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

Let Snowden Come Home

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 311 posts

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#191

Post by yodsanklai »

tallerholler wrote: post #166
yodsanklai wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The former is arguably whistleblowing, but the latter is not. It's not because something is technically legal that it's moral. For instance, killing civilians with drones, torturing people, or recording the whole world's communications may be legal according to some twisted laws, but it doesn't make it right. At least voters should have a clear view of such issues, and it's not coming from the US government.

> For instance, killing civilians with drones, torturing people, or recording the whole world's communications may be legal according to some twisted laws, but it doesn't make it right. Without context then sure it seems not right. In the real world, terrorism is real. Although I don't agree with anything you mentioned as a whole, if it is a consequence of the world I live in, I'm ok with that. So are plenty of other…

Maybe you're right and those decisions are the best compromise given the circumstances. And I'm sure plenty agree, but they are also plenty that don't agree and nobody cared to explain the situation and ask for their opinion.

It reminds me one of the presidential debates. Question of national defense was briefly discussed. Both candidates agreed that it was important to "catch the bad guys". Then they disagreed on whether more ships were needed in the navy or something like that. Obama came up with a good joke, and that was it!!

In that context, I find it salutary that guys like Snowden provide some additional information on what is actually going on.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#192

Post by wtbob »

rhino369 wrote: post #101
sneak wrote: post #74

Fuck "seeking some sort of deal with his lawyers". A plea bargain would require him admitting wrongdoing. He raised internal concerns over the illegal activities he saw and was told to be quiet. Snowden himself has said he feared what happened to John Kiriakou (the whistleblower who exposed CIA's illegal torture program) happening to him had he made an even bigger issue out of it. The people who should be supporting…

>A plea bargain would require him admitting wrongdoing. Even if you think he did good overall, he did so some wrong. Much of what he leaked is unambiguously legal and exactly the sort of thing that the NSA is supposed to be doing. Clearly legal:PPD-20, spying on China, Tempura/Upstream, Embassy spying, spying on Germany, spying on al Jeezera, various spying methods, etc. etc. etc. Murky: internet meta data program th…

> Illegal: telecom metadata, various personal abuses by employees

Note that warrantless metadata collection is not illegal, per Smith v. Maryland.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#193

Post by rtpg »

mVChr wrote: post #115
austinhutch wrote: post #6

If he were to come back to the USA and then subsequently be detained, I would join the hopefully overwhelming protests in favor of his release. I am hoping if such a time comes, that there will be a historic level of demonstration advocating for his freedom.

More likely a few years after his return, when public attention has waned, he would die due to an unfortunate accident of some sort, perhaps a hit and run or the like. While this may sound like conspirilogic, I can site many similar instances of deaths of journalists and other instigators under mysterious circumstances in this country if necessary.

considering that there are 30000 vehicle fatalities in the US a year, you have a 1 in 10k chance every year of dying in a car accident.

People dying in car accidents are a thing that happen with a much higher probability than winning the lottery, so maybe this is nature imitating art more than anything else.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#194

Post by dragonwriter »

josu wrote: post #187
dragonwriter wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US law does not prohibit US intelligence services from spying on foreign countries. Quite the opposite. So, from a US perspective, NSA foreign intelligence gathering (specifically SIGINT gathering, its whole mandate) is, generally speaking, legal.

So what does the US law say about spying on your own citizens? Wasn't the NSA acting within its powers too?

> So what does the US law say about spying on your own citizens?

Given the hierarchy of law (e.g., the preeminence of the Constitution over other laws) and matters of interpretation, that's somewhat in dispute (see, for interpretation issues, e.g., the 2nd Circuit ruling finding that the mass metadata collection program was, contrary to the government's claims, authorized by Section 215.)

> Wasn't the NSA acting within its powers too?

Again, that matter is, at best, considerably in dispute.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#195

Post by TeMPOraL »

dragonwriter wrote: post #99
geophile wrote: post #81

As a practical matter, he can't come home. Not even the president can promise his immunity from prosecution -- one day there will be another president. The DOJ could drop all charges. And then impose new ones once he returns. And that is to say nothing of the possibility of his being killed, with blame cast on some nut job, and with all sorts of manufactured dirt on him released afterward. Put yourself in Snowden's s…

> Not even the president can promise his immunity from prosecution -- one day there will be another president. The President has the Constitutional power to issue pardons, it does not grant the President (whether the same President or any subsequent one, or anyone else for that matter) power to retract them. > The DOJ could drop all charges. And then impose new ones once he returns. Not to the extent that the new one…

It's easier to retaliate when the target lives just next to you than in another country. But (unless Snowden starts messing with the government again) more likely than intentional government-sponsored execution (er, "accident") is that some nutjob (er, "patriot") will take matters into their own hands. And that is vastly more likely when you're in the country and not abroad.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#196

Post by herah »

austinhutch wrote: post #6

If he were to come back to the USA and then subsequently be detained, I would join the hopefully overwhelming protests in favor of his release. I am hoping if such a time comes, that there will be a historic level of demonstration advocating for his freedom.

That's what so many said about Manning and look where he is now. Though I'm with you that if this happens, it would be great.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#197

Post by eropple »

jenius wrote: post #190
mortehu wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the being known to a majority of the US population is a way too high bar. In a 2010 poll[1], only 59% knew the name of the vice president, as mentioned in a Greenwald article[2] about this issue. 1. http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-s... 2. https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/06/john-oliver-in...

Honestly, I'd be significantly more likely to know Snowden's name than the vice president. I feel like he made a major impact on society that will be written about in history books for years to come. If you don't follow politics closely, the vice president is simply not relevant. The only way you'd know their name is by remembering it from the last presidential campaign, where the his and the president's names were e…

Given Joe Biden's long and fairly distinguished career in the Senate, I would think most adults should know who he is, at least in outline, and know that he's the Vice President. And I don't follow politics any more closely than I think any basically educated American should.

But then, there's that "basically educated" thing, isn't it? Our aggressive willingness, as a society, to not know things about how it actually works, and then excuse ourselves for it, troubles me pretty deeply.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#198

Post by derefr »

themeek wrote: post #189
derefr wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. I do prefer the latter terms, though—because using "propaganda" in both contexts makes it seem like it would be the same information being sewn domestically and abroad. Whereas what China wants America to think (and what America wants China to think) are very different things—and pursued in very different ways by very different parts of government—than what each country wants their own citizens to think.

I don't see how using propaganda would imply that the same information are being sewn multiple places. Propaganda is merely the focused government effort to understand and engage key audiences to create, strengthen, or preserve conditions favorable for the advancement of government interests, policies, and objectives through the use of coordinated programs, plans, themes, messages, and products. Different audiences a…

I guess I've always just heard "X Government Propaganda" as an idiomatic phrase used specifically to refer to things Government X tries to get its own citizens to believe on a long-term generational basis, turning it into "common wisdom." Whereas usually foreign-targeted propaganda is designed as part of a discrete operation to achieve some ephemeral goal, and it's the operation that has lasting relevance, not the propaganda itself (which is pretty quickly dispelled as soon as the next generation of foreigners grows up not having been touched by it.)

Or, to put it another way, domestic propaganda is strategic and continuous (and therefore easily observed, by meeting a citizen of the country who "grew up with the propaganda"); foreign-targeted propaganda is tactical and one-off, and won't usually leak out of whatever domain it was focused on (government, military, investors, entrepreneurs, etc.)

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#199

Post by leohutson »

tallerholler wrote: post #166
yodsanklai wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The former is arguably whistleblowing, but the latter is not. It's not because something is technically legal that it's moral. For instance, killing civilians with drones, torturing people, or recording the whole world's communications may be legal according to some twisted laws, but it doesn't make it right. At least voters should have a clear view of such issues, and it's not coming from the US government.

> For instance, killing civilians with drones, torturing people, or recording the whole world's communications may be legal according to some twisted laws, but it doesn't make it right. Without context then sure it seems not right. In the real world, terrorism is real. Although I don't agree with anything you mentioned as a whole, if it is a consequence of the world I live in, I'm ok with that. So are plenty of other…

Why do you believe that giving the state these powers helps reduce the risk of terrorism? Can you point to an attack that has been prevented by information gained through torture?

Obviously since the number of deaths caused by terrorism thus far is tiny, for terrorism to justify these actions that you agree would otherwise be unconscionable, the only conclusion you could make is that the security apparatus must be supremely effective, and have thwarted thousands of otherwise successful attacks against the US alone.

Am I correct in following that train of thought? Do you believe that a significant number of deaths have been prevented, say a number close to those killed by ATV's* in the US each year?

What is the evidence for these thwarted attacks?

* www.atvsafety.gov/stats.html

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#200

Post by tronracer »

pdeuchler wrote: post #183
rayiner wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can one reasonably believe that acceptance of transsexuals in the U.S. is a much bigger deal than NSA surveillance?

Nope. Not even in the slightest. There will always be those who are marginalized on the edge of society. That doesn't mean we shouldn't work to address those issues, but trying to reach some sort of utopia where everyone is perfectly included in society is delusional at best. On the other hand, the NSA revelations present a pretty clear path to totalitarianism for 100% of the population. It would be pretty hard to ar…

I don't see how a disorder[0] is intertwined with privacy. Are you referring to medical history?

[0] Just in case someone thinks I'm making this up: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity_disorder

Post reply on HN