• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Slyfox696 said:
And now you're outright lying. Not surprising from a traitor plotting to overthrow our government.

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.

I've already explained that.

You act like Snowden and Manning are in the same situations, despite me already explaining they are not.

But I do think you have no problem lying. As you've clearly demonstrated in this post.

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.
Click to expand...

You obviously do have a problem with his action of making the public aware, because you believe he should be prosecuted.

If all you're going to do is hurl insults at me like that traitor remark, I don't see how we could have a respectful debate, so goodbye.

cpwill said:
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.



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.



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.



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.



Of course not, especially given that the person apparently wasn't all that familiar the program to begin with.



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.



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.



To steal and publicize secrets because you want to be famous?



Something which snowden had no way of knowing.



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?
Click to expand...


1) It comes down to him putting the American people before the politicians. We deserve to know about this program. They can not just do whatever the hell they want.

2) There's no good reason to keep this a secret. The value of this knowledge to the people is far more valuable than the "damage" of the enemy knowing of it.

3) You and your family have an exponentially higher chance of dying in a head on collision on the way home from church than you have of being attacked by terrorists.

4) So because they were already spying on us, that somehow changes things? Are you the type of person that when something's screwed up, you throw your hands up and say "It was already like that!"

5-6) I definitely don't fault him for not using the proper channels (whether they existed or not), because I know nothing would have come from it. You like bringing up IG so much. Tell me about the last time an E-1 has called IG to challenge a presidential or congressional decision.

7) I don't think it has anything to do with him wanting to be famous. People keep saying "He's just doing this for himself". Which makes no sense at all. Yes, he's completely ****ing himself over, ruining his own life, to benefit himself. He just might spend the rest of his life in a cage, which he's doing to benefit himself.

8) I feel like Snowden could know it wouldn't work, just as I can tell you it wouldn't. I once called IG on my 1SG for trying to blackmail me into re-enlisting, and all they did was talk to him. I had to get a lawyer through JAG and fight for 6 months before I won. And that's just challenging someone a few spots over me. How serious do you think a battle between the president and congress vs a contractor would go?

9) They would lock him in a cage and we'd never hear from him again, like they've done to manning. Even manning's trial is secret. That's not facing the music, or standing up for yourself, that's just suicide. It'd be like the founding fathers turning themselves into the British government to be tried so that they could state their case for American independence in court.
 
cpwill said:
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.



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.



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.



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.



Of course not, especially given that the person apparently wasn't all that familiar the program to begin with.



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.



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.



To steal and publicize secrets because you want to be famous?



Something which snowden had no way of knowing.



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?
Click to expand...
You make great leaps of logic to come to "Snowden did it to be famous". On that matter, I will say nothing more. The same with the notion that China and Russia have a bonanza.

But on the matter of the morality of revealing a classified program to the American public, which is all that we actually DO know he did: The morality of the matter hinges on who is actually right about the program under question. If the program is indeed a violation of American rights, it ought to be revealed. If the program is actually not, then it should not be revealed.

I take this stance because of the nature of what we are dealing with. If a secret program is indeed in violation of our rights, and the whole government is in support of it, then we have no practical manner to redress the violation. The revelation enables us to do so, and it is the ONLY Way we can do so.

On the other hand, if a prospective Snowden is in error, and reveals something they oughtn't, then what they have done is illegal, probably harmful, and they ought to be hunted down, captured, and prosecuted. To me, intention to do good here would not matter as regards the law.

I am comfortable with this view, and its obvious flaws. The reason is that its flaws are far less egregious than the flaws inherent to your view. Your view would have us stuck with a violation of our rights without a foreseeable end. This is flatly unacceptable.

Snowden was right, our President, Congress, and Courts are wrong. In this situation, we must each make our own decision, and then fight for what we believe is right, in accordance with that.
 
Last edited:
Risky Thicket said:
Four questions for you:

Do sincerely believe that Snowdon can get an open and honest fair trial in America?

Who do you think is more dangerous to Americans? James Clapper or Edward Snowdon?

Who do you believe is more likely to be truthful to the American People? James Clapper or Edward Snowden?

Who has committed a felony? James Clapper or Edward Snowden?
Click to expand...

