn't private, but the location dialed from might be.

Regardless, it's not illegal to do so to individual citizens - but a valid question is it legal to do it to all citizens at once? A targeted investigation is one thing, but spying on everyone without any cause seems a stretch.

Still of it belongs to the phone company and not me they still need a warrant to get that info from the phone company and not just a nsa letter saying "lol all your calls are belong to us now"

CrimsonSoul said:

Still of it belongs to the phone company and not me they still need a warrant to get that info from the phone company and not just a nsa letter saying "lol all your calls are belong to us now"

Click to expand...

Sure, they need a warrant against the phone company to take information that belongs to the phone company. The letter was actually a warrant, reviewed and signed by a judge:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order

And the letter expires 90 days after it was signed, which means they had to send a new one, signed by a judge, four times a year, every year since the program started.

stienman said:

Sure, they need a warrant against the phone company to take information that belongs to the phone company. The letter was actually a warrant, reviewed and signed by a judge:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order

And the letter expires 90 days after it was signed, which means they had to send a new one, signed by a judge, four times a year, every year since the program started.

Click to expand...

... What reasonable suspicion did they have to get the data on every person n that is a customer to that phone provider?

And sorry for typos in on my phone

CrimsonSoul said:

... What reasonable suspicion did they have to get the data on every person n that is a customer to that phone provider?

And sorry for typos in on my phone

Click to expand...

According to the warrant, "This court having found that the Application of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for an Order requiring the production of tangible things from Verizon...satisfies the requirements of 50 U.S.C. section 1861."

The warrant doesn't have to state the suspicion, and since we don't have a copy of the application we might not ever know, however we can look up 50 USC 1861, which does specify the conditions that must be met for the FBI to have valid reason to get Verizon's records. So you can assume that at least this judge felt the conditions of this section were met.

You'll remember this as part of the patriot act - there was a big hullaballoo about them getting our library circulation records, but few thought this meant any business record, including phone and credit card records.

Of course, the judge may be wrong, or the law congress passed as part of the patriot act may be wrong, but at the moment it appears that congress gave the FBI the keys to this data, and we've just been letting them have it.

stienman said:

According to the warrant, "This court having found that the Application of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for an Order requiring the production of tangible things from Verizon...satisfies the requirements of 50 U.S.C. section 1861."

The warrant doesn't have to state the suspicion, and since we don't have a copy of the application we might not ever know, however we can look up 50 USC 1861, which does specify the conditions that must be met for the FBI to have valid reason to get Verizon's records. So you can assume that at least this judge felt the conditions of this section were met.

You'll remember this as part of the patriot act - there was a big hullaballoo about them getting our library circulation records, but few thought this meant any business record, including phone and credit card records.

Of course, the judge may be wrong, or the law congress passed as part of the patriot act may be wrong, but at the moment it appears that congress gave the FBI the keys to this data, and we've just been letting them have it.

Click to expand...

Of course it all goes back to the unpatriotic act. Thank you for looking this info up and giving it to me btw. But even though the reason they have satisfied the law it doesn't mean the law didn't violate the constitution and needs to be struck down

Eriol said:

You seen B5? Sheridan says this almost verbatim (the first part I mean) when he's starting to take out the tyrannical government.

Edit: and spoilers don't apply if a series ended more than 10 years ago, and I think this one ended about 15 years ago.

Click to expand...

Now I can reply to this. No I've never seen that show but I've felt that way ever since I joined the military about 12 years ago. The reason being right after we took our oath the guy there asked which of us would lay down our lives for a devil worshiper. No one raised their hand. The guy looked at us and said he would because the constitution doesn't just protect the people who we agree with but it protects everyone regardless of their beliefs. It's something that's stuck with me and I believe just hearing him say that made me a better person. But that's why I said what I said and I've never heard of b5

CrimsonSoul, Babylon 5 - If not wanting to click it, it was a sci-fi TV show in the early 90s. Was on for 5 years. Very love/hate when it came on, as unlike most shows at the time, most episodes were connected, rather than being one-offs like Star Trek. So more difficult to "get in to" but ultimately more rewarding IMO.

