Which could still net him over 100 years in prison. He was not guilty of DIRECTLY aiding one or more specific enemy, but was guilty of compromising our security by revealing info for just anyone to read.
He is still a dumbass.
We still have enemies? I thought Obama fixed all that! I have come to believe the American citizen has become Obama's enemies from the way he talks.
Mikeb, this is an illustration of what I've been saying to you for a while now. We have an administration that loves secrecy and is willing to shut up whistleblowers to protect its own power. The attitude in that is the same as that of gun control. Whenever the people hand power over to an unwatched and unlimited government, no right is safe.
I killed my TV a long time ago. Was listening to jazz on my way home from the beach today.
Manning is one hell of a man and a stand-up American. I know Texas and Greg probably aren't too cozy with the United Nations right about now, but herein the report on Manning's first eleven months of captivity, (solitary confinement,) from United Nations special rapporteur on torture. Manning looks pretty strong today. Ironically I would credit his military training with his being able to survive harsh treatment from his own army. Stripped down before being allowed to sleep. My, my! Link to Guardian article here.
I see more similarities between Manning's case and that of Daniel Ellsberg than anything to do with that commie-loving wannabe-Russkie Snowden. Manning is one of those people that just can't abide with the "dark side." Cheney's words. Water-boarding. Electric shock. Sexual humiliation. Handcuffing men to the roofs of cages. I could go on. How quickly we forget.
Greg,
Do you hold the president responsible for both Manning's harsh imprisonment and the course and conduct of his tribunal? It can't be very easy to tell those Joint Chiefs what the hell to do, even if we do have civilian control of the military.
The would-be messiah who ran in 2008 would have pardoned him for his service to humanity. The would-be tyrant in office today probably can't wait for this to sink into obscurity.
What is it about what Snowden did that offends you so? The most common criticism I've seen is for his running, but that just strikes me as prudent given the treatment Manning received. Still, I don't know if that's the basis of your criticism or if it's something else; would you enlighten me?
As for your comment about the difficulty of the president ordering around the Joint Chiefs, I'd like to point two things out. First, when Obama has wanted high level generals gone, they've resigned without a brouhaha--McChrystal, Petraus, etc., so I think he has the pull to push through what he wants. Second, even if the Joint Chiefs are a hundred times tougher to force out than other generals, That's what we elect presidents for. If Obama doesn't have the stones to make the hard calls and stand on his principles, he should resign and let the brainless wonder have a stab at it--maybe he could scare them off with his shotgun.
He flees to China. Makes it to Russia. He's willing to give up living in the U.S.A., but ready to go to any totalitarian nation that will have him. Like we really have no liberty here at home! His top two choices for asylum are Ecuador and Venezuela. Which might be have been okay if Chavez were still alive, but I'm sure his successors are something at a loss as to what to do.
Besides, who cares? My phone records are public. That's inherent in the model. Call my landline. You won't get any caller ID. If I call anybody who requires caller ID, I have to dial a special number to allow it. Other than that one old-fashioned privacy, everything else is constantly being recorded.
I'll tell you one thing. This would be one hell of a day and age to be a low-level marijuana or drug dealer. All of your customers as well as yourself would constantly be at risk of arrest.
Snowden needs his Dad to take care of him. He should just come home and stand trial. He won't be pilloried in the same way that Manning was. It might be an interesting trial and further whatever odd ends he had in mind. Why would he want to leave his homeland?
Thanks for the reply and for letting me know where you're coming from on Snowden. What I gather, from your statements, is that your issues with him are not the MSNBC standard of "he needs to take his lumps to be a real whistleblower." Instead, it's that he's run off to places that are less free than we are, which doesn't fit with his professed love of freedom, and that you don't think that what he unveiled was a big deal.
I agree with your assessment of the relative level of freedom in the US vs. any of the other countries Snowden has gone to or looked to go to. That being said, there has been a general downward trend in freedom in the US with new layers of surveillance being added, expanded executive authority for indefinite detention, court precedents that shred the 4th Amendment, etc. Meanwhile, from both news accounts and conversations with friends from China and Russia, it seems that there has been a relaxation of government intrusion in those countries, and freedom seems to be growing in them. Certainly, they have a long way to go--especially China, but they are no longer the regimes we grew up pointing nukes at.
