Page 15 of 39 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 386

Thread: Edward Snowden Asylum To Be Offered By Venezuela,President Nicolás Maduro Says[W:271]

  1. #141
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,123

    re: Edward Snowden Asylum To Be Offered By Venezuela,President Nicolás Maduro Says[W:271]

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    So in your opinion, even if the government is committing horrible atrocities, you believe all government workers that know about it should keep their mouths shut and follow orders?
    No one was committing horrible atrocities. That being said, if someone is, then that is in violation of U.S. law, and you should inform the nearest Inspector General with the appropriate clearance, which all member agencies of the Intelligence Community have. Mine, for example, works in a building approximately a 5 minute drive from my workspace, and I have the right to demand access to either him or my commanding general any time the situation warrants it.

    And if they do tell someone about it, they should be handed over for that embarassed government to crush?
    Here in the United States if you break the law and place our citizens in danger, we reserve the right to prosecute you for doing so. We call it the "Rule of Law", and we think it's rather important. You will be afforded free defense counsel, access to any evidence you need to call in your defense, a presumption of innocence, and a bevy of privileges and protections that are the envy of accused criminals all over the world. Even then, if you are found strictly guilty of the law, but only in such a manner that the law is being applied ridiculously or abusively, the Jury retains the right of nullification.

    Man, you are one of the hardcores. State over Citizens, no exceptions.
    Not at all. But the State is our actor that we authorize to make life and death decisions on our behalf in order to protect our persons, our property, and our rights. Government gets to do things like decide whether or not to go to war, whether or not to have a draft, how to go about combating criminal gangs, environmental policy, etc. In order to keep government from abusing its' power, we divide the power into three parts, and set each part against the other, so that faction may check faction, and each has incentive to do so. We do not authorize self-interested private actors to take upon themselves the right to make life / death decisions on behalf of the American people. Individual citizens do not have the right to toss overboard our system of government, any more than they have the right to overturn the joint position of all three branches of our government and place us in greater danger. As a citizen, Snowden had no right to do that to me or my family.

    There were zero legal measures for Snowden to whistleblow... By your definition no one can ever whistleblow a top secret program.
    Wrong again. There are multiple whistleblowing venues for those who work with classified materials to use, and they can and do get used. I've used such a venue once myself. I have the right to demand access to my Commanding General any time I feel the situation demands it, and if I do not trust my chain of command, I have the right to demand access to the cleared Inspector General who works 5 minutes from my building, and if I neither trust the IG nor my chain of command I have the right to demand cleared legal counsel. If I believe that Intelligence Oversight Abuses (EO12333 violations) are taking place at work, then I have the ability to access my chain of command, the IG, or the investigative arms such as the Naval Criminal Investigative Service. As an analyst, if my boss even tries to force me to change my conclusion, I can take him straight to his boss and the IG and have it made clear to him that he is in violation of Intelligence Community Directives (ICD's)

    He could not tell anybody that didn't already know...If he's not allowed to tell anybody without the clearance, and everyone with the clearance already knows, he wouldn't be telling anybody new.
    Okay, slow down for a minute and think about this.

    1. If that's true, then that means that the "no oversight, I could spy on whomever I wanted" narrative that he and others have tried to sell is complete bunk. It so happens that it is true, and that both Intelligence Oversight committees as well as the court system explicitly set up to handle these kinds of programs was aware of and overwatching its implementation.

    2. Snowden did not even attempt any of these venues, nor did he have any way of knowing the extent of background knowledge held by the relevant committees. We didn't find out the depth of the read-in by the Congressional committees until after the Snowden revelations - and Snowden was in no position to know, as he did not brief the committees, nor work for the DNI or Office of the NSA director who did. So not only did Snowden have no idea whether or not taking his concerns (if he had them, which I am suspicious of, more in a second) up the chain would have produced results, he made no attempt to do so. A cursory inspection of the timeline involved demonstrates that this wasn't a case of "NSA worker realizes what he's doing is wrong, tries to get someone to notice, is frustrated in his attempts, and is forced against his will to boldly stand against the group". Snowden was talking to reporters before he ever started working for the NSA, he only worked there for a couple of months - which was apparently long enough to search for and copy/paste what he thought would grab the most news, and then he split. He joined with the intention of stealing classified data, and simply stole the most classified data he could get his hands on. That's not "whistleblowing". That's "espionage".