Back to our regularly scheduled thread:

Sorry to Godwin the thread, but it's actually pertinent. I was reading the Government quotes aggregation page on wikiquote, and came across this one:


There's a lot of parallels to modern "democratic" government here, especially as it pertains to "intelligence" and especially counter-terrorism. Decisions made "behind closed doors" in general just don't turn out well, and propagate the "bad" things that we all see happening, regardless of the specific country involved. I think we need to remember this lesson: trusting our government leaders never turns out all that well. Constant scrutiny turns out a lot better.

Eriol said:

CrimsonSoul, Babylon 5 - If not wanting to click it, it was a sci-fi TV show in the early 90s. Was on for 5 years. Very love/hate when it came on, as unlike most shows at the time, most episodes were connected, rather than being one-offs like Star Trek. So more difficult to "get in to" but ultimately more rewarding IMO.

Back to our regularly scheduled thread:

Sorry to Godwin the thread, but it's actually pertinent. I was reading the Government quotes aggregation page on wikiquote, and came across this one:

What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.​

Mayer, Milton (1966) [1955]. They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45 (2nd edition ed.). University of Chicago Press. pp. p. 166. ISBN 0-226-51192-8.​

There's a lot of parallels to modern "democratic" government here, especially as it pertains to "intelligence" and especially counter-terrorism. Decisions made "behind closed doors" in general just don't turn out well, and propagate the "bad" things that we all see happening, regardless of the specific country involved. I think we need to remember this lesson: trusting our government leaders never turns out all that well. Constant scrutiny turns out a lot better.

Click to expand...

Those who do not learn the lessons of the past and all that.


There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation. – James Madison

I have to admit to drawing parallels to 9/11 and the bombing of the Reichstag before.

Eriol said:

CrimsonSoul, Babylon 5

Click to expand...

OOOOHHHHHHH I know that show now.

CrimsonSoul said:

The military side of you shouldn't say that. Or oath is to support and defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. What this administration is doing goes against that oath specifically the the fourth amendment so you should be defending him.

Click to expand...

As of right now we don't know that anyone did anything illegal. Unethical, yes. Illegal? Remains to be seen. So the oath in this case does not apply. Dude not only broke the chain of command, but he himself had made oaths of secrecy and broke them. I don't know yet whether he's a hero or a danger, but he did break the law whereas the people he is accusing may not have.

Dave said:

As of right now we don't know that anyone did anything illegal. Unethical, yes. Illegal? Remains to be seen. So the oath in this case does not apply. Dude not only broke the chain of command, but he himself had made oaths of secrecy and broke them. I don't know yet whether he's a hero or a danger, but he did break the law whereas the people he is accusing may not have.

Click to expand...

I believe the argument is that the surveillance laws themselves are breaking the highest law you guys have, the constitution, so if you're breaking a "lower" law to help enforce a "higher" one... that's where it gets messy.

Eriol said:

I believe the argument is that the surveillance laws themselves are breaking the highest law you guys have, the constitution, so if you're breaking a "lower" law to help enforce a "higher" one... that's where it gets messy.

Click to expand...

If they received the types of okays they say they have from the courts and congress, then what they did under the Patriot Act is not illegal.

Dave said:

If they received the types of okays they say they have from the courts and congress, then what they did under the Patriot Act is not illegal.

Click to expand...

Congress and a judge can ok any and everything they want but if it goes against the Constitution it is still and invalid law

An example would be Congress/The Senate passed a law saying that badmouthing the president either in an online forum on in a public square is punishable by 10 years in prison and someone is charged and found guilty and sentenced to that 10 years in prison That's Congress and the Judge saying that hey This law is OK, but according to the Constitution this is still an invalid law and needs a Supreme Court review and/or Jury Nullification

But until that happens it is legal. I know what you are saying, but no laws seem to have been broken. Whether or not the level of legality remains is the next question.

CrimsonSoul said:

And sorry for typos in on my phone

Click to expand...

YOU FOOL! You've led them right to us!

Dave said:

If they received the types of okays they say they have from the courts and congress, then what they did under the Patriot Act is not illegal.

Click to expand...

This line of thinking is very dangerous, and also one of the reasons we have such an unconstitutional act as the Patriot Act in the first place. We're allowing our government to create and maintain unconstitutional laws and basically letting them know it's OK through either complacency or compliance.

