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

Email exchange between Edward Snowden and former GOP Senator Gordon Humphrey

m.guardian.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 222 posts

Re: Email exchange between Edward Snowden and former GOP Senator Gordon Humphrey

#171

Post by mwerd »

Kylekramer wrote: post #87
pvnick wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your statement is completely nonsensical. The whole point is we have primary documents supporting what he says. His personality has nothing to do with those claims. Greenwald and Snowden have a 100% accuracy rate regarding these leaks, and your comment comes off as very head-stuck-in-the-sand-y.

We have primary documents supporting a very small subset of what he says. Most of the claims, including the more extraordinary ones such as he can wiretap anyone in the world including Barack Obama's personal email from his desk, remain undocumented.

Snowden's claim regarding wiretapping Obama is corroborated by other NSA whisteblowers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/russ-tice-nsa-obama...

Re: Email exchange between Edward Snowden and former GOP Senator Gordon Humphrey

#172

Post by dragonwriter »

jivatmanx wrote: post #115
twoodfin wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I were going to decide whether or not I'd trust the Supreme Court, one of the first things I'd want to learn is how many justices sit on it.

Which is only convention, not by law, and in any case, just an arbitrary number. FDR threatened to pack the court with lackeys if they didn't vote in favor of his programs. Which raises the obvious question of, since that event, has the Supreme Court really even served as a check on executive power? I suppose, at least, FDR would have had to answer to public opinion if he had actually carried out that threat. Unlike,…

> Which is only convention, not by law, and in any case, just an arbitrary number

No, its actually set by law, not convention.

> FDR threatened to pack the court with lackeys if they didn't vote in favor of his programs.

FDR proposed legislation to Congress which would have expanded the number of Justices on the Supreme Court. [1] It was not a threat of unilateral action. The President can't appoint people to the Court without an open seat, created by Congress, to appoint them to.

> I suppose, at least, FDR would have had to answer to public opinion if he had actually carried out that threat. Unlike, say, if the secret FISA court were so threatened.

There are two different courts created under FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review), and the members of both are selected by the Chief Justice of the United States from among current members of the federal judiciary.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill...

Re: Email exchange between Edward Snowden and former GOP Senator Gordon Humphrey

#173

Post by jivatmanx »

anigbrowl wrote: post #162
inzax wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totally disagree on slowing down his writing. think about the federalist papers for a second. Someone needed to wrote them to convince a nation about our beloved constitution. Since all eyes are on Snowden, he has the best ability to sway many minds about what he believes and what I believe to be right.

I'm rereading the Federalist Papers right now, as it happens. I can't help thinking that most of HN would dismiss Hamilton and Madison as 'statist thugs' if I were to start quoting or paraphrasing the views of those gentlemen on topics like national security.

Hamilton argued at the constitutional convention for an elected monarchy. He admired Caesar above all others, and throughout his life held a profound disdain of the lower class. - “the people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct permanent share in the government.”

Read his Caesar letters, or his constitutional convention speech, or other writings, as these views aren't really apparent in the Federalist papers.

Madison is interesting, but he didn't hold to a single consistent political philosophy through his life.

Re: Email exchange between Edward Snowden and former GOP Senator Gordon Humphrey

#174

Post by chc »

anigbrowl wrote: post #170
chc wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not exactly. I'm assuming that Snowden doesn't believe what he did will hold up in courts. Do you really feel that is an unfair assumption?

Not at all, but the courts might only impose a nominal penalty, such as the single month of probation to which they sentenced Drake. Why don't you address my point, instead of relying on the implicit assumption that facing the music would necessarily involve the government locking him up and throwing away the key?

Because I don't see how it matters. I could believe that he would be easily acquitted in a single day and it would not matter. We're talking about Snowden's decisions here, and Snowden does not listen to me. His read of the situation is the only one that counts, and it is pretty clear that he does not believe he'd have a snowball's chance in hell. You can argue that he's wrong about his chances, but all that would mean is that he's put himself through a lot of hassle and worry for nothing.

Personally, I tend to agree with Snowden — there are too many powerful people who want to destroy him for him to get a fair shake here. You are right that we could be wrong — but I don't see how that matters.

Re: Email exchange between Edward Snowden and former GOP Senator Gordon Humphrey

#175

Post by anigbrowl »

chc wrote: post #174
anigbrowl wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all, but the courts might only impose a nominal penalty, such as the single month of probation to which they sentenced Drake. Why don't you address my point, instead of relying on the implicit assumption that facing the music would necessarily involve the government locking him up and throwing away the key?

Because I don't see how it matters. I could believe that he would be easily acquitted in a single day and it would not matter. We're talking about Snowden's decisions here, and Snowden does not listen to me. His read of the situation is the only one that counts, and it is pretty clear that he does not believe he'd have a snowball's chance in hell. You can argue that he's wrong about his chances, but all that would me…

Well, it's certainly up to him to decide for himself, but I think third parties are quite free to form their own opinions about his credibility or integrity (which I rate at something like 6/10, in case you were wondering).

Re: Email exchange between Edward Snowden and former GOP Senator Gordon Humphrey

#176

Post by foobarqux »

anigbrowl wrote: post #170
chc wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not exactly. I'm assuming that Snowden doesn't believe what he did will hold up in courts. Do you really feel that is an unfair assumption?

Not at all, but the courts might only impose a nominal penalty, such as the single month of probation to which they sentenced Drake. Why don't you address my point, instead of relying on the implicit assumption that facing the music would necessarily involve the government locking him up and throwing away the key?

The charges against Drake were mostly BS (he didn't leak classified information). The infractions by Snowden are clear and the penalties are severe.

Re: Email exchange between Edward Snowden and former GOP Senator Gordon Humphrey

#177

Post by chc »

anigbrowl wrote: post #175
chc wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because I don't see how it matters. I could believe that he would be easily acquitted in a single day and it would not matter. We're talking about Snowden's decisions here, and Snowden does not listen to me. His read of the situation is the only one that counts, and it is pretty clear that he does not believe he'd have a snowball's chance in hell. You can argue that he's wrong about his chances, but all that would me…

Well, it's certainly up to him to decide for himself, but I think third parties are quite free to form their own opinions about his credibility or integrity (which I rate at something like 6/10, in case you were wondering).

Yes, certainly! I just think it's irrational to discredit his factual claims on the basis that he is unwilling to stand trial. The truth of the statements "Snowden is telling the truth about our spy programs" and "Snowden is accurately assessing the potential for our justice system to offer him a favorable outcome" are not closely related.

Re: Email exchange between Edward Snowden and former GOP Senator Gordon Humphrey

#178

Post by foobarqux »

tokenadult wrote: post #132
chc wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would take Snowden's claims more seriously in general if he were on United States soil preparing to face trial for his alleged wrongdoing, ready to bring forward any defenses he thinks he has to possible criminal charges. So in order for you to take Snowden's claims seriously, he has to either claim that what he did is legal or willingly go to prison for the rest of his life? That seems pretty irrational.

Martin Luther King, Jr. took a greater risk than that. So did the several freedom fighters in Taiwan I know personally, some of whom did hard prison time for leading peaceful public protests before Taiwan democratized. It takes people with a lot of courage to change tough situations.

The issue of civil rights is judged independently of whether MLK took great risks.

Re: Email exchange between Edward Snowden and former GOP Senator Gordon Humphrey

#179

Post by ianterrell »

anigbrowl wrote: post #166
betterunix wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with that approach is that it allows unjust laws to persist indefinitely. Every so often someone needs to stand up and refuse to play by the rules to ensure that unjust laws are repealed. Look at the situation Snowden faced. You have a system that widely violates basic privacy rights, based on a secret interpretation of the law, approved by a secret court that only hears the executive branch's arguments a…

widely disapproved of by the general public [citation needed]

Here are three polls that show between 41% and 58% disapproval: http://www.imediaethics.org/Blog/3984/Why_3_polls_on_nsa_sno...

Sure, that's far from unanimous, but "widely disapproved of by the general public" doesn't seem like a terrible stretch.

On the subject of polls, this article also shows the meta trends that this discussion is a part of: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/10/public-o...

Re: Email exchange between Edward Snowden and former GOP Senator Gordon Humphrey

#180

Post by jeltz »

fragsworth wrote: post #127
jmathai wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't then take much torture to extract the other person's name. Then a little more torture for the other party to get the missing piece of the puzzle.

If those people are in different countries (e.g. one in the U.S. and one in China) then it is not possible to get them.

Especially not if he also has a killswitch which will go off once he disappears. The question is if said killswitch exists will it release the data or destroy it?
Post reply on HN