Live data from Hacker News

Pardon Snowden

pardonsnowden.org

781–790 of 814 posts

Re: Pardon Snowden

#781
post #114
post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on where you are. I have friends in Turkey who signed an online petition and (the next day) lost their jobs over it. Some of the other people who signed that petition are not allowed to leave the country anymore, and some are even being detained. Very scary.

May I ask what petition?

I think it was this one http://t24.com.tr/haber/baris-icin-akademisyenler-devlet-sid...

"As academics and researchers of this country, we will not be a party to this crime!

The Turkish state has effectively condemned its citizens in Sur, Silvan, Nusaybin, Cizre, Silopi, and many other towns and neighborhoods in the Kurdish provinces to hunger through its use of curfews that have been ongoing for weeks. It has attacked these settlements with heavy weapons and equipment that would only be mobilized in wartime. As a result, the right to life, liberty, and security, and in particular the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment protected by the constitution and international conventions have been violated.

This deliberate and planned massacre is in serious violation of Turkey’s own laws and international treaties to which Turkey is a party. These actions are in serious violation of international law.

We demand the state to abandon its deliberate massacre and deportation of Kurdish and other peoples in the region. We also demand the state to lift the curfew, punish those who are responsible for human rights violations, and compensate those citizens who have experienced material and psychological damage. For this purpose we demand that independent national and international observers to be given access to the region and that they be allowed to monitor and report on the incidents.

We demand the government to prepare the conditions for negotiations and create a road map that would lead to a lasting peace which includes the demands of the Kurdish political movement. We demand inclusion of independent observers from broad sections of society in these negotiations. We also declare our willingness to volunteer as observers. We oppose suppression of any kind of the opposition.

We, as academics and researchers working on and/or in Turkey, declare that we will not be a party to this massacre by remaining silent and demand an immediate end to the violence perpetrated by the state. We will continue advocacy with political parties, the parliament, and international public opinion until our demands are met."

Re: Pardon Snowden

#782
i mean we should try. but after 8 bloody years of that dick head in office, ppl really think there's any fruit to pick?

Re: Pardon Snowden

#783

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is bad history. The Nazis who emerged in power had no ties to socialism. By this logic, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a purely democratically run country.

huh? The nazis were entirely socialist and ran a socialist agenda. That was their platform. Centralized education, centralized health care, strict gun control laws, the list goes on and on.

As I said above, the "socialism" promised by Hitler was that they should no longer pay for WW1 and since they're a superior race, they're entitled to the labour of Jews, Romas etc. for "free" - that's the "socialism" behind Naziism, just because the words are the same, doesn't mean they're the same thing.

Hitler essentially wanted the superior Germans to do nothing and be provided for by lesser races and I presume that's why you think he was a "socialist", but in reality he was much closer to early U.S. history than to socialist ideology.

> Centralized education, centralized health care, strict gun control laws

More like common sense laws than "socialist" ones if you ask me...

This is what upsets me about the right, they're so easily scammed by random screams of "Big government", "centralised health care", "strict gun control", "centralised education" etc. and the counter is simply "FREEDOM, LOW TAXES, PRIVATE HEALTHCARE, "THE BEST PROVIDER WINS" etc. and I get the appeal, these things sound awesome, but the problem is in the details; the "low taxes" are not for you, they're for Apple, Google, Shell etc. "private healthcare" is not excluded under socialism if you want it and can afford it, it's just that it's not the only option and every citizen has some form of healthcare provided, regardless of their socioeconomic status, just by the virtue of the fact that they're...you know...human.

The people who say it's too expensive ignore how much is spent on the military, (i.e. US military has 800+ overseas military bases, do you really think you need (all) of them?), the fact that US already spends more on healthcare than virtually any other modern nation and despite this it still has the worst quality healthcare of all of them.

"Centralised education" means that creationists in Iowa can't not teach evolution, which I would argue it's a good thing, but again, it's a base, so that everybody gets at least "some" consistent quality of education, it doesn't mean it can't be expanded upon...

> strict gun control laws

Again, more like common sense, than ideology driven, look up gun deaths in the US vs Europe. If you have a gun in the US you don't actually have an advantage, because everybody else is armed as well, i.e. it's basically as if you didn't have one, but with greater risks of getting shot.

Re: Pardon Snowden

#784

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…

> A mode of thought I would expect in socialist countries, not the US...

I hate this notion. I stay in India -- a socialist nation, which has its own problems but "lack of freedom" compared to any other nation in the world is not one of them.

Re: Pardon Snowden

#785

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me of Psycho-Pass where everyone is basically assigned a criminality rating and you're arrested or killed on the spot if it gets too high.

And as a result, crime and unemployment are unheard of and the greatest risk to public health (aside from freedom-loving terrorists) is a debilitating LACK of mental stress.

Well... that's one interpretation of it I suppose...

Re: Pardon Snowden

#786
post #294

Snowden is a traitor. He gave up diplomatic cables that hurt our alliances all over the world and most of what he released ended up in Osama Bin Ladens hands. I can't name one good thing that has come from his whistleblowing. Perhaps, you didn't read the Patriot Act? It's pretty easy to see this guy basically said hey they are using the Patriot Act... Silly.

Can't tell if you're joking or not. But just in case you're not... Osama Bin Laden was killed in May 2011. Snowden handed the NSA documents to journalists in May 2013. Needless to say, Bin Laden never saw the Snowden disclosures. Snowden did not release the diplomatic cables. That was Manning via Wikileaks, and that happened in November 2010. Snowden didn't even dump his documents, he gave them to journalists. Many g…

lol

Re: Pardon Snowden

#787

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't "making the world better" a value judgment that can be shaped by your peers and by your environment, and also not mutually exclusive with making the world worse? Thus, if an elite makes the world worse in my opinion by reducing diversity of competing opinions in mass media, they could use that platform to propagandize and publicize any philanthropic efforts they may also involve themselves with, such that your…

An example from the set of making the world better would be Bill Gates' foundation which is helping eradicate polio [0]. If that is not a good thing I give up. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20080414095646/http://www.polioe...

Bear in mind that the BMGF is a separate entity from Bill Gates and Melinda Gates, albeit nominally controlled by them. It may control funds that do not even come from the Gates family (most notably Warren Buffett).

It isn't clear to me that establishing yet another donor-advised trust is making the world a better place, and it seems to me as though the foundation funded by the trust is not taking action on its own initiative, but instead just giving money to those people and organizations who are already actually expending the effort in making the world a better place.

Yes, it is a good thing, but don't go overestimating the wattage of that halo on Bill Gates's head. I give most of the credit to the people who actually uproot their lives, go to Pakistan and similar environments, and try to administer vaccines to people who deeply mistrust their motives.

Re: Pardon Snowden

#788

To pardon Snowden seems like a very popular opinion around here. Can anyone help me change my opinion on this matter? The way I currently see it: - Snowden indiscriminately hovered up so many documents, it was impossible to vet all of them. - The vast majority of these documents do not constitute whistleblowing, but are standard operating procedure for the NSA. The US expects the NSA to do this. - Leaking standard-op…

Here is a well produced oxford style debate between qualified debaters on the topic. I found it very enlightening and hope everyone gives it a listen. It's available as a video or podcast. http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/snowden-was-jus...

Thank you for posting this great debate video. Although it did not change my opinion on the pardon, I now have a more nuanced view on this matter. I thought all the debaters in this video had good points, but I still agree with the opposition.

Re: Pardon Snowden

#789

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't read everything, because the universe is still young, but randomly clicking got to this [0] in which this self-proclaimed expert, in stereotypical fashion, veers wildly between claiming secret knowledge that proves him right, claiming that everything important that Snowden released was already well-known, claiming that Snowden's releases harmed USA, and an idiosyncratic form of definite-article-based hermene…

I think that people who have domain expertise about classified information are different from people claiming "secret knowledge." He overstates his case in some circumstances, and I think that there were positive effects of the publicization of some of of the Snowden data, but it's also tough to dispute, I think, that his releases also harmed the United States. I'm happy to expand on this if you need.

Those inside the national security apparatus often seem to have difficulty differentiating harm to national security apparatchiks from harm to the nation itself. Many of us outside, don't have that difficulty. As Greenwald tweeted, "My sources are the documents and - I know this is shocking - people who don't work for the US Govt"

Also, the big idea that the releases revealed nothing previously unknown directly contradicts the big idea that the releases harmed USA. The spooks can't get their story straight, because they're out of practice. Previously, why would they ever have given a shit what the public thought? They got to pretend they were "inside", and occasionally drafted memos to the effect of "my word, chums, perhaps we might go in for a bit less of the horrible invasions of privacy and horrible wastes of the public purse?", with which memos the real insiders would wipe their asses. Ain't no deception like self-deception.

Re: Pardon Snowden

#790

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's missing for me? facts. you mis-stated several things about the story. I don't have time to do your research for you. there's a lot about it on the internet already. begin by educating yourself about the facts and then make your judgments. > high-school diploma Snowden. vicious cheap shot and ad hominem. why did you say that? do you only respect people with piece of paper signed by a university dean?

He did the same thing by making sure to reference Greenwald's "boyfriend". He wanted to make sure to emphasize to you, the reader, that Glenn Greenwald is gay and is therefore bad.

I thought both your "arguments" were petty and slightly offensive. To say basically: 'Just Google my rebuttal' is not worthy of a reply. You could have just skipped my sincere request for reasoning opposite to my own.

Without volunteering too much entropy: I myself have a high-school diploma and my sister is gay.

You are perfectly fine to read "partner" there, though that may not convey the fact that they were not married (which would arguably have made it slightly better).

Post reply on HN