It's pretty much the most anti-american thing I can think of. We pride ourselves as being a country based on the power of the people, but over the last few decades we've let our rights be systematically be stripped by our government.

Let's be clear.

What they're doing is probably not illegal.

It may be unconstitutional.

Far from being dangerous, it's necessary to maintain that line of thinking, particularly if we choose to attack it and have it struck down.

This could, in fact, be the watershed event that gets the American public riled up enough to really take a close look at the Patriot Act and get rid of those items that are wrong.

stienman said:

Let's be clear.

What they're doing is probably not illegal.

It may be unconstitutional.

Far from being dangerous, it's necessary to maintain that line of thinking, particularly if we choose to attack it and have it struck down.

This could, in fact, be the watershed event that gets the American public riled up enough to really take a close look at the Patriot Act and get rid of those items that are wrong.

Click to expand...

Let's hope so. Or it could be the first (well, fifth, sixth,...) step in an ever-increasing creep of government control as the Land of the Free gives up their freedoms because of fear, fear and more fear. In which case, the terrorists have won.

stienman said:

Let's be clear.

What they're doing is probably not illegal.

It may be unconstitutional.

Far from being dangerous, it's necessary to maintain that line of thinking, particularly if we choose to attack it and have it struck down.

This could, in fact, be the watershed event that gets the American public riled up enough to really take a close look at the Patriot Act and get rid of those items that are wrong.

Click to expand...

or maybe HITLER.

The story seems to be falling apart a bit. I am really worried that if this whole thing gets walked back, the discussion around the Patriot Act will stop.

The only part of what he said that sounded really fishy to me was when he said that any analyst could tap anyone, even the president, anytime they wanted. I've heard several folks on NPR who are knowledgable in the matter say this is a remarkably false statement.

Espy said:

The only part of what he said that sounded really fishy to me was when he said that any analyst could tap anyone, even the president, anytime they wanted. I've heard several folks on NPR who are knowledgable in the matter say this is a remarkably false statement.

Click to expand...

There's that, and also that the "direct access" line was apparently substantially misrepresented (through misunderstanding of what it meant) by the Guardian.

On the good news front, to clear up these misrepresentations, Google, Facebook, and Microsoft are asking the government for permission to reveal their history and process for info requests by the Gov. Hopefully, this goes somewhere.

stienman said:

This could, in fact, be the watershed event that gets the American public riled up enough to really take a close look at the Patriot Act and get rid of those items that are wrong.

Click to expand...

One can hope.

--Patrick

And now he stopped talking about how they are getting Americans info and is now taking about how they are having china's stuff... Now he should be prosecuted

Yup - moved from whistle blower to something a little more treasonous. I'm sure it has a lot to do with trying to gain favor with his chosen asylum. I've always been of the opinion if the government wants you dead, you're dead. It might take a while, but dead.

Yeah, revealing to the public how the Patriot Act may violate their rights is one thing. Showing a foreign government what we do to gather foreign intelligence is something else entirely.

I hear there is a job opening that pays well in Hawaii...

So turns out we've been doing to China exactly what we keep hyping and saying China has been doing to us. Sure makes Obama's position weaker when confronting Xi Jinping about Cyber security.

Terrik said:

So turns out we've been doing to China exactly what we keep hyping and saying China has been doing to us. Sure makes Obama's position weaker when confronting Xi Jinping about Cyber security.

Click to expand...

Anyone who doubted this was the case is naive.

Chad Sexington said:

Anyone who doubted this was the case is naive.

Click to expand...

Obviously, but now that it's out in the open, it gives the Chinese government more ammunition.

Snowden is doing a Q&A live right now.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-nsa-files-whistleblower

The more time passes, the more the Obama administration feels like Bush-lite. Not as bad, but not doing anything to reverse the problems introduced post-9/11.

But then, I guess it's nothing new for the government to go "It's against the law for you to show we're breaking the law." Snowden noted Nixon, after all. I know that's not what he's charged with, he did break real laws, but the reason some have called him a traitor is pretty clear--the government doesn't like being caught doing shit it's not supposed to. No one does, but a lot of people have the sense to stop doing it. With a no-accountability government like we have today, it's just an amorphous unit going "Do as I say, not as I do." Obama should've been the one ridding us of these issues, before they were uncovered. I'm tired of this Bush era "if you question us, you're a traitor" shtick.