Who is James Clapper?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Perhaps you could enlighten me how volunteering to be locked in solitary confinement, without bed sheets and without a trial, for years, makes someone a man? I guess you think Manning is the manliest guy ever huh? I'm not sure where you got this ridiculous notion that only real men turn themselves in to the organization they're fighting, without a fight. A real man continues to resist.
Click to expand...

Where did this ridiculous concept of maniless come up? You have some very weird ideas. A woman is equally capable of standing on principle.

If you are trying to stand up to a (supposedly) corrupt government and uphold the Constitution, you don't do it by defecting to Venezuela. That is unprincipled, hypocritical, and an act of traitorous espionage.

If you are a man or woman of principle, and you want to leak classified information supposedly to uphold the Constitution, then you must do so in an open way, and subject yourself to the authority of the government you are supposedly supporting the interests of.

It's hard to communicate about these sorts of ideas with nihilists, because there is no common ground. This is a question of morality and honorable conduct, which is person a foreign concept to some people.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Agreed. But running away and hiding, rather than standing up to the fact what he did was still illegal, is also cowardly. Rosa Parks sat on a bus, knowing she'd be arrested. Did she run when the police got there? No, she stood up (or I guess in her case sat down) for what she believed in and she was willing to pay the price for doing what she thought was right. Rosa Parks was courageous. Edward Snowden is not.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between acting as a coward and valuing one's freedom over the opinions of some strangers.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Agreed. I'm not saying the one act Snowden made was not a courageous one act. But one act does not define a man. If I'm afraid of heights and go up on a ferris wheel one time before vowing to never do so again, does that mean I'm courageous? No, it means I had a moment of strength.

Damn straight I would. And I would look my government in the eye and sit in that court room and let my fellow Americans decide if I did the right thing or not.
Click to expand...

If he were detained he would lose free access to the press and ability to defend himself in the press and court of public opinion. If your aim is to stop teh gov't abuses... the idiot thing to do is give yourself over to that gov't.

There is nothing heroic or courageous about walking out into a hail of bullets, either figuratively or literally.
 
Slyfox696 said:
I don't, because I hope it's never needed again.

But that's not really what I was saying. What I was saying one should own up to their actions.
Click to expand...

A slogan? "Own up to your own actions?"

He did own up to his actions by publically exposing himself, giving as reason so the government doesn't wrongly target others.

So by "own up" you mean everyone who does something illegal should voluntarily confess and submit themselves to the government.

For example, any member on the forum who has marijuana should take it down to the police station giving it to the police and "own up" that it's theirs and subject themselves to prosecution out of principle in your opinion. Or anyone who is an informant for the police should tell the people he is an informant to "own up" to his/her actions etc.

Actually, that he publicly exposed himself means that he's a hell of a lot braver than basically everyone on this forum, none of who apparently want to personally "own up" to our messages and statements.
 
Slyfox696 said:
And now you're outright lying. Not surprising from a traitor plotting to overthrow our government.

Once more, you're lying.
Click to expand...

Prove he is lying.

'lie1 [lahy] Show IPA noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive;'

Lie | Define Lie at Dictionary.com


Unless you can prove he had a 'deliberate intent to deceive', you cannot know he is lying.

And there is no way you can know his intent without him stating it.


So can you produce a link that shows him stating his intent to deceive on this matter?

Yes or no?


Have a more exact day.
 
I find many messages on this thread as really bizarre - those messages that say "yes he was right but now he had a duty to voluntarily go to prison for the rest of his life" out of principle? That's absurd reasoning to me. I think he did a tremendously courageous and noble thing on a massive scale, wish him all the best in the world and hope he is 100% successful in his hoped escape and finding a safe refuge from those people of such horrific wrongs he exposed who are now after him to use their power in retaliation and to essentially . isolate him, silence him and effectively end his life.
 
Slyfox696 said:
I do not know the full details of Manning's case as much as I believe to know Snowden's. However, what I will say is I have respect for those who are willing to own up to their actions. Whether that means you make a mistake and apologize or you break a law doing what you think is right, whatever the case may be, own up to what you've done.
Click to expand...

Then you must respect Snowden.


