Don’t just pardon Edward Snowden; give the man a medal • Hacker News Board

Re: Don’t just pardon Edward Snowden; give the man a medal

#211

Post by mnordhoff » Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 12:28 AM UTC

mpyne wrote: post #201

dragonwriter wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The House report claims Snowden lied saying he left military training due to broken legs, and instead washed out due to "shin splints". Gellman objects, saying he has a documented diagnosis for Snowden saying he was discharged with "bilaterial tibial stress fractures". But tibial stress fractures are a form --- a common form --- of shin splint. A stress fracture is a broken bone. Tibial stress fractures are (among…

Having gone through military basic training (and later being peripherally involved with recruiting), we had people wash out relatively often for 'shin splints'. If you washed out it would have to be severe -- if the shin splints were minor you'd simply be given time to heal and the ability to rollback into the next class. But even if they were severe, we (recruits and staff alike) called them 'shin splints', not 'bro…

Snowden literally said "I left on crutches."

https://twitter.com/snowden/status/776543206938906625

Re: Don’t just pardon Edward Snowden; give the man a medal

#212

Post by hrez » Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 12:31 AM UTC

imagist wrote: post #120

dllthomas wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol126_t... My understanding has it that in practice "the people" means roughly "all citizens and residents of the US", not all people anywhere. You can disagree with the courts over what the words mean, but do so deliberately.

America, where corporations are people but foreigners aren't.

Are foreign corporations people? - that is the question.

Re: Don’t just pardon Edward Snowden; give the man a medal

#213

Post by Zigurd » Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 1:00 AM UTC

tzs wrote: post #102

peterkelly wrote: post #10

Another important question is whether or not the NSA should be pardoned for their illegal activity: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-nsa-idUSKBN0N... Or whether James Clapper deserves a pardon for committing perjury during a testimony to Congress: http://www.hasjamesclapperbeenindictedyet.com Edit: /s

It's not at all clear that Clapper committed perjury. He took an oath long before he testified at that hearing to not reveal certain secrets to unauthorized people, and that oath was backed by laws passed by Congress. He also took an oath later to testify truthfully at that Congressional committee hearing. When those oaths conflict, which one takes priority? Note that due to the nature of Wyden's question, Clapper co…

There are two reasons I can think of off the top of my head why that should not have been a problem:

1. Congressional committees that handle classified information can use closed-door sessions to hear these kinds of answers. There was no need for Clapper to lie.

2. Clapper also took an oath to uphold the constitution, before any other more specific oaths. It is difficult to see how lying to Congress fulfills this oath.

At best your argument rests on whether Wyden knew the answer and the common law argument that no answer could then be perjury. But there was no reason for Clapper to lie to a committee of the Congress.

Re: Don’t just pardon Edward Snowden; give the man a medal

#214

Post by erikpukinskis » Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 3:12 AM UTC

freehunter wrote: post #170

mzw_mzw wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd handle that balance by dropping the "not legitimizing their opinions" part completely. There's a lot to unpack here, but briefly, the idea of "legitimizing" an opinion suggests that there is some group of people who have the authority to decide what opinions are okay to hold and what aren't. The problem is, a) there is no dispassionate authority you can refer to when we're talking about political issues; everyone…

Very well said. I think you're spot on that these folks aren't going to back down, but at least you can use the opportunity to explain the facts to other people who might be more willing o hear them. That's something we're missing during these discussions, we put a lot of emphasis on hearing both sides of the story, but not a lot on making sure everyone is aware of the facts, even if it hurts the rhetoric of one side…

One way to make those interactions less annoying is to, perhaps temporarily, put aside your goal of getting them to agree with you, and choose another more achievable goal. Here are a few you could try:

Have a cordial interaction with someone who sees things differently

Learn from this person about one of the things they are an expert on

Understand more deeply the pseudo-logic of their mindset and where it comes from

All of those goals are realistically achievable which should make them less frustrating than trying to win. And as a side benefit if you succeed at any of the above, you should be in a better position to bring them around should you go back to trying to do that.

Re: Don’t just pardon Edward Snowden; give the man a medal

#215

Post by erikpukinskis » Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 3:19 AM UTC

freehunter wrote: post #203

rhino369 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more than just interpreting facts. People make value judgements too. A lot of the pro Snowden support is based on a belief that transparency is a good thing. That isn't a universal truth. Reasonable people can disagree.

Okay, you're right. Opinions can be based on faith, as well. But anyone would be well within the realm of sanity to weight opinions based on faith lower than opinions based on fact. "I base my opinion on X on the fact that my religion says X is right/wrong, I base that religion on faith" doesn't mean the opinion is based on fact. You've got me on that one.

If you only base your opinions on facts, you can't really have opinions about very many things. Very mundane details of historical events. Narrowly defined conclusions of studies which are almost never actually specifically applicable to any situation at hand. If you believe science reporting headlines you might think you are basing your opinions on facts, but if you actually read the papers you realize how little science can actually say.

Very few of the principles that basically everyone relies on to make value judgements are based on actual research. Most people who purport to base their opinions solely on scientific research are saying that because they have some small number of sample opinions that contradict commonly held opinions and which are based on facts. They then generalize to "all my beliefs are based on facts" even though basically none of these people actually audit their beliefs in any systematic way. The subjective experience of being an outspoken proponent of a factual analysis leads to the false generalization of that story into all aspects of their life.

But in fact we make thousands of judgements every day, the vast majority of which are based on a few casual observations, or our internal model of the universe, which, while based on facts, is not a reliable witness, nor is it a scientifically valid source of data.

Re: Don’t just pardon Edward Snowden; give the man a medal

#216

Post by mpyne » Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 3:45 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #207

mpyne wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having gone through military basic training (and later being peripherally involved with recruiting), we had people wash out relatively often for 'shin splints'. If you washed out it would have to be severe -- if the shin splints were minor you'd simply be given time to heal and the ability to rollback into the next class. But even if they were severe, we (recruits and staff alike) called them 'shin splints', not 'bro…

A wrinkle: Snowden was 18X, so he wasn't doing standard basic training, but accelerated basic/advanced combined. So a shin splint injury that might have been manageable in normal basic training, in 18X...?

That's just it, I heard it was training for SF, so I thought he had literally broken his legs, their training isn't just doing a bunch of running so it would certainly be plausible to break a leg doing something like fast-roping out of a helo or a parachute jump.

I haven't gone through anything close to SF training but wash-outs happen all the time; you heal up and generally get to try again, since it's not like you can just stay with your class, and the military services need SOF-quality forces bad enough that if you're otherwise qualified to get into that pipeline then it's beneficial for them to give you that opportunity.

On the other hand in a basic training environment, if you get shin splints you may get a medical profile or light duty chit saying not to do certain types of exercise (or even to wear different shoes) to give your lower legs time to heal. But if it's bad enough you can be pulled out of training completely and put in a holding company to heal up properly and then roll back into a class.

I was briefly in a holding company for something else; there were recruits there who had been out of training due to shin splints for months, usually when they refused to go to medical when they first started noticing symptoms and tried to tough it out.

Re: Don’t just pardon Edward Snowden; give the man a medal

#217

Post by mpyne » Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 3:57 AM UTC

mnordhoff wrote: post #211

mpyne wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having gone through military basic training (and later being peripherally involved with recruiting), we had people wash out relatively often for 'shin splints'. If you washed out it would have to be severe -- if the shin splints were minor you'd simply be given time to heal and the ability to rollback into the next class. But even if they were severe, we (recruits and staff alike) called them 'shin splints', not 'bro…

Snowden literally said "I left on crutches." https://twitter.com/snowden/status/776543206938906625

He also said 'it wasn't shin splints' when the conceit to this thread appears to be that 'shin splints are just a different way of saying bone fractures in your legs'.

We have Barton Gellman defending Snowden by saying that he was diagnosed with 'bilateral tibial stress fractures'. But, this is consistent with shin splints (albeit more severe) and could be the result of trying to maintain the exercise regimen that gave you shin splints in the first place. But nor are bilateral tibial stress fractures something you get in a training accident or other single event -- it's a repetitive injury that you get when your body cannot sustain the level of demand being placed on it over time.

It still hurts like a bitch if you let it get to that point, and Snowden would not be anywhere near the first or the last to wash out of a military training pipeline due to that. But he sells it like he broke his legs in some sort of accident at a single SF training event, not like the exact same type of repetitive stress injury that has been a common cause of medical washouts in many other men and women attempting the same training (even for ceremonial duties! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2807419/).

Re: Don’t just pardon Edward Snowden; give the man a medal

#218

Post by PavlovsCat » Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 4:35 AM UTC

PavlovsCat wrote: post #73

canttestthis wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As surprising as this may sound, those of us born in other countries have the same rights too, and deserve the same protections. Citizens of other countries in fact don't have the same rights and protections against the NSA as citizens. It's why the NSA exists.

That's a bit like saying murder is legal because murderers exist. http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ And yes, I know, human rights and international law are kind of lacking enforcement, so compared to stealing a lollipop or something, of course there is no legal problem with what the NSA is doing. But " it's gotta be okay or it wouldn't happen "? Nah.

By the same token downvotes without words go into the same bin. So far you showed you can click a button. That's literally it.

Re: Don’t just pardon Edward Snowden; give the man a medal

#219

Post by saynsedit » Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 5:26 AM UTC

rhino369 wrote: post #130

Practicality wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who are these generic Americans that think that Snowden should be condemned? Everyone American I know is very grateful for what he did. And I know quite a few. I've only ever heard official policy statements condemning him. I am not even really sure those stating such policy agree with what they are saying (at a personal level).

He leaked classified information beyond what he needed to expose illegal programs. Most of his purpose was to expose programs he had an ideological problem with. I don't believe that is a good enough reason to leak classified information. Edward Snowden isn't an elected official. It wasn't his job to decide which US policies he agrees with. Government can't function if low level employees take it upon themselves to r…

Snowden did not expose the documents, the journalists did... It was their journalistic duty to reveal a minimal yet sufficient amount of evidence to inform the public, not his.

Re: Don’t just pardon Edward Snowden; give the man a medal

#220

Post by saynsedit » Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 5:28 AM UTC

rhino369 wrote: post #128

saynsedit wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, Americans sleep when they hear 90% of drone attack deaths are civilians: https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/the-assassination-comp... But they are wide awake and outraged when Snowden's ostensible act of espionage has caused an enormous amount of public good and technological innovation. It's not really the American's fault. We hear few of their real voices. It's the media that speaks the loudest.

>Yeah, Americans sleep when they hear 90% of drone attack deaths are civilians: No, 90% of the drone deaths weren't known indented targets. If you bomb a Taliban camp to kill a known Taliban leader, you are going to kill a lot of people, but they aren't going to be mostly civilians. Sure some of them are civilians who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. But that's legal under international law and essentially…

Great justification for extrajudicial state-sponsored murder. Non-congress authorized war makes it okay. Gotcha.