    That means it was impossible to whistleblow through legal channels. There was nothing he could've said that would've made them change their minds or cancel the program, so he had no other choice.
    You always have a choice. Snowden made his. Those who are true whistleblowers who truly think that they are doing it for the good of others have a tendency A) go through the proper channels and B) be willing to go to trial for their beliefs. Snowden ran to China and then to Russia, both of whom, I would bet my life savings, pumped or are pumping him for all the information they can. Supposedly he's carrying four laptops onto which he's downloaded who-knows-what. Gosh, if all he's put out is the power point presentation identifying and explaining PRISM, and he's only doing this because he wants to expose that one particular program because he wants it public because he thinks it's evil...... why does he four laptops full of crap? If he's so worried only about the civil liberties of Verizon customers in the good ole US of A, why is he outing American collection on the Chinese? It's because PRISM was a lucky find, not his target.

  2. #142
    versus the world
    Surtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    The greatest planet in the world.
    Last Seen
    06-10-14 @ 03:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,017

    re: Edward Snowden Asylum To Be Offered By Venezuela,President Nicolás Maduro Says[W:271]

    This is interesting coming from a country that would execute one of their own for doing exactly what Snowden did.
    I love the NSA. It's like having a secret fan-base you will never see, but they're there, watching everything you write and it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that I may be some person's only form of unconstitutional entertainment one night.

  3. #143
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,575

    re: Edward Snowden Asylum To Be Offered By Venezuela,President Nicolás Maduro Says[W:271]

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    No one was committing horrible atrocities. That being said, if someone is, then that is in violation of U.S. law, and you should inform the nearest Inspector General with the appropriate clearance, which all member agencies of the Intelligence Community have. Mine, for example, works in a building approximately a 5 minute drive from my workspace, and I have the right to demand access to either him or my commanding general any time the situation warrants it.




    Here in the United States if you break the law and place our citizens in danger, we reserve the right to prosecute you for doing so. We call it the "Rule of Law", and we think it's rather important. You will be afforded free defense counsel, access to any evidence you need to call in your defense, a presumption of innocence, and a bevy of privileges and protections that are the envy of accused criminals all over the world. Even then, if you are found strictly guilty of the law, but only in such a manner that the law is being applied ridiculously or abusively, the Jury retains the right of nullification.



    Not at all. But the State is our actor that we authorize to make life and death decisions on our behalf in order to protect our persons, our property, and our rights. Government gets to do things like decide whether or not to go to war, whether or not to have a draft, how to go about combating criminal gangs, environmental policy, etc. In order to keep government from abusing its' power, we divide the power into three parts, and set each part against the other, so that faction may check faction, and each has incentive to do so. We do not authorize self-interested private actors to take upon themselves the right to make life / death decisions on behalf of the American people. Individual citizens do not have the right to toss overboard our system of government, any more than they have the right to overturn the joint position of all three branches of our government and place us in greater danger. As a citizen, Snowden had no right to do that to me or my family.



    Wrong again. There are multiple whistleblowing venues for those who work with classified materials to use, and they can and do get used. I've used such a venue once myself. I have the right to demand access to my Commanding General any time I feel the situation demands it, and if I do not trust my chain of command, I have the right to demand access to the cleared Inspector General who works 5 minutes from my building, and if I neither trust the IG nor my chain of command I have the right to demand cleared legal counsel. If I believe that Intelligence Oversight Abuses (EO12333 violations) are taking place at work, then I have the ability to access my chain of command, the IG, or the investigative arms such as the Naval Criminal Investigative Service. As an analyst, if my boss even tries to force me to change my conclusion, I can take him straight to his boss and the IG and have it made clear to him that he is in violation of Intelligence Community Directives (ICD's)



    Okay, slow down for a minute and think about this.

    1. If that's true, then that means that the "no oversight, I could spy on whomever I wanted" narrative that he and others have tried to sell is complete bunk. It so happens that it is true, and that both Intelligence Oversight committees as well as the court system explicitly set up to handle these kinds of programs was aware of and overwatching its implementation.

    2. Snowden did not even attempt any of these venues, nor did he have any way of knowing the extent of background knowledge held by the relevant committees. We didn't find out the depth of the read-in by the Congressional committees until after the Snowden revelations - and Snowden was in no position to know, as he did not brief the committees, nor work for the DNI or Office of the NSA director who did. So not only did Snowden have no idea whether or not taking his concerns (if he had them, which I am suspicious of, more in a second) up the chain would have produced results, he made no attempt to do so. A cursory inspection of the timeline involved demonstrates that this wasn't a case of "NSA worker realizes what he's doing is wrong, tries to get someone to notice, is frustrated in his attempts, and is forced against his will to boldly stand against the group". Snowden was talking to reporters before he ever started working for the NSA, he only worked there for a couple of months - which was apparently long enough to search for and copy/paste what he thought would grab the most news, and then he split. He joined with the intention of stealing classified data, and simply stole the most classified data he could get his hands on. That's not "whistleblowing". That's "espionage".



