A German parliamentary committee would like to question in Germany Edward Snowden. The Christian government refuses, for fear of being accused by the United States as an accomplice of espionage and betrayal by Snowden. Only members of the Left and the Greens (both parties in Germany), want to by the Supreme Court of Germany, enforce this survey, and that Snowden is safety in Germany. These are dreamers. And the government are ass kissers the U.S. government.
He should be allowed to live free not only in the U.S., he should also get a medal and the Nobel Peace Prize, for what he had done. He is my personal hero!
I think Snowden is getting exactly what he deserves.Without E. Snowden knew no American citizens that without a court order, the NSA spying on its citizens. Without him, did not know German and European companies that NSA operates on a large scale industrial espionage, and friendly governments listening. Without Snowden we knew nothing about how to work together closely, the intelligence, and how often they violate American and international law. Since it seems to have strange when Obama complained about the hackers from china, but can simultaneously enlist in the U.S. hackers for the NSA and other "organizations".
First, let's be realistic, there's no way the government would parden Snowden for breaking their laws... OccamNo one in the government has to pardon Snowden, except one man. The President. If Reagan could give Pardon to the Iran-contra guy's why Obama can't give pardon to Snowden? Did the NSA knows to much about Obama?
I think Snowden is getting exactly what he deserves. I hope he is never pardoned. He broke the law then he didn't even stick around to test the waters. He ran to our two biggest antagonists with tera-bytes of State Secrets. Years ago that would have openly reeked of outright treason. He should consider himself lucky enough there are enough people who are caught up in the whole "Big Brother" scare who sympathize with him. And enough politicians who speak out of both sides of their mouths who are willing to pander to these either "Libertarian Types" or Neo-Liberals. As far as I can tell they are only trying to prevent another massive terrorist attack that kills thousands of people. I don't think they care if one of you is cheating on your spouse or has a large collection of Gay Trucker Porn. Handy Dan and Occam have made completely relevant points regarding the history of espionage and the proliferation of it by nations around the world.So if you had access to the information Snowdon had access to and you saw that the US was breaking laws, spying on its own citizens and gathering information it had no right to you would say and do nothing? That kind of thinking is thousands of times worse than what Snowdon did. The US government broke laws and acted against its own citizens. What do you think should happen to to lawbreakers in government? Should the US government be above the law and only individual citizens be punished for revealing law breaking by the government? You would have made a perfect citizen of Nazi Germany or any totalitarian state.
So if you had access to the information Snowdon had access to and you saw that the US was breaking laws, spying on its own citizens and gathering information it had no right to you would say and do nothing? The US government broke laws and acted against its own citizens. What do you think should happen to to lawbreakers in government? Should the US government be above the law and only individual citizens be punished for revealing law breaking by the government?That is exact the point. Lois is right here, VYAZMA.
So if you had access to the information Snowdon had access to and you saw that the US was breaking laws, spying on its own citizens and gathering information it had no right to you would say and do nothing? The US government broke laws and acted against its own citizens. What do you think should happen to to lawbreakers in government? Should the US government be above the law and only individual citizens be punished for revealing law breaking by the government?That is exact the point. Lois is right here, VYAZMA. No. I'm afraid not. I'm afraid you'll have to show which laws were or are being broken. Scrape away all the hysteria first and all of the misinformation and hyperbole and show me what violations of the law took place.
I thought that things "Orwellian" bothered you.Sure, they could.
Today the marital infidels and closet-gay-trucker-porn-aficionados may be the ones in fear of their privacy invasions. Tomorrow it may be the intellectuals who dare to think or privately say things other than what is mandated by the State. But as Occam says, just worry about today, as many of us won't be alive, probably, by the time things get that bad. Our security today is more important than the freedom of the young and their children, etc.I don't see it playing out this way. Someone on here, I forget who it was, awhile ago said that gradually our perception of privacy will change and our ideas of information and privacy will change too. It's already happening. The government only collected meta data about communications. Plus they needed a judge to look deeper into any possible suspects. Just like a search warrant. Which is totally legal.
Sorry, Viasma and Occam, my idealism extends to people that I don't know and to people who will be alive long after I'm gone. Is it just impotent idealism? Maybe. But actualized reality has a funny way of being preceded by ideals or by cynicism.I agree with you. I'd rather have a conversation about this with rational people. Not crows, parrots and doomsayers. If it took this little Snowden hiccup to generate concerns for privacy rights or surveillance techniques...great. I'm all for it.
The proliferation of espionage on a State's own citizenry is the problem. It has been said so often, that it seems trite, that those who would give up liberty for the sake of security, deserve neither. Is that true? I don't know. But as an ideal, it sounds right.I think that sounds right too. But again were going to have to take a look at what exactly the espionage was on our own citizens. Objectively. I really don't think that's possible here.
Does Snowden deserve to be pardoned? Maybe not. But in my possibly naïve opinion, the ideals that I would hope my country stands for, deserve for Snowden to be pardoned.I get that. But if you think espionage in general is a necessary evil, or a natural part of statism you have to balance out your feelings. Yeah, Pardon Snowden if it will make everyone feel better. That's what it will all come down to.
The definition of objectivity or democracy is not picking and choosing which laws one thinks should be enforced and which ones shouldn’t.
I think Snowden is getting exactly what he deserves. I hope he is never pardoned. He broke the law then he didn't even stick around to test the waters. He ran to our two biggest antagonists with tera-bytes of State Secrets. Years ago that would have openly reeked of outright treason. He should consider himself lucky enough there are enough people who are caught up in the whole "Big Brother" scare who sympathize with him. And enough politicians who speak out of both sides of their mouths who are willing to pander to these either "Libertarian Types" or Neo-Liberals. As far as I can tell they are only trying to prevent another massive terrorist attack that kills thousands of people. I don't think they care if one of you is cheating on your spouse or has a large collection of Gay Trucker Porn. Handy Dan and Occam have made completely relevant points regarding the history of espionage and the proliferation of it by nations around the world.Sure, let's hand over our freedom for the illusion of security, what could go wrong with that. 9/11 happened because the Bush people were looking in the wrong direction, at Iraq, not because the security apparatus didn't have enough power, what's going on now is about controlling the US population in opposition to the true intent of the Constitution. If you think the kind of power that is being given away in the name of security is going to be given back willingly then your critical thinking skills are pathetic. Snowden is a whistleblower on the kind of activity that the American state was set up to prevent, he's far more of a patriot than those who are diligently working to kill whatever Spirit of 76 is still left in the country.
The definition of objectivity or democracy is not picking and choosing which laws one thinks should be enforced and which ones shouldn't.That's kind of moot don't you think when the state itself is acting in a highly undemocratic manner. The whole point of having a democratic system isn't to present an illusion of representation while aggressively working against the interests of a citizenry, which is exactly what's happening in the US and Canada right now. All people like Snowden are doing is pulling back the curtain a little to let us see what's going on in what are supposed to be our halls of power.
9/11 happened because the Bush people were looking in the wrong direction, at Iraq, not because the security apparatus didn't have enough power, what's going on now is about controlling the US population in opposition to the true intent of the Constitution.Oh ok. You need to cut back on the stronger varieties of Left-Wing Kool-Aid. Little sips are ok, but you're getting drunk off it. This is coming from a left winger.
9/11 happened because the Bush people were looking in the wrong direction, at Iraq, not because the security apparatus didn't have enough power, what's going on now is about controlling the US population in opposition to the true intent of the Constitution.Oh ok. You need to cut back on the stronger varieties of Left-Wing Kool-Aid. Little sips are ok, but you're getting drunk off it. This is coming from a left winger. There were years of warning about 9/11 including an attempt to blow the damn things up in 1993. Some of the same people involved in that were also key players in the 2001 attack. Then there was the terrorist operation in the Philippines in 1995, that would have included flying planes into buildings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bojinka_plot Then the extensive activities of al Qaeda in the years leading up to 9/11 as well as extensive warnings that an attack was coming. There were known islamic terrorists running around the US for months before the attack with nothing being done. In one case in Florida while learning to fly a small craft a trio stalled the aircraft on the taxiway, panicked and left it there. Nothing was done to follow up. The problem wasn't lack of information it was the lack of actual intelligence at the very top, explain to me how giving up any real civil liberties protects us from idiots with too much power. According to Clark the Bush administration was almost entirely focused on Iraq which was never a real threat to the US, something we know for a fact now. Try thinking before posting, it might make you look at least a little intelligent.
Remember those 20,000 demonstrators at Bush’s inauguration in 2001, they weren’t lefty loonies with an axe to grind, they were American citizens who had a pretty good idea that having a court appointed idiot with powerful family connections in the White House was a bad thing…seems like they knew what they they were about.
That's kind of moot don't you think when the state itself is acting in a highly undemocratic manner.Fair enough. As long as we agree on the definition of "state"(in this context) being more than just government apparatus. It also encompasses private interests. I think we agree on this. After all, the purely government/administrative apparatus is elected, or hired, or appointed and is constantly in a state of change. It's the private interests of people who guide the hand of government and fight amont each other for the reins to guide said govt. Obviously money and influence are a big part of this. I'm certain you agree. I read your posts.
The whole point of having a democratic system isn't to present an illusion of representation while aggressively working against the interests of a citizenry, which is exactly what's happening in the US and Canada right now.One of the points of govt. is to protect people and serve them. People are put in power with heavy responsibilities. They can rise or fall on their failure to serve and protect. Democratically elected politicians in Canada and The US and other countries have to weigh the balance of protection and invading privacy. It's not a new concept. It's very old. "The people are guaranteed the right to be secure in their privacy against unreasonable searches and seizures."(paraphrase) Now, I can posit why these surveillances may be pushing the outer edges of what's reasonable. It's for security. That's fact. I repeat that's fact. It's being done for national security. Can you posit or put forth any examples where it is not for security but is being used to suppress freedoms or undermine citizens? Anything?
All people like Snowden are doing is pulling back the curtain a little to let us see what's going on in what are supposed to be our halls of power.Yeah. I agree. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say his motives were altruistic. Great, you've seen behind the curtain. Now what? Now what? Can you brush away all of the hyperbole and hype? I doubt it. That's the Kool-Aid effect on you. I'm not saying everything's perfect, I'm not saying you have to like it. But until you can show definite signs of abuse of this power you don't really have a leg to stand on.
Remember those 20,000 demonstrators at Bush's inauguration in 2001, they weren't lefty loonies with an axe to grind, they were American citizens who had a pretty good idea that having a court appointed idiot with powerful family connections in the White House was a bad thing...seems like they knew what they they were about.Did you just tell me to think before posting? You don't even see how "flustered" you are. Seriously.
You would have made a perfect citizen of Nazi Germany or any totalitarian state.With a clear conscious, he'd just be following orders.
You would have made a perfect citizen of Nazi Germany or any totalitarian state.With a clear conscious, he'd just be following orders. Ughh.
Remember those 20,000 demonstrators at Bush's inauguration in 2001, they weren't lefty loonies with an axe to grind, they were American citizens who had a pretty good idea that having a court appointed idiot with powerful family connections in the White House was a bad thing...seems like they knew what they they were about.Did you just tell me to think before posting? You don't even see how "flustered" you are. Seriously.
Oh ok. You need to cut back on the stronger varieties of Left-Wing Kool-Aid. Little sips are ok, but you’re getting drunk off it. This is coming from a left winger.They're called feelings, apparently something you have little experience with. Try imagining what it would be like to have a tiny bit of sensitivity when you post about something that may have a great deal of meaning to people that actually are interested in humanity.
By the way a crushing police state really isn’t conducive to any real expression of humanity, which is why I feel so strongly about this. And why I think people who support the ongoing destruction of any real freedom in what are supposed to be free societies are right up there with the fascists of yore.
They're called feelings, apparently something you have little experience with. Try imagining what it would be like to have a tiny bit of sensitivity when you post about something that may have a great deal of meaning to people that actually are interested in humanity.Lot's of things are called feelings. You don't get special bonuses for having feelings. Charles Manson had feelings too. Start making a good argument-and stop appealing to an emotional meme. Then maybe I'll take you seriously. Maybe.