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.'"
Too bad Snowden will only be 33 in 2016 (Score:3, Interesting)
Poor, poor Ed... (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
TLDR: They all want you dead for exposing the truth. Do you really think the "truth" you've exposed ends at the Canadian and Mexican borders?
Re:Too bad Snowden will only be 33 in 2016 (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Abandon their harmful behavior? (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is that there are a significant amount of people in the U.S> who believe that some of the things Snowden leaked are harmful to the US.
For example, he leaked that the U.S> was spying on specific Chinese Universities, to determine how they were hacking into our military and industrial computers. Now those universities know how to be more careful. It is unlikely they will stop trying to hack into us.
The problem Snowden has is that even if he "started a conversation" about U.S. intelligence, he still leaked a number of things that could easily be found to be harmful to the U.S. 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.
Re:Too bad Snowden will only be 33 in 2016 (Score:3, Interesting)
That Snowden didn't won the Nobel Peace Prize (but did the organization that aligned closely with current US message) gives you a hint that at least some parts of europe are just following US orders, so no chance for president of european parliament neither.
And they are now realizing that that submission don't saves them from being victims of the US spying/sabotaging machine too.
Re:So you support the USSR (What Russia really is) (Score:2, Interesting)
You're willing to support someone that has committed crimes that have put all citizens of the US in danger...
Wrong.
Snowden put no one in danger but himself from the US government's efforts to exact revenge for Snowden shining light on corrupt criminal government cockroaches. The US government put US citizens in danger themselves by knowingly violating the restrictions on government powers set forth in the US Constitution. Snowden simply revealed their ongoing crimes and constitutional violations.
Snowden is as much a criminal as is a woman who reveals her cop-rapist's identity to higher authority. In this case, the rapists compose the US Federal Government and the victims are everyone who is not them.
The government did and continues to conspire to violate their oaths of office, the Constitution, and the rights of every citizen because those in power want to monitor and control everything and everyone they can. They are criminals and tyrants for which hanging is far too good a fate.
If the US government had been acting within the powers it is allowed by the Constitution there would never had been any leak, as Snowden would have had nothing to reveal nor have any motive to reveal it.
Strat
Re:Abandon their harmful behavior? (Score:4, Interesting)
The british system works nicely to stop a dictator. At any point, the parliament can elect a new prime-minister, or in effect force a new election. And there is the nuclear option, where the queen can in theory sack a government.
This is never used, as it would create a constitution crisis the monarchy probably wouldn't survive. But if the government was seriously dysfunctional, and was unpopular, the queen could just about politically get away with it. The closest case is sacking of the australian Witlam government in the 70's by the governor general (queen's representative in australia) for the government being in deadlock over a budget and having to shut down functions. So basically the equivalent of the government shutdown the US has just had.
Re:Abandon their harmful behavior? (Score:4, Interesting)
Ironically the title "President" was chosen rather than something lofty like "Prime Minister" specifically to try to keep the office humble. A president is (was) that guy who runs the local XYZ club, not someone with real power.