While everyone will grade freedom differently, I doubt Mr. Snowden truly believes that these countries will allow him more freedom than he would have in the States. Instead, I think he found places he could stand to put up with, and which, because of their insatiable desire to stick their fingers in the US government's eye, would protect him while his cause gained momentum and attention.
If he went straight to Venezuela or Ecuador, it would have been easy for him to disappear and for it to be chalked up to rebels, robbers, drug dealers, etc. However, now that he's been protected in Hong Kong for a short time, and much longer in Russia, any "accidents" that befall him would be greeted with a great many cynical eyes. Maybe that is a paranoid notion, but when you dabble in secrets and international intrigue, such paranoia is worth at least considering and planning for, however remote the danger might be.
And yes, you are correct that a trial here might give him more of a soapbox to push his cause, but that does assume that he isn't locked away under NDAA or given some sort of new, secret trial behind closed doors due to the sensitive nature of the case and the importance of National Security.
Still, perhaps, if the guarantees he's asked for are met, he will return and have just such a trial. In the end, it's his choice. After seeing some of the cases I've seen railroaded through the courts on small matters, I think that any case against him is liable to have a foregone conclusion, so his options would appear to be trumpet his position in a trial and spend his life in jail, or spend his life in exile in a country less free than the US, but more free than prison, and proclaim his position from there.
As for whether or not the issue is important, it's a much bigger issue than merely the demands for phone records. The types of demands were enabled under the PATRIOT Act and other related laws. For years the government has been telling us not to worry about these expanded powers because they've only been making 200-some requests per year. However, now we know that each of these requests were blanket requests saying, "Give us all your data."
According to what I've read about Snowden's revelations, these requests have been made to phone companies, ISP's, Credit Card companies, etc. Yes, these items don't have identifying data attached to them, but when they get put into a database that combines all of this information and makes connections, it starts to be a bigger invasion of privacy.
When you combine this with the government buying lists of information from groups that compile databases of their own, including identifying data, and the government farming its analysis out to firms like the one Snowden worked for--firms not bound to respect Constitutional Rights, you run into huge opportunities for this data to be refined into extremely invasive databases.
Maybe the government will use this power only to go after terrorists, as they claim. Maybe they'll direct it at low level drug dealers and their customers. Politically motivated and unethical people could use this information to uncover crimes and fuel personal or political vendettas.
What Snowden revealed was a system that had opened Pandora's box and was prying it further open every day. Perhaps the Administration wasn't running amok with this information yet, but do you really want to trust them with that kind of power? And what about the next time that a Republican gets elected--especially if it's someone like Bachman, Tancredo, Santorum, or even Perry or Christy, any of whom I can see buying into Cheney's idea of tapping into "the Dark Side"?
In the end, to answer your final question, I think Snowden left his homeland because, right or wrong, he thought it was the best way that he could protect himself and also expose what was going on in hopes of causing public outcry for the closing of this Pandora's box.
Sure, there could be other possibilities--a Messiah complex for which he at least picked a good cause; being a foreign asset who took intel with him (though it would seem strange to follow this up with a strike at the overgrowth of our government--especially when Russia would have probably just given him a home, pension, and photo shoot if he was a straight up traitor); etc. However, I have yet to see an explanation that doesn't have as many holes as, or more than, the prima facie explanation.
I call it civil disobedience, but that comes with being guilty of breaking the law. To bad Snow-job doesn't have the guts to stand on his convictions. Other Americans have gladly gone to jail to express the convictions of their cause, especially against their government. Instead he flees from the law and buddies up to the KGB dictator. Have fun living in Putin land? Hope you are not gay. A guy who is willing to go to jail for his convictions, and stand, and fight, I can respect. This guy, no thanks.
Which could still net him over 100 years in prison. He was not guilty of DIRECTLY aiding one or more specific enemy, but was guilty of compromising our security by revealing info for just anyone to read.
ReplyDeleteHe is still a dumbass.
We still have enemies? I thought Obama fixed all that! I have come to believe the American citizen has become Obama's enemies from the way he talks.
Mikeb, this is an illustration of what I've been saying to you for a while now. We have an administration that loves secrecy and is willing to shut up whistleblowers to protect its own power. The attitude in that is the same as that of gun control. Whenever the people hand power over to an unwatched and unlimited government, no right is safe.
ReplyDeleteThank You Mike,
ReplyDeleteI killed my TV a long time ago. Was listening to jazz on my way home from the beach today.
Manning is one hell of a man and a stand-up American. I know Texas and Greg probably aren't too cozy with the United Nations right about now, but herein the report on Manning's first eleven months of captivity, (solitary confinement,) from United Nations special rapporteur on torture. Manning looks pretty strong today. Ironically I would credit his military training with his being able to survive harsh treatment from his own army. Stripped down before being allowed to sleep. My, my! Link to Guardian article here.
I see more similarities between Manning's case and that of Daniel Ellsberg than anything to do with that commie-loving wannabe-Russkie Snowden. Manning is one of those people that just can't abide with the "dark side." Cheney's words. Water-boarding. Electric shock. Sexual humiliation. Handcuffing men to the roofs of cages. I could go on. How quickly we forget.
Greg,
Do you hold the president responsible for both Manning's harsh imprisonment and the course and conduct of his tribunal? It can't be very easy to tell those Joint Chiefs what the hell to do, even if we do have civilian control of the military.
The would-be messiah who ran in 2008 would have pardoned him for his service to humanity. The would-be tyrant in office today probably can't wait for this to sink into obscurity.
DeleteJunior,
ReplyDeleteWhat is it about what Snowden did that offends you so? The most common criticism I've seen is for his running, but that just strikes me as prudent given the treatment Manning received. Still, I don't know if that's the basis of your criticism or if it's something else; would you enlighten me?
As for your comment about the difficulty of the president ordering around the Joint Chiefs, I'd like to point two things out. First, when Obama has wanted high level generals gone, they've resigned without a brouhaha--McChrystal, Petraus, etc., so I think he has the pull to push through what he wants. Second, even if the Joint Chiefs are a hundred times tougher to force out than other generals, That's what we elect presidents for. If Obama doesn't have the stones to make the hard calls and stand on his principles, he should resign and let the brainless wonder have a stab at it--maybe he could scare them off with his shotgun.
Well...
ReplyDeleteHe flees to China. Makes it to Russia. He's willing to give up living in the U.S.A., but ready to go to any totalitarian nation that will have him. Like we really have no liberty here at home! His top two choices for asylum are Ecuador and Venezuela. Which might be have been okay if Chavez were still alive, but I'm sure his successors are something at a loss as to what to do.
Besides, who cares? My phone records are public. That's inherent in the model. Call my landline. You won't get any caller ID. If I call anybody who requires caller ID, I have to dial a special number to allow it. Other than that one old-fashioned privacy, everything else is constantly being recorded.
I'll tell you one thing. This would be one hell of a day and age to be a low-level marijuana or drug dealer. All of your customers as well as yourself would constantly be at risk of arrest.
Snowden needs his Dad to take care of him. He should just come home and stand trial. He won't be pilloried in the same way that Manning was. It might be an interesting trial and further whatever odd ends he had in mind. Why would he want to leave his homeland?
Junior,
DeleteThanks for the reply and for letting me know where you're coming from on Snowden. What I gather, from your statements, is that your issues with him are not the MSNBC standard of "he needs to take his lumps to be a real whistleblower." Instead, it's that he's run off to places that are less free than we are, which doesn't fit with his professed love of freedom, and that you don't think that what he unveiled was a big deal.
I agree with your assessment of the relative level of freedom in the US vs. any of the other countries Snowden has gone to or looked to go to. That being said, there has been a general downward trend in freedom in the US with new layers of surveillance being added, expanded executive authority for indefinite detention, court precedents that shred the 4th Amendment, etc. Meanwhile, from both news accounts and conversations with friends from China and Russia, it seems that there has been a relaxation of government intrusion in those countries, and freedom seems to be growing in them. Certainly, they have a long way to go--especially China, but they are no longer the regimes we grew up pointing nukes at.