    You always have a choice. Snowden made his. Those who are true whistleblowers who truly think that they are doing it for the good of others have a tendency A) go through the proper channels and B) be willing to go to trial for their beliefs. Snowden ran to China and then to Russia, both of whom, I would bet my life savings, pumped or are pumping him for all the information they can. Supposedly he's carrying four laptops onto which he's downloaded who-knows-what. Gosh, if all he's put out is the power point presentation identifying and explaining PRISM, and he's only doing this because he wants to expose that one particular program because he wants it public because he thinks it's evil...... why does he four laptops full of crap? If he's so worried only about the civil liberties of Verizon customers in the good ole US of A, why is he outing American collection on the Chinese? It's because PRISM was a lucky find, not his target.
    1) It doesn't have to be a horrible atrocity. He believes, like me and many Americans, that it was a violation of the constitution. We as the people have a right to know about such violations. How is IG going to change anything? This was blessed off by the president and congress. There's no one to tell. Classified programs do not magically show up in the Supreme Court.

    2) Ahahahaha, a fair trial and the rule of law. You've got quite the patriotic blinders on. Bradley Manning was held for years without a trial. He's been refused the opportunity to make a public statement, and his trial is secret. Why you think Snowden's trial would be any different is beyond me. Pure love and trust for the government is my guess.

    3) Yes, you and your family are in so much danger now that Americans know they were being spied on. You better lock yourself in your bunker because you're now at a huge risk. You neo-cons with your "security before liberty" positions take that **** way too far.

    4) The president and congress authorized the program. Who is IG going to complain to? I'm sure they would've seen the error in their ways and shut down the program because one person had an issue with it.

    5) 1) Of course the oversight committees were aware of it, they were the ones who approved it. How can you whistleblow to someone who already knows about it?
    2) So if Snowden had tried to whistleblow this but failed, that would've made a difference? I think you would still be calling for his blood.

    6) Snowden had 3 choices:
    - Sit there like a coward with his mouth shut, while something that was inherently wrong was happening.
    - Attempt to alert people that already knew about the program in your so called 'whistleblowing channels'.
    - Do what he did.
    A man of principle only really had the third option. The second can not produce results, because the people already knew about it that you'd be talking to. All that would do is let them know that you disapprove of their leadership.

    Earlier I presented two categories that almost all of you "Snowden must pay" fall into.
    1) No government employee should EVER do what he did, no matter how extreme the crime/atrocity/violation may be.
    2) A government employee should do what he did only in the most extreme situations (IE: they're killing kids in dark rooms)

    If you fall into category 1, I don't particularly care what you have to say, because you trust your government with no questions asked. If you fall into category 2, you simply disagree with his prioritization of this issue. I like how you and Redress keep bringing up IG as the go-to option. You're stuck in military mode where that's a great option when your commander is inappropriately touching you. Try going to IG to complain about a program the president or the general of the marine corps authorized. See how far you get.
    Last edited by RabidAlpaca; 07-07-13 at 08:57 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  4. #144
    #NeverTrump
    a351's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Space Coast
    Last Seen
    09-09-17 @ 08:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    6,902

    re: Edward Snowden Asylum To Be Offered By Venezuela,President Nicolás Maduro Says[W:271]

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    Well, when you advocate for him being prosecuted, that's what you're saying, that he shouldn't have done that.
    The problem being, yet again, your binary reasoning in assuming that a scenario doesn't exist where I could justify leaking on moral, but not legal grounds. In this case I support him on neither, but that doesn't justify your all-encompassing and lazy categorization.

  5. #145
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,575

    re: Edward Snowden Asylum To Be Offered By Venezuela,President Nicolás Maduro Says[W:271]

    Quote Originally Posted by a351 View Post
    The problem being, yet again, your binary reasoning in assuming that a scenario doesn't exist where I could justify leaking on moral, but not legal grounds. In this case I support him on neither, but that doesn't justify your all-encompassing and lazy categorization.
    No, I understand that. I'm saying you can't call for someone being nailed to the ****ing wall by the state AND believe he did the right thing. If he did the right thing, he shouldn't be punished. Otherwise you'd believe he should be punished for doing the right thing.