'own up verb

Definition of OWN UP

intransitive verb
: to admit or confess frankly and fully'

Own up - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


He did EXACTLY that...by definition.

He confessed fully and frankly about his actions on this.


So, do you now respect him as you said you would?

Yes or no, please?
 
So far Snowden fall is the treason light category/whistle blower that went somewhat too far. If he goes to Bolivia he will still be in the same category but if he goes to Venezuela he is solidly falling into the treason category for siding with an enemy of the USA (same goes for Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Syria, etc.).
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Perhaps you could enlighten me how volunteering to be locked in solitary confinement, without bed sheets and without a trial, for years, makes someone a man? I guess you think Manning is the manliest guy ever huh? I'm not sure where you got this ridiculous notion that only real men turn themselves in to the organization they're fighting, without a fight. A real man continues to resist.

What possible good could come from him letting the government crush him in a secret trial years from now?



How is it hyperbole if I'm quoting exactly what you said? You believe anyone who doesn't subject himself to years of solitary confinement without trial, and probably life imprisonment, is a coward. How is this any different than Manning? Both leaked something the American people needed to know, and that pissed a lot of politicians off. They'll nail him to the wall just like they're doing to Manning.

Funny how we haven't heard one single interview from Manning. You act like Snowden would have access to the press. I don't think you're that naive, I think you just want to see him suffer. It has nothing to do with "being a man".
Click to expand...


I agree with you. The logic being used to want him to suffer, while gratuitously complimenting him, is deceptive on its face.

Hopefully, none of the people writing such messages is or ever would be an attorney - always demanding their client "own up" to exactly what he/she did, confess to everything, and then try to defend yourself to the government when it is the government who is out to harm the client.

I could link to videos of judges literally refusing to look at, respond to or even acknowledge complaints by people in court of wrongful actions against them by even court staff at the court.

JUDGES ARE THE GOVERNMENT, THE STATE. Hollywood has sold the myth that judges are infinitely wise and infinitely fair neutral parties - when if fact judges are the government, paid by the government and the only real risk of lose of employment is also by the government. There are very, very few judges willing to go up against the NSA, DOD, DofHS, CIA and White House - unless no longer interested in being a judge - nor is there a chance in hell Snowden would be taken before a judge willing to do so.

Actually, under the Homeland Security Act they would never have to give him so much as a hearing. In fact, he could literally be LEGALLY ordered secretly assassinated or secretly imprisoned for life without trial any under the latest additions.
 
Peter King said:
So far Snowden fall is the treason light category/whistle blower that went somewhat too far. If he goes to Bolivia he will still be in the same category but if he goes to Venezuela he is solidly falling into the treason category for siding with an enemy of the USA (same goes for Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Syria, etc.).
Click to expand...

Venezuela is an enemy of the U.S.? Since when?

Don't get me wrong, I think Snowden should be tried, but I don't think Venezuela should be compared to North Korea as our enemy.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
You obviously do have a problem with his action of making the public aware, because you believe he should be prosecuted.

If all you're going to do is hurl insults at me like that traitor remark, I don't see how we could have a respectful debate, so goodbye.




1) It comes down to him putting the American people before the politicians. We deserve to know about this program. They can not just do whatever the hell they want.

2) There's no good reason to keep this a secret. The value of this knowledge to the people is far more valuable than the "damage" of the enemy knowing of it.

3) You and your family have an exponentially higher chance of dying in a head on collision on the way home from church than you have of being attacked by terrorists.

4) So because they were already spying on us, that somehow changes things? Are you the type of person that when something's screwed up, you throw your hands up and say "It was already like that!"

5-6) I definitely don't fault him for not using the proper channels (whether they existed or not), because I know nothing would have come from it. You like bringing up IG so much. Tell me about the last time an E-1 has called IG to challenge a presidential or congressional decision.

7) I don't think it has anything to do with him wanting to be famous. People keep saying "He's just doing this for himself". Which makes no sense at all. Yes, he's completely ****ing himself over, ruining his own life, to benefit himself. He just might spend the rest of his life in a cage, which he's doing to benefit himself.

