Snowden Seeks International Help Against US Espionage Charges 351
An anonymous reader writes "Edward Snowden is calling for international help to persuade the U.S. to drop its espionage charges against him. Snowden said he would like to testify before the U.S. Congress about National Security Agency surveillance and may be willing to help German officials investigate alleged U.S. spying in Germany. Snowden is quoted as saying that the U.S. government 'continues to treat dissent as defection, and seeks to criminalize political speech with felony charges that provide no defense.' He continues, 'I am confident that with the support of the international community, the government of the United States will abandon this harmful behavior.'"
You go, girl! (Score:4, Insightful)
I've said it before, I'll say it again: Fuck you, NSA, you filthy traitors. The constitution isn't just rules for others to follow...
Presidential pardon (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? (Score:2, Insightful)
Does Snowden really think that what he did was "dissent"? Dissent is defined as expressing an opinion. The people who participated in Occupy Wall Street dissented. They're all walking around as free men and women.
Snowden has been charged with giving classified information to a person without appropriate clearance and stealing government owned laptops. He did that stuff.
Committing a crime for what you feel are justified reasons means that you go to jail with your head held high and with people cheering for you. It doesn't mean that you get to walk free. I don't blame Snowden for running away. I wouldn't want to go to jail either. But his argument here is very weak.
Re:Too bad Snowden will only be 33 in 2016 (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Too bad Snowden will only be 33 in 2016 (Score:2, Insightful)
But a Nobel Peace Prize nomination would probably embarrass the next president into pardoning him.
(or if something other than a democrat is elected), a Presidential Medal of Freedom.
With everyone in the NSA suddenly swearing on stacks of bibles that they never told Obama didly-squat
you can almost see how this is being set up to plays out.
Still, you have to wonder if he doesn't wake up dead some day of a .22 caliber aneurysm.
Re:Too bad Snowden will only be 33 in 2016 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Abandon their harmful behavior? (Score:5, Insightful)
He continues, 'I am confident that with the support of the international community, the government of the United States will abandon this harmful behavior."
Has he even read the stuff he leaked?
Probably. And he lived in the country from which he leaked it. I think his attitude is actually quite heartening. I wonder if, like me, when he thinks of the United States he thinks not only of the abstract bureaucratic entity and its questionable activities, but that he thinks of the actual people that entity consists of and is made by. You know; his friends, family, neighbors, shopkeepers, etc. He probably thinks that most people would drop these charges and move on, and he may be right. But entities, yes, they don't drop charges. I'm not trying to oppose your point, but I think his optimism is reasonably warranted.
If your tire gets a leak, you shouldn't waste time or energy on punishing the nail - you should fix the tire and drive more carefully and maybe avoid that road you had just gone down.
The analogy can go further, but that's as far down that road as I'm prepared to go.
Re:Too bad Snowden will only be 33 in 2016 (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, because THAT'S what's keeping him from being elected. It's not that a good percentage of the country has bought into the line that he's a communist traitor who has put American lives at risk, handed over secret documents to the "enemy", and was acting out of a desire to harm the United States. None of those things are true, mind, but that's not stopping people from demanding we send SEAL Team 6 into Russia.
The anger directed toward this man was so quick to start, so widespread, and so homogenous in tone and intent that it makes me suspect an NSA influence operation using internet sockpuppet accounts, and the already completely dominated mainstream cable channels (I won't use the word "news" to describe what they are). We actually know the government does this, we even knew before the Snowden documents, so it's not that much of a stretch in my mind. But on the other hand, I know quite a few living, breathing, people who really are that intellectually retarded. They're vociferously and sincerely calling for blood. He wouldn't live to see his name on the ballot if he comes back here. Our government has spoken: he's a traitor aiding foreign powers. We kill people for that.
Re:Too bad Snowden will only be 33 in 2016 (Score:1, Insightful)
Do not confuse pessimism with realism.
Re:Poor, poor Ed... (Score:5, Insightful)
They all do this shit, and you merely put them in the spotlight. The ones not yet caught have, of course, feigned indignation at the US, for doing what they all do. (Hmm, which ones have protested the loudest here?)
Make no mistake, though, if the US has done worse than any of its peers, it has done so only through having more opportunity, not more will or effort.
So tired of people excusing our government's behavior just because others do it.
Others include Pol Pot, Idi Amin, 'Papa Doc' Duvalier, and Joseph Stalin. (No point in invoking Godwin here).
We keep telling ourselves we are better than that. We keep passing whistle blower protection laws.
We pretend we have a constitution and that government is Of the People, By the People, For the People.
Then invariably when government gets caught doing something its not supposed to, some useful idiot comes along and says don't worry about it, every other country does that.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
He reported a crime.
The powers that be wrongly classified the information about the crime in order to cover it up.
There is a long history in law of recognizing that even the best intentioned laws may sometimes be wrong and that breaking them may sometimes be justified. In that long history, such justified infractions are not to be considered crimes. This is where we get such things as justifiable homicide.
I don't blame him one bit for running. He is not likely to receive justice here at this time.
Re:Don't do it Edward (Score:5, Insightful)
As it should be. Regardless of how one feels about what he has done, be it for or against, he broke the law and should have his day in court.
Barrack Obama broke the law, and didnt got his day in court. George W. Bush broke the law and didn't got his day in court. Bill Clinton broke the law and got his day in court even though it he didn't deserve that. Personal sex life is private, nobody should be allowed to asking these questions and therefore lying about it is fine.
America is more interested in blow jobs then corruption, waste of taxes payer money, unlawful wars, secret court and execution without due process.I don't want to live on this planet any more [youtube.com].
Re:Don't do it Edward (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, reporting a crime is not breaking the law, it is adhering the law and in point of fact it is a criminal act not to report witnessing a crime, accessory after the fact. Will he be able to return to the US, not for decades, all the psychopaths in power will have to be removed first. They will permanently target him as an example, they will take hostile moves against any country that harbours him and most western countries will not bother protecting him as he is not one of their own.
So what is that 2%? (Score:1, Insightful)
Or was that figure just made up?
I.e. own up and say "Yes, I merely assume that there's stuff he will release like that, it could be 0%".
Re:Abandon their harmful behavior? (Score:5, Insightful)
He's not a hero. He's a traitor.
Going against the petty interests of a minor group in favor of the broader interests of humanity is the kind of stuff for which one's remembered as an hero down the line, including despite one's personal faults.
He would have been a hero if he leaked the NSA spying on US citizens and stopped there.
As a non-US citizen I most certainly disagree.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
There are procedures to report those crimes. I don't know of Snowden following them.
He did. [techdirt.com] The result was partly what convinced him to go another way.
The other part that convinced him? What happened to the others that tried before him. [theatlantic.com]
So many people just don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Too bad Snowden will only be 33 in 2016 (Score:4, Insightful)
If as you say it's common knowledge that all governments spy on all other governments, then it shouldn't have done much harm to have what we already knew confirmed.
But that's not true, not all governments engage in this behavior, and not all that do take it as far as the US. Tapping the private phone of an allied head of state is out of bounds. It's not the kind of thing we should be doing. It's the kind of thing that causes an embarrassing international incident when it is revealed. Imagine our own government's reaction if the tables were turned.
Also, Snowden released the information to reputable journalists who have been selecting what to release. He didn't just dump it on a website for all to see. Those journalists have been reviewing the material and redacting anything that would actually put lives at risk. Snowden carried this off in the most responsible, most honorable, fashion possible.
Re:Abandon their harmful behavior? (Score:0, Insightful)
A Traitor? You are a fucking piece of shit for thinking that. The man is a true patriot
Re:Don't do it Edward (Score:2, Insightful)
You are absolutely a hero if you expose the systemic criminal behavior of the government even if you have to break the law to do it. We need more heroes like Snowden.
Re:Don't do it Edward (Score:5, Insightful)
It is illegal to obey illegal instructions. Those documents detailed crimes and hence where classified illegally in order to hide those crimes. He disclosed those crimes publicly due to the conspiracy to hide them by a government department with the approval of elected officials. Seriously, what the fuck do you not understand about the idea that it is illegal for any government department to break any laws and the requirement for any member of that department to report those criminal acts, be they criminal or constitutional infringements. Do you get it yet? The government can not legally order anyone to break the law, end of story and in the attempt that person so ordered is required by law to report the attempted crime, let alone obey the criminal order. Crimes can not be legally hidden under the auspices of national security, that would be a licence to run the government as a criminal organisation rather than being the democratically representatives of the electorate. I don't have to try, the law is the law.
Re:Abandon their harmful behavior? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually the entire problem the US has is it's designed to be too collaborative. "Checks and balances" is a fancy way of saying "if all y'all motherfuckers can't agree on shit, shit don't happen." The Senate makes consensus requirements even more onerous because one guy can bring the entire Legislature to a halt for six days per bill voted on. Any Senator can force three days of debate on the question of "Should we debate Bill X," when those three days are up he can force another three days of debate on the actual vote. If the House insists on changes to the bill the Senator can add another three days by filibustering the conference report.
The end result is a legislature that talks a whole bunch of shit about shit (which nobody will care about six months from now), and doesn't actually do anything, which allows the Executive branch to run wild. Since the elected people in the Executive are forced to spend inordinate amounts of time dealing with aforementioned BS (which nobody will care about in six months) Obama doesn't have time to over-see the Executive. Which means that the executive branch people running wild have very little to do with the people we actually elect. In a Westminster system nobody would believe a PM who claimed he didn't know he's tapped Merkel's phone. In the US everybody's like "Oh I can see why if they put in the fifth bullet point of a presentation that he had to squeeze in between dealing with Islamists/political opponents with a political death wish/North Korea/etc. Obama might not notice that."
More collaborative government would just make this worse. You could never change anything complicated because individual voters always vote no on complex changes. When things get rough (ie: the ObamaCare rollout) they tend to decide to abandon the changes on the basis that if everything stays the same there's no risk of things getting worse. You'd end up with a lot of small-c-conservative stuff. For example, it would be impossible to change the zoning in any neighborhood because the local busy-bodies would all vote hell no and nobody else would bother voting. On national issues it would be even worse. If you have a vote on gun control people aren't going to let you sit out of the gun control debate.
Re:Abandon their harmful behavior? (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, I'll play.
> "Checks and balances" is a fancy way of saying "if all y'all motherfuckers can't agree on shit, shit don't happen."
Remove the profane language and actually, that's pretty much what James Madison said. Our system was designed that way on purpose. Of course, then you say ...
> bring the entire Legislature to a halt for six days per bill voted on ... force three days of debate ... another three days of debate on the actual vote
These are simply the (admittedly dumb) rules which the Senate has decided to impose upon itself. Those rules could be changed at any time. That's why I view Washington as a slapstick comedy: they keep shooting themselves in the foot, the whine and wail about how bad it hurts. :)
Actually, what scares me more than anything is the slow move in this country toward "rule by elites." Whether Republican or Democrat is irrelevant to me. One other thing that the Founder Fathers specifically tried to prevent was the appointment of "special masters" -- especially Caesars (or to use the more modern form of that word, "Czar") -- with broad power and the ability to act *WITHOUT* a consensus on the part of the governed.
That might seem like a good idea to you NOW, as long as a "special master" is in place making changes that you like. But change masters, and you might not think it's such a great idea.
This, in a nutshell, is why our Constitutional system of government was set up the way it was. No one person (or small group of people) was to have power to rule by "dictat" and decree.
Finally, what troubles me the most about this country is that we've forgotten how to compromise. Political compromise basically boils down to, "we hammer out an agreement that no one really likes, but that everyone can live with." Instead, we have people on both Left and Right screaming that it MUST be all done their way, no compromise ... and that's the REAL reason why nothing gets done.
Just my opinion, and worth precisely what you paid for it. :)
Re:Abandon their harmful behavior? (Score:4, Insightful)
You know, one of the best things about Snowden is that not only he exposed the abuse of powers by the government, but it also exposed the worthless ass-licking cunts like you who would rush to sign up to become Stasi informers if only given a chance. It's very refreshing to have you guys come out in the open like that, and proclaim loud and clear that you are who you are. Thank you, Mr Snowden!
Re:Abandon their harmful behavior? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Maybe he should go work for the UN. They've been trying to get the US government to abandon various forms of harmful behavior for a while. "
The UN only wants to trade what it sees as bad U.S. behavior by its own brand of bad behavior.
Remember that not all members of the U.N. are equal. It was created that way.
While I deplore the actions of my government, and wish it would stop the foolish and damaging things it has been doing, I have reservations because (A) I don't think it will happen unless someone convinces Obama that he's not a king, and (B) I would be happy -- ecstatic even -- if the UN disappeared tomorrow.
Re:Abandon their harmful behavior? (Score:2, Insightful)
"I would be happy -- ecstatic even -- if the UN disappeared tomorrow."
Yeah, because we don't need an international diplomatic platform or UNICEF, eh?
Re:Abandon their harmful behavior? (Score:2, Insightful)
Even if 98% of the things he leaked were good things for the world to know, he will ALWAYS be at risk of being charged for the 2% of the things he leaked that are genuinely bad for the world to know.
Taken together with the 99.9995% of eavesdropping that were illegal, unconstitutional, and genuinely bad for the NSA to know, I say that we give Snowden a day of jail time for every year Clapper and Alexander spend in high-security prison.
We know that Snowden's work has been good for the U.S.A. being a free and constitutional country, and we know Clapper and Alexander's work and their continuing weaseling, lies, breaches of all constitutional guarantees and delusions of grandeur to be terrible for the U.S.A.'s image and security both inside and outside of the U.S.A.
Yes, terrible for its security since the most important weapon the U.S.A. has against domestic and foreign terrorism is its image as a freedom-loving nation.
And they are trampling it, spitting on it, and ridiculing it. They are traitors to the U.S. people and the U.S. constitution. And theor crony Eric Holder, himself a self-aggrandizing perjurer taking justice into his own hands, will not even bother prosecuting them for their openly committed and continued perjury, sometimes committed with weasel words with the intent to mislead, sometimes plain-out lying.
We really have a lot more to worry about than whether Snowden is technically guilty of a crime or misdemeanor when we do not prosecute those who are not only guilty, guilty, guilty of crimes against U.S. constitution and people, but who also continue doing their damage and make the U.S.A. an international laughing stock wiping their asses with the constitution.
Re:Abandon their harmful behavior? (Score:5, Insightful)
So let's compromise. I'm a conservative: after realizing that we have (for example) HUNDREDS of freakin' destroyers in our Navy, not to mention that we're building planes that are being put in storage because we don't need them, and on and on ... I'd be
willing to accept substantial and severe cuts in military
spending. Stop being the world's policeman. Don't touch military
pay and benefits, because those folks have earned it. But there's
plenty that could be trimmed, billions and billions of dollars.
OK ... so what are my liberal friends willing to surrender in
return? It's got to be something near and dear to their hearts. :)
So ... according to you a compromise means that you are willing
to get rid of something we both agree is wasteful and unnecessary
only if I am willing to give up something I believe is essential,
non-wasteful, and perhaps even provides good ROI. This is
exactly the kind of "compromise" the Tea Party recently proposed.
They were only willing to do something they agreed needed to be
done if others would make significant concessions in unrelated
areas.
Doing something we both agree should be done is not a compromise; it is agreement. Demanding additional concessions in other areas before you are willing to do what you agree should be done is about as far away from compromise as possible; it is extortion and hostage-taking. It's basically saying "we're going to ruin it for everyone unless we get our way".
You have perfectly encapsulated the reason why there are no longer any compromises in DC.
Re:Abandon their harmful behavior? (Score:3, Insightful)
The US hasn't used this data to physically harm anyone. There are plenty of allegations that the US used the data for economic advantage, but no examples of specific operations that did so. And if such operations existed Snowden would have exposed them.
Even if you don't consider planting backdoors and weakening crypto damage, Presidential Policy Directive 20 [schneier.com] is about having ready for using those intrusions, backdoors and so on to harm. And Petrobras [reuters.com] is an example of specific operation of using that data for economic advantage. But even snooping with other intentions than detect that is a terrorist there is damaging enough, even if it is just to find how to access and plant backdoors in a otherwise secure network (i.e. Tor users [theguardian.com])
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wyden already had classified information about this stuff. [slashdot.org] He wouldn't do anything about it except give vague warnings.
What is so amazing to me are people like you who are always happy to criticize someone who took action for doing it "the wrong way." The problem with that attitude is that everyone has their own version of "the right way." Snowden got results, it ain't perfect but its 1000x more effective than what anyone else has done. He deserves enormous slack for that.
Re:Abandon their harmful behavior? (Score:4, Insightful)
But rather than the title humbling the office, the office instead made the title grand.
Re:Abandon their harmful behavior? (Score:5, Insightful)
OK ... so what are my liberal friends willing to surrender in return? It's got to be something near and dear to their hearts. :)
Right now the conservatives have cut food stamps, and they want to eliminate it entirely.
Food stamps are one of the most effective welfare programs we have, supported until recently by Democrats and Republicans alike.
Without food stamps, we'd be back to third world hunger like we were in the 1930s, with people stealing bread and children with rickets.
Is that a realistic compromise? Can I in good conscience bargain away food stamps and let people go hungry again?
I don't believe in false balance. Both sides aren't equally wrong. When you ask the Republicans what they want on health policy, they say, "Abandon Obamacare and leave the free market in its place." I can't go back to that. This is the free market. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1312793 [nejm.org] Obamacare was already a compromise with the Republicans, modeled on Romneycare and the Heritage Foundation plan. Obama gave them everything they wanted, and they were still against it. How can you negotiate with people like that?
Re:Abandon their harmful behavior? (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with your argument is that you're not actually making an argument. You have told us what you want in principle (less federal government), but have yet to tell us which major functions of government you want Obama to give up.
The ones that make the Feds dominate the economy (Social Security, Medicare, and the VA) don't actually take up much of his time. They are also clearly within his Constitutional powers because he has a 16tth Amendment right to the income tax, and he can spend it promoting the "general welfare." Defense and Foreign Affairs are the only ones you've unambiguously said he should keep, and they're the really complicated ones that are causing him all these NSA problems.
I find this is actually a fairly common problem when dealing with Conservatives. They really want to gut the size of government, but they're totally unwilling to tell you that they think Florida should do it;'s own damn hurricane forecasts. It's kinda like my food budget. I'd really like to spend less then $10 a day on food, but I don't have a pantry so I can't make my lunch, so I have to eat out, and I always end up spending $6.69 at Wendy's.