I know that I'm putting my name on a dissenters list, but isn't that kind of the point? I hate how it's become this casual reality that the government is always working behind the scenes to further its own interests, often regardless of the actual benefit to the average citizen. Today's political climate is like the fever that our society is enduring to effect change. Honestly, I'm not sure why Obama would not do this. I mean, I know why everyone thinks he wouldn't but the sense that there is something to lose, as though the favor of all these Washington back scratchers was worth anything, seems really just like an illusion. Obama doesn't seem to me like an insider. He seems to me just like a guy I'd have a beer with who has a solid head on his shoulders. I believe there's a part of him that would just love to do this and believes it is right. I guess we'll see what happens.
Pardon Snowden
711–720 of 814 posts
Re: Pardon Snowden
#712Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a gross misrepresentation and I hope that this belief isn't more widespread. The only thing that socialism and naziism had in common was the idea of an economy that will make a group of people better off, (which is pretty much the idea behind every economic model in history), but naziism is based on the idea of a "superior race", which is inherently better than the rest of the population and thus is entitled…
Unfortunately this "belief" is pretty wide spread on the American right. It's not actually believed, though. It's just an attack point to try and associate "liberals" with Hitler in Internet comments and what not. Pretty standard troll tactic.
Unfortunately there are people who really believe it. [1]
Re: Pardon Snowden
#713Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which country would you suggest is the most free today? Not trolling, just wondering if I was going to move somewhere else, where would I go?
The previous poster was correct - it depends on what sort of things will make you, personally, feel free. I wound up in Norway, and find a certain freedom here. I don't mind the taxes and such, and I rather enjoy the general equality in opportunity sort of thing. I'm no longer worried that blue hair makes me un-hireable (though it might make it harder to find work). But other Americans here simply hate it and can't w…
It's kind of cool that there are so many different countries with different variables and that some people are fortunate enough to be able to pick the one that suits them best.
Homogeny in this case would actually be a bad thing.
Re: Pardon Snowden
#714[deleted]
Re: Pardon Snowden
#715I don't think he should be pardoned. He claims that it's because he helped the public see the sinister plot of our government and their internal spying. Ok, fine. So, should we have pardoned Jack Ruby (if he were alive) for killing the guy that killed JFK? No. Why does Snowden deserve any different treatment. He still release confidential information. It's not like what he did can just excuse that fact. He exposed US…
I don't think the comparison with murder is justified at all.
Re: Pardon Snowden
#716Earlier quoted context omitted.
I "love" how China actually tried to formalize this some time ago. Every citizen would get a citizen score, like our credit ratings, but grading how politically loyal they were. There was quite a bit of outrage on the western internet about this. The "funny" thing is, our governments are probably doing very similar things (though still to a lesser degree, and secretly). A big difference is that China often doesn't ha…
> A big difference is that China often doesn't have a sense of tact when it comes to not sounding dystopian, and happiliy uses phrases like "citizen score", "criminal elements" and "reeducation". Clintons "basket of deplorables" is a reminder that this sense of tact could change after the election.
LOL. Seriously?
Who gives a shit anyway? "Offending" Trump supporters isn't going to change anything. Not like they were on the fence.
I love the double standard being applied here. It's like what Trump says is just "expected", but Clinton says one thing you find offensive (oh no, political correctness!) and you're all up in arms. Woe is the deplorable Trump supporter.
Re: Pardon Snowden
#717Earlier quoted context omitted.
Basically, yes. Also, the evidence shows that he didn't one day "see something wrong and decided to report it" as the narrative claims. He quit a job on one contract to take another job (which he lied about his experience to get) and then stole information from there before releasing it all roughly 6 months after he was hired. Some reports I have seen estimate that roughly 90% of the information he released was from…
Yeah, the narrative that he tried to follow the rules to get the "egregious" programs stopped is almost entirely false. He may have made one off-the-record attempt with a superior. He also once emailed someone that a test he took had a wrong answer in regards to Executive Orders being able to override laws, and that email got forwarded around until it hit an NSA lawyer and they stated that he was correct. EOs and law…
Really? I was under the impression that he followed through some fairly extensive inquiries. I'll have to do some more research, but if what you say is true, then I might have to reevaluate my position again. If he didn't even attempt the proper channels, then my pardon 'offer' is off the table again.
Re: Pardon Snowden
#718Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A big difference is that China often doesn't have a sense of tact when it comes to not sounding dystopian, and happiliy uses phrases like "citizen score", "criminal elements" and "reeducation". Clintons "basket of deplorables" is a reminder that this sense of tact could change after the election.
Candidate A says that immigrants from a certain country are "bringing crime; bringing drugs; they're rapists; and some, I presume, are good people". Candidate B says that half the supporters of Candidate A are "deplorable". If anything, Clinton was going out of her way to be excessively tactful.
To be fair, the number is much higher than 50%.
It's not a binary choice, after all.
Re: Pardon Snowden
#719Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're allowed your quota of one medium-impact dissident action per week, just like everyone else. As it helps to keep up maintaining the illusion of democracy and free speech, you are actually doing your country a great service. If you start to do more, however... Consider yourself warned. ^^ In this case, I can reassure you though: Online petition clicktivism has been shown to be very ineffective, so it's only cons…
Depends on where you are. I have friends in Turkey who signed an online petition and (the next day) lost their jobs over it. Some of the other people who signed that petition are not allowed to leave the country anymore, and some are even being detained. Very scary.
Uhm... what do you think would happen if someone attempted a military coup in any Western democracy? :D
Would be hilarious to find out, to be honest.
Re: Pardon Snowden
#720Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes but you're being a bit naïve here. Things never really go like this. Snowden didn't just blow the whistle on some shady activities, he dumped hundreds of confidential documents that put at risk the lives of hundreds of operatives working for your freedom and others'.
define "dumped." He tried internal channels, which unsurprisingly failed (as several legitimate whistle-blowers and even just employees have expressed) and then went to well-reputed journalists in the most professional, transparent, and safe way possible. They even leaked redacted materials slowly to emphasize this. So: Why did you use the word "dumped" and can you explain explicitly what he did wrong?
Snowden dumped foreign operations on foreign journalists unredacted... already bad... who also aren't experts at INFOSEC or OPSEC. They then published a bunch of them with some redactions of names but not methods. Many of the methods were quite unique to the point that they helped identify Equation Group and some other stuff later. A number of others would've been blown simply because the targets would know what to look for, what components to replace, what systems were less vulnerable, and so on. I doubt anyone died but they definitely lost lots of SIGINT. It's a natural consequence of their specific mechanisms all being exposed at once to targets that read the news.
So, like Manning, he definitely leaked stuff he didn't need to leak that harmed NSA's foreign operations that Americans were OK with. The kind the NSA was created for. That's not whistleblowing like his domestic stuff that Alexander and Clapper lied about. That makes him a whistleblower on domestic leaks and traitor on most, foreign ones. I put in for pardon given benefit of the whistleblowing but he's certainly guilty of damaging leaks.
I just don't see a reason to charge him if lots of scumbags on top are still walking free despite clear potential for Contempt of Congress or perjury charges. A little unjust, yeah?