Snowden broke the law and for that he should be held accountable, but the coloring of what's gone on is a symptom of what we've become in the last 12 years.

Snowden asked asylum in Ecuador. That is kind of ironic with all the critics about free speech on this country.

He flew to Russia, and is now in the pre-immigration area of the airport, technically not on Russian soil, and while the US has called on Russia for extradition, Russia is indicating that he isn't in Russia, and therefore cannot extradite him. He was supposed to get on a flight to Venezuela, but did not show up. Purportedly he's heading for Ecuador, and has asked them for asylum.

Don't know that Ecuador really wants a fugitive who isn't already on their soil that's on the run from the US government. They're already taking care of Julian Assange (wikileaks) in their London embassy, also wanted by the US.

Regarding Snowden (NSA whistleblower), though, the charges do not, at the moment, include treason. Keep in mind that treason has the possibility of the death penalty, though, and many countries have extradition treaties with the US which allow refusal in cases where capital punishment is a possibility. They could be holding back on the charges to make extradition less problematic.

"He is charged with theft of government property, unauthorized communication of national defense information and willful communication of classified communications intelligence."

Hey, Napalitano said "If you see something say something," so if he saw unconstitutional abuses of power against U.S. Citizens...

...he should be brought up on espionage charges! BRILLIANT!

stienman said:

Regarding Snowden (NSA whistleblower), though, the charges do not, at the moment, include treason. Keep in mind that treason has the possibility of the death penalty, though, and many countries have extradition treaties with the US which allow refusal in cases where capital punishment is a possibility. They could be holding back on the charges to make extradition less problematic.

"He is charged with theft of government property, unauthorized communication of national defense information and willful communication of classified communications intelligence."

Click to expand...

The US has done this before when suspected murderers have fled into Canada. I wouldn't be surprised if they are trying it now.

Remember when Snowden said he revealed his identity so the spotlight wouldn't be on him, and instead would be on the stuff he leaked?

bhamv3 said:

Remember when Snowden said he revealed his identity so the spotlight wouldn't be on him, and instead would be on the stuff he leaked?

Click to expand...

He revealed it so the government couldn't hide him away or kill him without it becoming publicly known, regardless of the reasons he said he revealed it.

Putin says, "okay, okay, we've had our fun, time to knock it off."

Either:
A) the US offered something Putin wants more than the intelligence Snowden has to offer.
or
B) they've already gotten whatever they wanted out of Snowden.

or C) Putin doesn't want the US to actually stop surveillance of him, because it's a mark of pride.

or D) Putin knows that most of the intel Snowden has to leak is already in the hands of Glen Greenwald and the Washington Post - so he can make it look like he's being semi-cooperative with the US government, without actually having to restrict anything.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday he didn't know the details of the allegations, but tried to downplay them, maintaining that many nations undertake various activities to protect their national interests. He failed to quell the outrage from allies, including France, Germany and Italy.

Click to expand...

No shit.

With how he's behaving now, I would change my vote in the poll to Criminal Charges and honestly he is just digging a deeper hole for himself.

Can we add "marry a Russian spy" to the list? Cause Anna Chapman just proposed to Snowden over Twitter.

Hmmm....

bhamv3 said:

Can we add "marry a Russian spy" to the list? Cause Anna Chapman just proposed to Snowden over Twitter.

Click to expand...

Bet he's thinking about it.

An interesting opinion on the case:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/14/opinion/sagar-snowden-secrets/?iref=obinsite

...

To be clear, the fact that secrecy has long been seen as being in the public interest does not give officials carte blanche to do as they like. Secrecy needs to be balanced against important civil liberties.

The central question is: Who should do the balancing? The reason the Constitution entrusts the business of balancing values to the three branches is because the officials in charge are chosen by the people and are in a position to check each other, especially with respect to secret policies or operations that it would be self-defeating to make public.

So when an individual decides to short-circuit or circumvent this careful arrangement, he must only do so when there is reason to believe that representatives from all three branches have allowed grave wrongdoing to go unchecked. Otherwise, an unauthorized disclosure is nothing more than an effort to impose one's own narrow political view on one's fellow citizens.

...

Click to expand...