While everyone will grade freedom differently, I doubt Mr. Snowden truly believes that these countries will allow him more freedom than he would have in the States. Instead, I think he found places he could stand to put up with, and which, because of their insatiable desire to stick their fingers in the US government's eye, would protect him while his cause gained momentum and attention.
If he went straight to Venezuela or Ecuador, it would have been easy for him to disappear and for it to be chalked up to rebels, robbers, drug dealers, etc. However, now that he's been protected in Hong Kong for a short time, and much longer in Russia, any "accidents" that befall him would be greeted with a great many cynical eyes. Maybe that is a paranoid notion, but when you dabble in secrets and international intrigue, such paranoia is worth at least considering and planning for, however remote the danger might be.
And yes, you are correct that a trial here might give him more of a soapbox to push his cause, but that does assume that he isn't locked away under NDAA or given some sort of new, secret trial behind closed doors due to the sensitive nature of the case and the importance of National Security.
DeleteStill, perhaps, if the guarantees he's asked for are met, he will return and have just such a trial. In the end, it's his choice. After seeing some of the cases I've seen railroaded through the courts on small matters, I think that any case against him is liable to have a foregone conclusion, so his options would appear to be trumpet his position in a trial and spend his life in jail, or spend his life in exile in a country less free than the US, but more free than prison, and proclaim his position from there.
As for whether or not the issue is important, it's a much bigger issue than merely the demands for phone records. The types of demands were enabled under the PATRIOT Act and other related laws. For years the government has been telling us not to worry about these expanded powers because they've only been making 200-some requests per year. However, now we know that each of these requests were blanket requests saying, "Give us all your data."
According to what I've read about Snowden's revelations, these requests have been made to phone companies, ISP's, Credit Card companies, etc. Yes, these items don't have identifying data attached to them, but when they get put into a database that combines all of this information and makes connections, it starts to be a bigger invasion of privacy.
When you combine this with the government buying lists of information from groups that compile databases of their own, including identifying data, and the government farming its analysis out to firms like the one Snowden worked for--firms not bound to respect Constitutional Rights, you run into huge opportunities for this data to be refined into extremely invasive databases.
Maybe the government will use this power only to go after terrorists, as they claim. Maybe they'll direct it at low level drug dealers and their customers. Politically motivated and unethical people could use this information to uncover crimes and fuel personal or political vendettas.
What Snowden revealed was a system that had opened Pandora's box and was prying it further open every day. Perhaps the Administration wasn't running amok with this information yet, but do you really want to trust them with that kind of power? And what about the next time that a Republican gets elected--especially if it's someone like Bachman, Tancredo, Santorum, or even Perry or Christy, any of whom I can see buying into Cheney's idea of tapping into "the Dark Side"?
In the end, to answer your final question, I think Snowden left his homeland because, right or wrong, he thought it was the best way that he could protect himself and also expose what was going on in hopes of causing public outcry for the closing of this Pandora's box.
Sure, there could be other possibilities--a Messiah complex for which he at least picked a good cause; being a foreign asset who took intel with him (though it would seem strange to follow this up with a strike at the overgrowth of our government--especially when Russia would have probably just given him a home, pension, and photo shoot if he was a straight up traitor); etc. However, I have yet to see an explanation that doesn't have as many holes as, or more than, the prima facie explanation.
Great thoughts Tennessean.
ReplyDeleteAnd to the brilliant flame gather the insects of the night.
DeleteI call it civil disobedience, but that comes with being guilty of breaking the law. To bad Snow-job doesn't have the guts to stand on his convictions. Other Americans have gladly gone to jail to express the convictions of their cause, especially against their government. Instead he flees from the law and buddies up to the KGB dictator. Have fun living in Putin land? Hope you are not gay. A guy who is willing to go to jail for his convictions, and stand, and fight, I can respect. This guy, no thanks.
ReplyDeleteThere's being naive, and then there's being smart. The information is out where it belongs, thanks to both heroes.
DeleteWere black leaders who went to jail to protest segregation heroes?
DeleteNo response, figures.
Delete