8) I feel like Snowden could know it wouldn't work, just as I can tell you it wouldn't. I once called IG on my 1SG for trying to blackmail me into re-enlisting, and all they did was talk to him. I had to get a lawyer through JAG and fight for 6 months before I won. And that's just challenging someone a few spots over me. How serious do you think a battle between the president and congress vs a contractor would go?

9) They would lock him in a cage and we'd never hear from him again, like they've done to manning. Even manning's trial is secret. That's not facing the music, or standing up for yourself, that's just suicide. It'd be like the founding fathers turning themselves into the British government to be tried so that they could state their case for American independence in court.
Click to expand...

Excellent point. For those "turn himself in" claimers, clearly they have utter contempt of this Country's founders for not "owning up to their actions" and turning themselves over to the British authorities - and then OMG becoming murderous insurgents.
 
TheNextEra said:
Venezuela is an enemy of the U.S.? Since when?

Don't get me wrong, I think Snowden should be tried, but I don't think Venezuela should be compared to North Korea as our enemy.
Click to expand...

This is not how the US might see/is seeing it, but the Venezuelan government does see the US as an enemy and finding refuge you don't go to a country that thinks your own country is "the enemy".
 
Peter King said:
This is not how the US might see/is seeing it, but the Venezuelan government does see the US as an enemy and finding refuge you don't go to a country that thinks your own country is "the enemy".
Click to expand...

If the U.S. looks at Venezuela as our enemy why do we get oil from them? Do we get oil from North Korea? No. Again, Venezuela is not the same as North Korea.
 
Peter King said:
This is not how the US might see/is seeing it, but the Venezuelan government does see the US as an enemy and finding refuge you don't go to a country that thinks your own country is "the enemy".
Click to expand...

The reason the see us as the enemy is not arbitrary. And they have never done anything to the US beyond rhetoric. We've supported or installed brutal dictators in most of the central and south American countries, sometimes assassinating their democratically elected leaders, and there is no question that American interests were behind Chavez's brief ouster in a coup.

How dare they take control of their own resources. It's actually the perfect place for him to go.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Not me. I hope he's brought back to the United States and put on trial. Running away and hiding is cowardly. If he feels this strongly about the wrongs the government was doing, then he should be willing to stand up and fight them.
Click to expand...

That seems to be unrelated. How does his own opinion on the government conducting illegal or maybe even immoral searches THEN also HAVE to mean that he must face that same government in its own courts of law?

You say running is cowardly, but is it only cowardly because what he revealed wasn't that terrible of a crime (by government standards) AND that the punishment he would face would probably not result in torture and death? What if you up it a bit? What if the government had done something TRULY terrible, something violent and bloody and horrible (which it has done in the past, but putting that aside...) AND the punishment he would receive would be essentially a painful death? Would you still call him a coward? I think most people wouldn't even make that argument under those circumstances.
 
TheNextEra said:
If the U.S. looks at Venezuela as our enemy why do we get oil from them? Do we get oil from North Korea? No. Again, Venezuela is not the same as North Korea.
Click to expand...

That is why I wrote in the previous answer: This is not how the US might see/is seeing it

But Venezuela all but blamed the US for Chavez having cancer and trying to destabilize the Venezuelan government.
 
joko104 said:
Excellent point. For those "turn himself in" claimers, clearly they have utter contempt of this Country's founders for not "owning up to their actions" and turning themselves over to the British authorities - and then OMG becoming murderous insurgents.
Click to expand...

joko104 said:
I agree with you. The logic being used to want him to suffer, while gratuitously complimenting him, is deceptive on its face.

Hopefully, none of the people writing such messages is or ever would be an attorney - always demanding their client "own up" to exactly what he/she did, confess to everything, and then try to defend yourself to the government when it is the government who is out to harm the client.

I could link to videos of judges literally refusing to look at, respond to or even acknowledge complaints by people in court of wrongful actions against them by even court staff at the court.

JUDGES ARE THE GOVERNMENT, THE STATE. Hollywood has sold the myth that judges are infinitely wise and infinitely fair neutral parties - when if fact judges are the government, paid by the government and the only real risk of lose of employment is also by the government. There are very, very few judges willing to go up against the NSA, DOD, DofHS, CIA and White House - unless no longer interested in being a judge - nor is there a chance in hell Snowden would be taken before a judge willing to do so.

Actually, under the Homeland Security Act they would never have to give him so much as a hearing. In fact, he could literally be LEGALLY ordered secretly assassinated or secretly imprisoned for life without trial any under the latest additions.
Click to expand...

Crossroads said:
That seems to be unrelated. How does his own opinion on the government conducting illegal or maybe even immoral searches THEN also HAVE to mean that he must face that same government in its own courts of law?

You say running is cowardly, but is it only cowardly because what he revealed wasn't that terrible of a crime (by government standards) AND that the punishment he would face would probably not result in torture and death? What if you up it a bit? What if the government had done something TRULY terrible, something violent and bloody and horrible (which it has done in the past, but putting that aside...) AND the punishment he would receive would be essentially a painful death? Would you still call him a coward? I think most people wouldn't even make that argument under those circumstances.
Click to expand...

Yeah, their logic doesn't make any sense at all. Apparently the "manly" thing to do is turn yourself in without a fight. Even our own military is taught SERE, survive, escape, resist and evade. Snowden is doing all 4. We should let our soldiers know about the change in policy.

"If you've attacked the enemy, be sure to turn yourself in and suffer the horrible consequences of your actions when they torture and kill you. It's the manly thing to do!"

Guy Incognito said:
Where did this ridiculous concept of maniless come up? You have some very weird ideas. A woman is equally capable of standing on principle.

If you are trying to stand up to a (supposedly) corrupt government and uphold the Constitution, you don't do it by defecting to Venezuela. That is unprincipled, hypocritical, and an act of traitorous espionage.

If you are a man or woman of principle, and you want to leak classified information supposedly to uphold the Constitution, then you must do so in an open way, and subject yourself to the authority of the government you are supposedly supporting the interests of.

It's hard to communicate about these sorts of ideas with nihilists, because there is no common ground. This is a question of morality and honorable conduct, which is person a foreign concept to some people.
Click to expand...

It came from you and the others saying it's cowardly to not turn yourself in to the government that's trying to hurt you. It's completely irrational.

If he'd have a fair, prompt and public trial, you MIGHT be right. But he won't. He'll be held in solitary for years like Manning, refused access to the press, and given a secret trial. There is absolutely zero benefit to his cause by turning himself in. He will disappear. Better to resist and evade, while still fighting.
 
Last edited:
RabidAlpaca said:
Yeah, their logic doesn't make any sense at all. Apparently the "manly" thing to do is turn yourself in without a fight. Even our own military is taught SERE, survive, escape, resist and evade. Snowden is doing all 4. We should let our soldiers know about the change in policy.

"If you've attacked the enemy, be sure to turn yourself in and suffer the horrible consequences of your actions when they torture and kill you. It's the manly thing to do!"



It came from you and the others saying it's cowardly to not turn yourself in to the government that's trying to hurt you. It's completely irrational.

If he'd have a fair, prompt and public trial, you MIGHT be right. But he won't. He'll be held in solitary for years like Manning, refused access to the press, and given a secret trial. There is absolutely zero benefit to his cause by turning himself in. He will disappear. Better to resist and evade, while still fighting.
Click to expand...

What 'principle' would they supposedly be espousing, I wonder, if they put themselves at the mercy of a government in which they don't believe? If he had done that, all these posturers would be saying "he just wanted to be a martyr", or some other criticism.

I hope Snowden gets away, even if he has to stay in a country with an authoritarian government. I will just be happy he got away.
 
Dezaad said:
What 'principle' would they supposedly be espousing, I wonder, if they put themselves at the mercy of a government in which they don't believe? If he had done that, all these posturers would be saying "he just wanted to be a martyr", or some other criticism.

I hope Snowden gets away, even if he has to stay in a country with an authoritarian government. I will just be happy he got away.
Click to expand...

What's even funnier is people saying "He's a traitor because he's going to countries we don't like." He applied for an asylum in over 20 countries. Our allies all turned him down because they want to continue suckling on the power tit. Where the hell else is he supposed to go?

A large number of Germans support him because of his revelation about the US spying on Germans, but they refused it anyway because they're cowards.
 
There's really no way to where he currently is or where he's going. Media reports can't be trusted given the (obvious) intent to keep his whereabouts a secret.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom