Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pardon Snowden

pardonsnowden.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

761–770 of 814 posts

Re: Pardon Snowden

#761

Post by kpwagner »

ookdatnog wrote: post #679
kpwagner wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My conservative friends, not in the intelligence community, really don't like him. They try to be civil, but I can almost hear them hiss when I mention "Snowden". It's odd to me. They don't mind digital surveillance at all. They think it's good if it makes everyone safer. Throwing in my two cents, what interests me on the Snowden topic, is his character. While I'm glad Snowden took the initiative and risk, I don't be…

If I recall correctly, Snowden didn't even have concrete plans to escape from Hong Kong after revealing his identity. Wikileaks sent someone to get him to Russia. He just assumed he'd get caught. If this is true, I find your theory implausible. Also, from hearing him talk, I'm quite convinced he thought long and hard about the moral implications of what he's doing. To the point where it would surprise me very much if…

Interesting thoughts. Snowden definitely has some well thought out arguments in favor of his actions. I would guess he believes he is "just". My opinion is based on reading his voice and body language. It's hard to describe; he seems a little too pleased with himself and a little too happy to be along for the ride.

Re: Pardon Snowden

#762

Post by ashitlerferad »

captainmuon wrote: post #60

Maybe a naive question, but what would the risk be for me to sign this? I wonder if I (a US citizen) might get trouble the next time at the border? Or get a higher score in some database, that combined with other things might get me into trouble? Increased scrutiny from the IRS (which should have nothing to do with this, but "they" might say hell why not?)? Inability to get security clearances in future? Being target…

I'd be more worried about the consequences of not signing it.

Re: Pardon Snowden

#763

Post by dredmorbius »

bertil wrote: post #747
dredmorbius wrote: post #701

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FISA's jurisdiction is to rule on surveillance permits. Not criminal convictions. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intell... The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC, also called the FISA Court) is a U.S. federal court established and authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to oversee requests for surveillance warrants against foreign spies…

I am not attacking anyone, simply clarifying the implicit assumptions of people who believe that Snowden needs a pardon. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has introduced jurisdictions that goes outside of the usual process of law, notably publicity; people who oppose that trend in government tend to assume that Snowden has been convicted using such an extraordinary measure. Whether that is possible within the…

FISA is all flavours of horrible. But what it doesn't do is provide a venue for convictions. Only (and I grit my teeth and clench my gut when I write that) approval of surveillance requests.

In a no-contest, no-appeal, rubber-stamp, kangaroo court, yes.

But only surveillance orders.

And, my error, it was whamlastxmas who went full tinfoilhattery on us, not you. The inability to see up/down thread when responding to an HN comment is a bit crippling. I apologise for my third point, that doesn't apply to you.

Your clarification that some other people might think Snowden's already been convicted (by a court which cannot convict, no less) might have legs, though I've seen no particular evidence of it. The strictures against in abstentia convictions make it little more than a myth, and it probably shouldn't be offered without noting that it violates numerous elements of US statutory and case law.

Re: Pardon Snowden

#764

Post by nzp »

wooter wrote: post #675
nzp wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the meaning of “elite” is clear from context here (i.e. C. Wright Mills' economic, government, and military elites). He certainly didn't mean elite academic mathematicians, etc.

As an independent/libertarian, I find this distinction lost on most democrats. Sadly, it seems they define people by income - thus the income inequality debate - which, among other confounding variables, completely ignores things like mobility.

This remark of yours is truly an ideological minefield!

I completely agree that the debate on income inequality and the resulting sorting of people is irrelevant. Income inequality itself is irrelevant, it's just an ideological misdirection. But, since you proclaim to be libertarian, I suppose you wouldn't agree with me on why it's irrelevant: it's being pushed to actually preserve overall capitalist relations. Sacrificing low taxes of a billionaire or two is a small price to pay to help the ruling class keep ruling. This is practically the central theme of Keynesian economics, and thus of a great deal of 20th century. The strategy is still extremely effective, and so in this election cycle we had good old Bernie Sanders act as an acceptable vent for social and economic discontent of working people by ranting about “the billionaire class”. To anyone not horribly politically illiterate (sadly American culture is generally grotesquely politically illiterate) it was painfully clear from the moment he entered the primaries how his “revolution” will end. So income inequality discourse not only does not help alleviate the problem, it maintains it.

Democrat-style liberalism is so effective because it's an ideological Escher drawing. To even start to explain why it's wrong (or even better: why it's not even wrong!) and even in many cases harmful, you have to rewind the arguments aaaall the way to first principles (let's ignore the likely case that then you end up with the problem of getting people to universally agree on a coherent set of first principles) while constantly being under the threat of being, 1930s Pravda style, denounced as pro bigger evil. As a friend of mine recently semi-jokingly said: “There are no bad guys, just a liberal hell in which all is mixed, a hell in which evil people do good things and good people live in a fantasy.”

As for mobility, there really isn't any significant mobility, this is empirical. Unless you count moving from lower middle to upper middle class (I'm not sure even that is a significant case, I just assume it is, but even then it's likely plastered with all kinds of demographic qualifiers). But still, income inequality in and of itself is not a cause of this, it's one of the symptoms, and not a particularly onerous one.

Re: Pardon Snowden

#765

Post by rspeer »

floatrock wrote: post #441
rspeer wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't about signatures or authentication, the site says outright that those people are supporters.

> the site says outright that those people are supporters. With no citation. I can make a site say anything I want it. Credibility comes when you can point to other sites saying the same thing.

Now you're claiming something different.

hughperkins was using a "security mindset", and was implying that the site, due to lack of authentication, was being tricked into showing "George Soros" as a supporter because it just let anybody type in "George Soros".

This is not the case. The page of supporters is a page they designed, with no user input. The site is making the explicit claim that George Soros, that George Soros, is a supporter.

If you believe the site is lying, no amount of authentication on the site's side is going to fix that!

Re: Pardon Snowden

#766

Post by lettergram »

allendoerfer wrote: post #757
lettergram wrote: post #645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly agree with that in general, I just think it might be enforced differently. For example, you lose social security benefits if you do heroine, but heroine isn't illegal. In the case of children I agree for like polio, but perhaps not flu. Either way it's hard to judge and the major point of libertarians is that the state should decide. For example, a west Nile vaccine makes sense for almost everywhere. Besid…

> I strongly agree with that in general, I just think it might be enforced differently. For example, you lose social security benefits if you do heroine, but heroine isn't illegal. I think it should be illegal, but junkies should not be prosecuted. So I have a similar stance. The US seems to be goldmine for political activists. It is already very rich and successful and many of its social problems can be changed just…

If you're curious you should actually look up where the Johnson/Weld ticket stands on issues [1].

The libertarian party in the U.S. is branding itself as "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" meaning government should be lean and allow for as much social liberty as possible. They kinda tried to take the "common sense" approach. At least, that's what they say their stance is. Based on both of the governors terms in office I'd agree.

I always like to call myself a liberal, it totally throws off my friends who are Democrats and Republicans though.

[1] https://www.johnsonweld.com/issues

Re: Pardon Snowden

#767

Post by dllthomas »

ekianjo wrote: post #3

Pardonning Snowden while allowing the NSA to continue their business as usual would be strange.

Not necessarily.

One could take the position (not mine) that the NSA's "business as usual" was appropriate, that Snowden was mistaken in his adjudging it something that needed leaking, but that he was operating in good faith, honestly - mistakenly - believed it needed disclosure, and honestly believed internal channels would be ineffective at best. If we're going to have a massive secret surveillance apparatus, of course we need to encourage people in-the-know to blow the whistle if they suspect it is being misused.

Re: Pardon Snowden

#768

Post by MichaelMoser123 »

tomc1985 wrote: post #485
brashrat wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

chilling effects need to be kept in perspective; for example, while I'm completely fearless about telling off the govt whenever I wish, no way I'm going to reveal how I feel about Snowden to the HN community: I'd be ostracized!

What about a negative opinions? OSTRACIZED! Didn't like someone's show HN? OSTRACIZED! Didn't make your post happy enough? OSTRACIZED! Cuss a bit? OSTRACIZED! Offend the army of apple/react/nodejs/cloud/social fanatics? OSTRACIZED! Not that it matters, ostracization means losing a few HN epeen points, so meh :) (In the interest of keeping topicality, one could argue the above are examples of chilling effects in a com…

>Not that it matters, ostracization means losing a few HN epeen points, so meh :)

people who care to take part and comment here might be more sensitive to social approval than the median - the quest for approval might ba a motive to participate. Therefore the loss of a few points might be more of a loss for them. In the long run that is not so good for the diversity of opinions, but so it goes...

Re: Pardon Snowden

#769

Post by emmelaich »

elliotec wrote: post #755
emmelaich wrote: post #708

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you might summarise Chomsky's book as "some people are more persuasive than others" Does he also say that these people may be powerful because they are persuasive?

I think it's more along the lines of they are persuasive because they are powerful. The golden rule: he who has the gold makes the rules.

Well of course they're persuasive because they are more powerful. That's the main theme (as I understand it) and agree.

I was suggesting the other way is true too.

Re: Pardon Snowden

#770

Post by dllthomas »

pbarnes_1 wrote: post #542

I love the black and white nature of this. A crime is a crime even if done for good. But I like Snowden. Tough call.

> A crime is a crime even if done for good.

“One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” ― Martin Luther King Jr.

It is true that the law said it was illegal for Snowden to do what he did. It is also the case that the law allows for a pardon.

Post reply on HN