I don't know what they were afraid of. They've been able to get the media to be reserved enough in their judgements and reporting that no elected officials have felt the pressure to do anything, and, therefore, nothing has changed. As I read elsewhere recently: What happens when the government has perfect clarity on everything everyone does, when we're all guilty of "3 felonies a day?"
Secret US flight flew over Scottish airspace to capture Snowden
161–170 of 244 posts
Re: Secret US flight flew over Scottish airspace to capture Snowden
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
"but I think it would be better if what happened in 2013 never happened in exactly that way again.)" I think it would be better if what happened in 2013 had never -had- to happen in any way.
That's also true, but orthogonal to what I'm saying.
The point is that you've put the criticism on the person in the situation (Snowden) instead of the people/system that created the situation.
There isn't any perfect way, in the eyes of the state, to deal with a police state because it's a police state.
Re: Secret US flight flew over Scottish airspace to capture Snowden
#163If it weren't for the mistreatment of Bradley Manning, I'd consider US Government attempts to capture Snowden somewhat reasonable. If (in hindsight) there had been any high level response acknowledging the inappropriateness of any of the revealed programs, and attempting to fix or impose accountability measures on covert programs, I'd feel reassured that the bad behavior evidenced by the leaked information was an ano…
[deleted]
> all these revelations have done is increase paranoia and misunderstanding
It was a leak of truthful information. Almost by definition it reduced misunderstanding. I'd also argue that it didn't increase paranoia; it massively reduced the number of people who were classified as paranoid by confirming some of their darkest fears.
Re: Secret US flight flew over Scottish airspace to capture Snowden
#164If it weren't for the mistreatment of Bradley Manning, I'd consider US Government attempts to capture Snowden somewhat reasonable. If (in hindsight) there had been any high level response acknowledging the inappropriateness of any of the revealed programs, and attempting to fix or impose accountability measures on covert programs, I'd feel reassured that the bad behavior evidenced by the leaked information was an ano…
[deleted]
[deleted]
Re: Secret US flight flew over Scottish airspace to capture Snowden
#165If it weren't for the mistreatment of Bradley Manning, I'd consider US Government attempts to capture Snowden somewhat reasonable. If (in hindsight) there had been any high level response acknowledging the inappropriateness of any of the revealed programs, and attempting to fix or impose accountability measures on covert programs, I'd feel reassured that the bad behavior evidenced by the leaked information was an ano…
[deleted]
Ignorance is bliss until you step on a landmine
Re: Secret US flight flew over Scottish airspace to capture Snowden
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not crazy to think that the USG might want to relieve Snowden of that role. The argument has been made that a crucial difference between Snowden and other recent whistleblowers is his relative freedom to participate in ongoing conversations and inspire potential future whistleblowers. Is it crazy to think that the USG might want to relieve Snowden of that role?
No, it isn't, but that's not the question this part of the thread is asking. Rather, it's asking "isn't Snowden harmless to the USG?"
In a discussion about the legitimacy of the government's pursuit of Snowden you point out that it has a very reasonable interest in parts (a) and (b).
But if recent whistleblower prosecutions are a guide, it quite obviously has a strong interest in part (c) -- to scare the living daylights out of anyone in their ranks who might even think of crossing them through whistleblowing.
You would agree that Snowden's ability to inspire future whistleblowers is a powerful way in which he isn't harmless to the USG? You might sincerely disagree with those who believe that this motive for getting him is at least as strong as the others. But this motive cuts into the legitimacy of the pursuit, and it should be part of your survey of the government's interests.
Re: Secret US flight flew over Scottish airspace to capture Snowden
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. I really dislike Greenwald and, to a lesser extent, The Intercept as a publication, and think they spread more disinformation than journalism, but it's hard for me to see what crime any of them could possibly have committed. (I answered your first question upthread).
You must be aware that people actually have called the Snowden journalists collaborators who should be prosecuted, that this was in fact a major issue in how the story has been received. Why would you call them "his informal team of assistants?"
I have no idea what you're talking about, but if you're thinking of someone in particular who has suggested that Greenwald should be prosecuted, you should put your weird questions to that person, not me.
Re: Secret US flight flew over Scottish airspace to capture Snowden
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it isn't, but that's not the question this part of the thread is asking. Rather, it's asking "isn't Snowden harmless to the USG?"
In a discussion about the legitimacy of the government's pursuit of Snowden you point out that it has a very reasonable interest in parts (a) and (b). But if recent whistleblower prosecutions are a guide, it quite obviously has a strong interest in part (c) -- to scare the living daylights out of anyone in their ranks who might even think of crossing them through whistleblowing. You would agree that Snowden's ability…
Re: Secret US flight flew over Scottish airspace to capture Snowden
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you help me understand what it is about a specific piece of equipment having in the past been used for human rights abuse that makes it unsuitable for any future use? It would be one thing if the CIA had operated the flight, but this plane is known to have been transferred to the DOJ long before the flight to extradite Snowden.
They may have officially transferred the plane, but do you really think that means the CIA would have to stop operating it? I mean it is totally possible that they did, but I could see an equally possible scenario where they just "transfered" it for political cover.
Since the DOJ has been using it for all sorts of non-Snowden business (Google will show you this quickly), I'm not sure where this logic gets you; the same logic suggests any US plane could be a secret CIA plane. That's true, they all could. And?
Re: Secret US flight flew over Scottish airspace to capture Snowden
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you help me understand what it is about a specific piece of equipment having in the past been used for human rights abuse that makes it unsuitable for any future use? It would be one thing if the CIA had operated the flight, but this plane is known to have been transferred to the DOJ long before the flight to extradite Snowden.
They may have officially transferred the plane, but do you really think that means the CIA would have to stop operating it? I mean it is totally possible that they did, but I could see an equally possible scenario where they just "transfered" it for political cover.
"Hey, remember that plane we gave you a while back? Can we borrow it for a few days?"