101–110 of 157 posts
"Because his actions have had serious consequences for our national security.." Errr, really? What exactly are those consequences? Not a single person was hurt or injured as a result of the revelations. On the other hand, American people have learned a lot about their Government spying on their own citizens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would any administration act differently? Would any institution? Think of any institution you've been part of: * Part of the President's role is to lead and manage the Executive Branch. He can't set the precedent for his millions of employees that blatent breaches of authority are an option. * Like any manager, the President also is an advocate for and loyal to his subordinates. The President is only one person; the…
Administrations often change their tunes to maintain a populist backing. They could have just said plainly, "Look, he did the crime and we are required by the rule of law to bring him to trial." and left it at that. But they didn't. They subtilely drilled home the "he's a traitor and a coward" ideas, and I am honestly not sure why. They have nothing substantial to gain by it, other than maybe to discourage future act…
The Snowden/spying fiasco is the biggest, ugliest black mark on Obama's legacy as President. He knew and he kept quiet and, as a former Professor of Constitutional law at Harvard he has absolutely no excuse. Not withstanding this late, clueless response to the petition, Obama's only real way of not going down in history as the "Peeping Tom President" is to pardon Snowden before he leaves office.
We live in a dangerous world.
Coming back or turning himself in won't do anything except allow the US to silence him, send him to jail where he will mysteriously be killed or such.
Like all the men and woman before him who fought authority or the church he would ended up being written in the histories some day as a hero. But will be a long time before there is another time distance for the government to be able to admit that.
> "As the President said in announcing recent intelligence reforms, "We have to make some important decisions about how to protect ourselves"
> "Mr. Snowden's dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences for the security of our country and the people who work day in and day out to protect it."
> "We live in a dangerous world. We continue to face grave security threats like terrorism, cyber-attacks, and nuclear proliferation that our intelligence community must have all the lawful tools it needs to address."
There is nothing new here. From a different age, we had this observation from another power hungry man:
"The people don't want war, but they can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."
-Hermann Göring
The U.S. constitution contains some strong protections against this road to fascism, but many have been eroded or subverted over time. Our government's design is intentionally inefficient, its members supposed to change regularly, and our court system is insular and slow for a reason. But these protections were created prior to the era of mass media, and now fear can be used as an even more powerful tool for control than when the country was founded.
I suspect that in the long term, even stronger hedges against totalitarianism will be needed. Democratic republics work well when the voting public is informed, patient, and aware of history. If you can whip them into a fervor with fear mongering, make them forget the past, and make quick emotional decisions, then instead of a nation of citizens you have a troop of apes--far easier to control.
I have doubts whether Edward Snowden would get a fair open trial, with a jury of his peers. Serious doubts. The entire Snowden affair reminds me very much of Daniel Ellsberg. At the time Ellsberg was condemed by many (especially in the military industrial complex) as a traitor but now I think that just about everyone believes that Ellsberg did a good thing for our country and society. I think that history will look k…
I don't. As much as I want it to, and as much as the HN group wants to, the crazy (sad) thing is that a vast number of Americans not only do not know who he is[1], but those that do are polarized as to whether he did the right thing or not[2] - he barely won a majority vote of the minority who even know who he is.
[1] https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/06/john-oliver-in...
[2] http://www.newsweek.com/most-americans-think-snowden-did-rig...
Really, I don't know that anyone expected anything different from the current administration.
Would any administration act differently? Would any institution? Think of any institution you've been part of: * Part of the President's role is to lead and manage the Executive Branch. He can't set the precedent for his millions of employees that blatent breaches of authority are an option. * Like any manager, the President also is an advocate for and loyal to his subordinates. The President is only one person; the…
He can, and he should have, not that I expected it.
He doesn't have to (and shouldn't) establish that all breaches of authority are an option. But the most credible signal the President could send that the US government is not authoritarian and evil is to pardon those who, in good conscience and motivated by concerns about whether secret actions are authoritarian and evil, raise those concerns to the public awareness.
If we're going to have secret programs carried out while blatantly lying to the American people about what is and is not done, and about what is and is not allowed, then we lose a good deal of democratic control over what is done in our name. Such programs may be necessary, but if they are then ensuring that at least those working on them believe them to be a good idea helps re-establish some check on the likely distance between what we want and what happens behind the scenes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First - no one has quantified what exactly Snowden has. Second so far only the western media have had access to the files. Third there was not any proof that he had copy of the information while he was in Hong Kong.
If you think the Chinese/Russian intelligence services haven't managed to get their hands on the entirety of what Snowden took I think you underestimate their prowess. A few Western journalists in their flats and offices does not a secure facility for storing highly classified information make.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"judged by a jury of his peers" During the selection process for the Boston Bomber, a jury was selected of which only people willing to sentence him to death were allowed on. Snowdon would get a similar filtration. They would filter away any techies, etc until all that's left are people who will take the governments word as gospel. Ignoring the fact that the charges he's been charged with already don't allow for fair…
What evidence is there for your jury claims?