Why Edward Snowden is not a Whistle-Blower

[peter grimes]

Here are the actual numbers involved as reported by the companies themselves:

[snip]

Seems more than a bit shy of 'every single phone call' doesn't it?

Funny how none of those were Verizon - the only company publicly named in the one FISC warrant that's so far been leaked.

It hasn't occurred on US soil, and its a mere fraction of what everyone is alleging, and it certainly hasn't affected me personally in any way, shape for form....so unless some information comes to light that its actually far in excess of that, no, I don't think its unreasonable at all. As I said before, the government has an expectation of pursuing this kind of electronic information for security reasons. The fact that they are actually doing what they are supposed to be doing shouldn't be shocking.

I don't deny that the government has a duty to pursue intelligence of this nature - what I object to is the fact that there appear to be inadequate protections in place to prevent scraping of data irrelevant to that task. Have you heard about the Guardian's story earlier today? It details some of the leaky 'safeguards'.

Do you have to worry about not viewing classified stuff any more? I'm not posting direct quotes from classified documents and such in case you'd be inadvertently exposed. If there's no issue, then I'll post.

Oh, what about Patroklos? Perhaps I'd better continue refraining?

FISA courts and what they do haven't been secret, and have even been discussed in these forums previously (at least I seem to recall we have on warrantless searches involving FISA before).

It was my understanding that the proceedings of the FISA court and the paperwork they generate is all classified - yes, we know in broad strokes what they do, but some people who have been targeted for investigation can not be told, nor can their lawyer. There was a fascinatingly disturbing thing about this on OnTheMedia a couple years ago:
http://www.onthemedia.org/2013/jan/04/national-security-letters-and-gag-orders/

My position would be different if they were simply doing it on US soil, regardless of who they would be targeting. But they aren't.

If I understand you correctly, it's the geographic location of the person they're investigating that's the major factor for you? Why that, as opposed to the citizenship status of the person, or the reason for seeking the data?

 

[bhsup]

Yep, he ran straight into the arms of the the peace loving and free land of the People's Republic of China. If that in and of itself isn't some sort of indicator of his desire to betray his country...

 

[cardgame]

What other country wouldn't extradite him?

China is also the world's largest English speaking country, technically.

 

[bhsup]

Judging by how eager Switzerland and France are to keep a raper of young girls in their borders and away from brutal American justice, I'd say those two countries would have been fine contenders.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Yeah, but seriously, would you move to France for any amount of liberty VRWCagent?

 

[bhsup]

I would never leave America beyond maybe a vacation, and even that's incredibly iffy.

 

[MobBoss]

What other country wouldn't extradite him?

Switzerland perhaps?

How about France? They never gave up Roman Polanski did they?

 

[madviking]

Dude's been charged with espionage now...

Yep, he ran straight into the arms of the the peace loving and free land of the People's Republic of China. If that in and of itself isn't some sort of indicator of his desire to betray his country...

Actually, it's pretty damned difficult to extradite people from Hong Kong; his extradition, if it's successful, could take months on months to go through the courts. So he did actually go to the peace loving and free land with in the PRC, Hong Kong.

 

[Ironsided]

I wish he could consider Sweden an alternative. But he can't. We are another butt-f-ed nation. I cry tears of dispare. Who cares?

 

[madviking]

cough Julian Assange couch

 

[Agent327]

Dude's been charged with espionage now...

And theft. Should be an interesting trial.

Oh really? http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57590025/obama-defends-narrow-surveillance-programs/

Yes, really: no mention of the legality of the program. Which was what I was talking about. It seems pretty clear the President is aware there is a very fine line here.

Drone launched attacks, are by their very nature, quite discriminating. It's kinda the entire point.

I see. We'll ignore the "collateral damage", shall we?

 

[Schwarzenberg]

Not everyone. The man has potentially crossed the line, imho. This post below was also, btw, the one which I was called out on (and correctly so) for improperly using the word treason. Betrayer, traitor, etc I guess, but not treason with its specific definition.

one man's treason is another man's legitimate subversive action against a dangerous regime.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Not everyone. The man has potentially crossed the line, imho. This post below was also, btw, the one which I was called out on (and correctly so) for improperly using the word treason. Betrayer, traitor, etc I guess, but not treason with its specific definition.

A traitor is generally someone who commits treason. But it can also refer to someone who is guilty of treachery. But I think even that is tenuous since he certainly didn't betray the trust of the people instead of that of his government. I think in this particular instance the government has been far more treacherous by not revealing to what extent they were willing to deprive all of us our own privacy in fear and paranoia of a relatively harmless threat.

Of course, YMMV.

Yep, he ran straight into the arms of the the peace loving and free land of the People's Republic of China. If that in and of itself isn't some sort of indicator of his desire to betray his country...

Judging by how eager Switzerland and France are to keep a raper of young girls in their borders and away from brutal American justice, I'd say those two countries would have been fine contenders.

You seem to have quite a negative impression of justice in the rest of the world while glorifying and extolling the only modern country that has such a draconian and discriminatory criminal justice system anywhere near the same magnitude.

The mere fact that Snowden has now been charged with espionage shows his acts were not unwarranted.

 

[bhsup]

None of those charts or what you think my views on foreign justice are have any bearing on the fact that it seems my worries were well founded and he has most likely divulged classified documents to a foreign power. If the government didn't have a damned good idea that he'd done this, he wouldn't be charged under the espionage act.

And you need to remember that I was all willing to jump on the hero bandwagon if he'd just restricted what his leaks to what the government was doing regarding spying on its own citizens in the USA. As I've said before, he crosses the line when he gives foreign governments classified information... again, as it turns out is most likely the case.

Do you not think someone who betrays their country deserves to be in jail?

 

[Formaldehyde]

They certainly dispute your sense of what specific country is just and fair while it clearly isn't.

And as far as "betraying" their country is concerned, I think it clearly depends on the circumstances. Take Daniel Ellsberg, Bradley Manning, and Edward Snowden for instance. To me, the last two presidents, the US Congress, and even the Supreme Court have done far more to "betray" their own country than any of these individuals.

 

[Ironsided]

I think a person who works for the betterment of mankind deserves a prize rather than jail time..

 

[madviking]

And theft. Should be an interesting trial.

one man's treason is another man's legitimate subversive action against a dangerous regime.

not to mention that the irony burns like the fires of gehanna

 

[Agent327]

None of those charts or what you think my views on foreign justice are have any bearing on the fact that it seems my worries were well founded and he has most likely divulged classified documents to a foreign power.

Actually that remains to be seen, doesn't it? I'm curious as how the prosecutors intend to make the espionage claim stick. As far as is known no "foreign powers" are involved. But possibly the administration knows something us common humans don't. (something beyond that which is now revealed, obviously.)

As I said, it will be an interesting trial.

 

[MobBoss]

Yes, really: no mention of the legality of the program. Which was what I was talking about. It seems pretty clear the President is aware there is a very fine line here.

Oh please - he's defending the program as everyone can plainly see. He's politically savvy enough if this were indeed an illegal program he wouldn't be talking about it at all.

I see. We'll ignore the "collateral damage", shall we?

False logic. Regardless of how discriminating the weapons system is, there will always be some level of collateral damage. All a reasonable person has to do is compare drone strike collateral damage with say, carpet bombing, in order to give an intelligent response to the point.

You've used neither logic, nor thought in that reply.

 

[Agent327]

Please indeed. You seem to have missed the fact that aforementioned program hasn't been through all the legal steps yet. Which, once again, was the point - especially with regards to the impending trial.