    How could you say "That guy who reported the child abuse scandal should be hung from a tree!"? You can't support him and advocate his persecution at the same time.

    Your problem is you never actually explain what you REALLY believe. You just post cute little pictures and ****. So I take your statements at face value.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  6. #146
    #NeverTrump
    a351's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Space Coast
    Last Seen
    09-09-17 @ 08:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    6,902

    re: Edward Snowden Asylum To Be Offered By Venezuela,President Nicolás Maduro Says[W:271]

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    No, I understand that. I'm saying you can't call for someone being nailed to the ****ing wall by the state AND believe he did the right thing. If he did the right thing, he shouldn't be punished. Otherwise you'd believe he should be punished for doing the right thing.

    Your problem is you never actually explain what you REALLY believe. You just post cute little pictures and ****. So I take your statements at face value.
    I've already clarified my position on the discussion at hand. I don't believe Snowden has the legal or moral upper hand in this case, and is acting largely in an self serving manner.

    Hardly, although I have spent the majority of this thread batting down what you simply assert to be my beliefs on the subject. I can't blame you though, fabricating other's positions will likely yield a better result than your earlier attempt to justify Snowden's actions.

  7. #147
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,575

    re: Edward Snowden Asylum To Be Offered By Venezuela,President Nicolás Maduro Says[W:271]

    Quote Originally Posted by a351 View Post
    I've already clarified my position on the discussion at hand. I don't believe Snowden has the legal or moral upper hand in this case, and is acting largely in an self serving manner.

    Hardly, although I have spent the majority of this thread batting down what you simply assert to be my beliefs on the subject. I can't blame you though, fabricating other's positions will likely yield a better result than your earlier attempt to justify Snowden's actions.
    Ok, bud. You still won't clarify yourself or answer my question. You believe there should be a disconnect between what's morally right and legally right. I think that's a horribly sadistic position to have. Why would you want people who are doing the right thing to be punished? (Not saying you believe Snowden fits this)

    I'll ask you this question for like the third ****ing time: Is there ANY situation you would find it acceptable for someone to whistleblow like Snowden did?
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  8. #148
    #NeverTrump
    a351's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Space Coast
    Last Seen
    09-09-17 @ 08:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    6,902

    re: Edward Snowden Asylum To Be Offered By Venezuela,President Nicolás Maduro Says[W:271]

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    Ok, bud. You still won't clarify yourself or answer my question. You believe there should be a disconnect between what's morally right and legally right. I think that's a horribly sadistic position to have. Why would you want people who are doing the right thing to be punished? (Not saying you believe Snowden fits this)

    I'll ask you this question for like the third ****ing time: Is there ANY situation you would find it acceptable for someone to whistleblow like Snowden did?
    It's not so much a matter of wanting the individual to be punished, but not excusing illegal behavior because it aligns with my morals or personal convictions. Once you let that cat out the bag, it's a free for all so to speak.

    Whistleblow? Sure, but certainly not in the manner Snowden has gone about things.

  9. #149
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,123

    re: Edward Snowden Asylum To Be Offered By Venezuela,President Nicolás Maduro Says[W:271]

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    1) It doesn't have to be a horrible atrocity. He believes, like me and many Americans, that it was a violation of the constitution. We as the people have a right to know about such violations. How is IG going to change anything? This was blessed off by the president and congress. There's no one to tell. Classified programs do not magically show up in the Supreme Court.
    No, it goes instead to FISA, which is appointed by the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS to act on his behalf. If all three branches of the government are in agreement on the Constitutionality of a program, then individuals are not authorized to place their personal definitions of Constitutionality above that decision as regards the handling of classified material. I cannot, for example, decide that the CIA putting undercover members in civilian housing violates the 3rd Amendment and therefore 'out' every undercover agent and member of the Witness Protection Program. Furthermore, the American people do not, in fact, have a right to know about individual Intelligence Oversight violations, as the harm in doing so outweighs the benefits. They have a government that they have lent authority to act on their behalf in classified matters. They have lent no such authority to Edward Snowden, meaning that he is making life and death decisions on their behalf without their consent.

    2) Ahahahaha, a fair trial and the rule of law. You've got quite the patriotic blinders on. Bradley Manning was held for years without a trial. He's been refused the opportunity to make a public statement, and his trial is secret. Why you think Snowden's trial would be any different is beyond me. Pure love and trust for the government is my guess.
    So far in this debate I've tried to make sure I wasn't impugning your ability to rationally dissect evidence, or interact with the idea that there might be people who keep secrets in order to protect others in anything other than an emotionally hostile manner. You may want to consider the potential benefits of reciprocating the assumption of good intentions. For one thing, it would keep you from saying idiotic things. Such as this.

    3) Yes, you and your family are in so much danger now that Americans know they were being spied on. You better lock yourself in your bunker because you're now at a huge risk.
    No - but the risk to my family is increased. Not only are asymetric enemy forces such as Al-Qaeda adjusting their operations to ensure that they are no longer exposed by the programs that Snowden has publicized, but the Russians and Chinese are being treated to a bonanza of our nations' secrets.

    You neo-cons with your "security before liberty" positions take that **** way too far.
    Fail: Libertarians are supposed to know that liberty is the ability to move, think, and do unhindered. Not a single iota of your liberty has been removed. You are not even being observed more than you already were.

    4) The president and congress authorized the program. Who is IG going to complain to? I'm sure they would've seen the error in their ways and shut down the program because one person had an issue with it.
    Of course not, especially given that the person apparently wasn't all that familiar the program to begin with.

    5) 1) Of course the oversight committees were aware of it, they were the ones who approved it. How can you whistleblow to someone who already knows about it?
    2) So if Snowden had tried to whistleblow this but failed, that would've made a difference? I think you would still be calling for his blood.
    Yes, if Snowden had tried to whistleblow but failed that would make a difference as it would at least speak to intention. Since he did not, but instead apparently started working with the intention to steal classified information, regardless of what he ran across, the "constitutionality" issue is not his motive. His "intention" was not to reveal an unconstitutional program, his intention was to steal and publicize classified information. The Constitutionality question is a fig leaf he has chosen to try to excuse his actions. This is the issue you are going to have problems with - Snowden never had any intention whatsoever of being a whistleblower, and had no way of knowing whether or not attempting to do so would have been effective.

    6) Snowden had 3 choices:
    - Sit there like a coward with his mouth shut, while something that was inherently wrong was happening.
    - Attempt to alert people that already knew about the program in your so called 'whistleblowing channels'.
    - Do what he did.
    What he DID was not whistleblow. What he DID was "espionage". He did not when he started nor did he ever at any point in his 'career' with Booz Allen have any intention whatsoever of attempting to whistleblow, nor did he have any way of knowing whether or not such an attempt would have been effective meaning that your option #2 is built upon false assumptions.

    A man of principle only really had the third option.
    To steal and publicize secrets because you want to be famous?

    The second can not produce results, because the people already knew about it that you'd be talking to.
    Something which snowden had no way of knowing.

    Earlier I presented two categories that almost all of you "Snowden must pay" fall into.
    1) No government employee should EVER do what he did, no matter how extreme the crime/atrocity/violation may be.
    2) A government employee should do what he did only in the most extreme situations (IE: they're killing kids in dark rooms)
    I'd say #2. But in that instance (and, this is important) you have to be willing to pay the penalty for your own decision to violate your non-disclosure agreement. If you feel strongly enough about the abuses you think you are witnessing to be willing to override all three branches of government and your superiors in such a manner that would conceivably place other Americans' lives at risk, you should at least be feeling strongly enough to go to jail.



    But the logic you are running here has issues as well. For my "undercover" example above - how does your line of reason keep me from actually exposing all those names, when I really truly believe that the entire government is violating the Constitution?
    Last edited by cpwill; 07-07-13 at 12:09 PM.

  10. #150
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,985

    re: Edward Snowden Asylum To Be Offered By Venezuela,President Nicolás Maduro Says[W:271]

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    How is it hyperbole if I'm quoting exactly what you said?
    And now you're outright lying. Not surprising from a traitor plotting to overthrow our government.

    You believe anyone who doesn't subject himself to years of solitary confinement without trial, and probably life imprisonment, is a coward.
    Once more, you're lying.

    I said nothing of the such. Just because you keep trying to impose your own beliefs, don't twist mine into something I never said.

    How is this any different than Manning?
    I've already explained that.

    Funny how we haven't heard one single interview from Manning. You act like Snowden would have access to the press.
    You act like Snowden and Manning are in the same situations, despite me already explaining they are not.

    I don't think you're that naive
    But I do think you have no problem lying. As you've clearly demonstrated in this post.

    I think you just want to see him suffer. It has nothing to do with "being a man".
    Why would I want him to suffer? You do realize I have no problem with his action of making the public aware, right? Could you be anymore dishonest than you've been in this post? It'd be nearly impossible for you to do so.
    Last edited by Slyfox696; 07-07-13 at 12:19 PM.

Page 15 of 39 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •