Snowden Shortlisted For Europe's Top Human Rights Award 273
another random user sends this news from the BBC:
"Edward Snowden, the fugitive American former intelligence worker, has made the shortlist of three for the Sakharov prize, Europe's top human rights award. Mr Snowden was nominated by Green politicians in the European Parliament for leaking details of U.S. surveillance. Nominees also include Malala Yousafzai, the Pakistani teenager shot in the head for demanding education for girls. Former recipients of the prize, awarded by the European Parliament, include Nelson Mandela and Aung San Suu Kyi. Mr Snowden's nomination recognized that his disclosure of U.S. surveillance activities was an 'enormous service' to human rights and European citizens, the parliament's Green group said."
Comparative sacrifice (Score:5, Insightful)
Malala gets this one hands-down. Both made very important statements we must pay attention to, but a fucking headshot beats hanging out in a Russian airport IMHO.
Re:Comparative sacrifice (Score:5, Interesting)
Agreed.
Normally I would scoff at Snowden being included on a list like this. I was a bit put off by Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize before actually doing anything, and a bit put off at Assange being nominated for something simliar, because both seemed like self-serving political statements to me, but on reflection, what Snowden has done was controlled, targeted and highly effective, in my opinion. It was far from the uncontrolled dump that Bradley Manning did, or the barely-controlled shitstorm that Assange supervised.
In the same vein, the leak, while angering many Americans, should be a huge benefit for citizens of every country, both outside the US, but also inside. A great gain for Europeans, as far as awareness of human rights issues.
Re:Comparative sacrifice (Score:5, Interesting)
How the message was delivered is less important as well. Manning couldn't exactly form a team to manage the data better without arousing some suspicions and shutting it down before it got anywhere. Lamo stabbed him in the back after all. And Assange may be an egomaniac, but people who do unusual things often are. Anyway, if the messenger is annoying, that may make you want to shoot him more if you already wanted to shoot someone for the message, but you should resist that temptation.
Re: (Score:3)
Under US law, there's a very specific definition of Treason, and Snowden, at least, hasn't come anywhere close to it. (I don't see any real case for the others either, and a military court evidently agrees with my assessment about how far Manning's actions fell short of Treason, but for Snowden in particular, there just isn't anything to support even impaneling a grand jury to look at a claim of Treason - hell there isn't anything that would justify putting a detective on the job of investigating furthe
Re: (Score:2)
A great gain for Europeans, as far as awareness of human rights issues.
I wish.
Unfortunately, the global elite that's playing power games is super-national and has been for many years. It's been very, very obvious that nobody in my countries government really gave a shit about the whole NSA stuff. I personally think that half of them would easily be convicted of breaking their oath to protect the constitution and the people, if only someone had the guts to bring charges.
Re:Comparative sacrifice (Score:5, Informative)
Not unlike Snowden, Manning passed on encrypted files to three media outlets for them to publish after redaction and vetting, but David Leigh and Luke Harding of The Guardian were not as careful as Manning, and managed to leak the passphrase. But "the dump" wasn't Manning.
All this is on Wikipedia.
Re: (Score:3)
It was far from the uncontrolled dump that Bradley Manning did ...
Manning never did an uncontrolled dump. He released documents to news organizations so those organization could vet them and release only what was proper to be released. That was the responsible thing to do under the circumstances. It is the same thing Snowden did. It's true that someone in one of the organizations Manning released to screwed up and published a private key that let everyone see all the documents but that was clearly not Manning's fault.
Please stop spreading the malicious lie that Br
Re:Comparative sacrifice (Score:4, Insightful)
The leak accomplishes a lot. Maybe not in the short term, but in the long term it is causing us to take a much greater look at security that will not only prevent NSA style spying, but very easily could further harden the global cloud infrastructure at large against data breaches. Namely, if we go out of our way to secure our information against even those who have physical access to it, then it makes it that much harder for somebody else to get a hold if it as well, legally or not.
Something as big as this, hitting something as well established as what we already have, isn't going to change overnight or even over a year: This could take up to a decade because we're not only looking at software changes, but also hardware changes in a big ocean of already existing datacenters.
What I'm thinking of is data storage akin to mega where only the end user holds the keys. Others are already working on their own variants of this same concept, only they're trying to do so in such a way that makes content manipulation possible while leaving the data secured. Yes, I'm aware of the possible exploit of the website feeding you a bogus javascript page that steals your keys, however that can be fixed.
And by the way, I don't think he was upmodded for toilet humor, rather the message just happened to contain it. Besides, toilet humor has its place, and I think it's suitable here. If it offends you, you should probably disconnect from the internet and go live in a tree somewhere.
Re:Comparative sacrifice (Score:5, Insightful)
But without the leak, how would anyone even think action would need to take place? Acting on the information without revealing it would have guaranteed a stamp of "terrorist crackpot" and maybe a 3rd page article in a few papers. Would you rather small groups of people randomly taking action on suspicions and assumptions all of the time? Meaningful action requires being well informed.
Yes leaking by itself accomplishes nothing, but how much on this front be accomplished without the leak?
Re: (Score:2)
But without the leak, how would anyone even think action would need to take place?
I don't know with any certainty that Snowden's disclosures caused a fundamental shift in how people view the problems of government surveillance. If you were against it before, you still are. If you're for it, you still are. I don't see many people changing their opinions either way on the basis of what he has (or hasn't) said. While he certainly has caused a lot of people to talk about the problem, I do not see many people doing anything about it.
Acting on the information without revealing it would have guaranteed a stamp of "terrorist crackpot" and maybe a 3rd page article in a few papers.
Actions speak louder than words. Snowden would have made a m
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Then you aren't paying attention.
My well-reasoned replies to my emotional detractors notwithstanding, it may just be possible that I simply view other things as more important than what the NSA is doing right now. The NSA's surveillance is an abstract problem for libertarians and internet pundits. People starving, going without healthcare, not being able to get married -- all of which have been news in just the last few months... those things affect tens to hundreds of millions in a very direct and personal way, every day, right now. Peopl
Re: (Score:3)
The standardisation of law enforcement telco systems has gifted many evil govs the tools (via Western contractors) the ability to watch any NGO, protest movements, law reform efforts, unions, human rights workers, former political leaders, authors, or the press working in the "food, shelter, and clothing" areas.
Snowden matters as he was the final connection allowing good people in tech su
Re:Comparative sacrifice (Score:5, Insightful)
Get your head screwed on straight: Personal privacy is an issue, but it's not a priority and it doesn't trump more basic needs like food, shelter, and clothing -- and we need those right now. A lot of people need them. We are now coming up on year SEVEN and economists estimate that unemployment levels won't return to pre-recession levels for ANOTHER seven years. Don't tell me Snowden matters. Don't tell me the NSA is important. We have hungry people out there. Hungry, desperate, unemployed people.
Justice delayed is justice denied. There's no reason why this can't be addressed at the moment either. On top of that; lack of food, shelter and clothing aren't exactly a major problem in the US - this is nothing more than a red herring because you're just another one of those who believes that privacy is unimportant. If you did think it was important, you wouldn't be trivializing it in the face of an issue that has little to no bearing on American citizens. (Failing that, then it's as I stated earlier: You argue just to argue.)
Re:Comparative sacrifice (Score:4, Insightful)
The NSA and other law enforcement agencies around the world are using these technologies to good effect.
How do we know that? All we have is the words of people who have been found to lie about, well, everything that we can check. The reasonable assumption is that they lie about everything that we can't check, too. They could easily tell us something that can be checked, such as pointing to a foiled terrorist attack, and explaining how mass surveillance helped foil it.
We shouldn't throw that away because the early incarnations of the administration and use of these technologies is flawed.
Part of what keeps the system in check will always be rules. Rules are pointless if they are not followed. If people believe they will never be punished for breaking the rules, it will be much harder to make them follow the rules. If we don't punish people who have broken the rules we have now, how are you going to convince people that they will be punished for breaking rules in the future?
(Failing that, then it's as I stated earlier: You argue just to argue.)
Ad hominid.
Wouldn't that be a commentary on the species as a whole [jstor.org]?
Re:Comparative sacrifice (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, because clearly if nobody ever revealed anything about the NSA spying, we'd still magically know about it anyways and we'd already be taking countermeasures.
Seriously, how can you be so stupid? The speaking is what inspired people to act. We didn't simply attack the British troops and say "there, we're separate now." Works like "Common Sense" from people like Thomas Paine, as well as numerous other acts of speaking are what inspired the colonists to rebel, and it didn't just all magically happen in one day; the events leading up to the revolution spanned years before it was officially declared. And I especially like how you throw the constitution in there, because it wasn't ratified for a good 12 years until after we declared independence (prior to that the US was a confederacy.) Really, get a clue dude, or at the very least stop arguing just for the sake of arguing, which is what all of your posts seem to do.
The Snowden leaks are leading to a big change - it just isn't happening overnight.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because clearly if nobody ever revealed anything about the NSA spying, we'd still magically know about it anyways and we'd already be taking countermeasures.
The NSA's standard operating practice is to assume that a system has already been compromised. Borrow a page from their playbook: If your security and privacy is truly important to you, shouldn't you have already been taking steps to protect it? Do you not lock your doors, despite an absence of evidence of houses being broken into in your neighborhood? Do you not check your wallet after being bumped by a stranger, to make sure it's still there?
To borrow your own words: Seriously, how can you be so stupid?
The Snowden leaks are leading to a big change - it just isn't happening overnight.
Ye
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to need a tad of perspectiveness. There aren't many year arguing that the Snowden leaks are the Most Important Thing in the Known World. They won't stop hunger, rape, slavery or even the dent the War on Drugs.
They may well be a turning point in how Internet surveillance is conducted and more important, thought about. It takes lots of people banging on our little tin drums way down here to make you overreaching Godlike philosphers of the Big Picture aware of some things. If you really are worrie
Re: (Score:3)
I don't understand what you're trying to say. the girl who was shot in the head didn't accomplish anything, either. but her example and story and sacrifice spurred others to action. same for the snowden leaks. they definitely opened my eyes, influenced my political activities, and altered my own online habits. it seems just a good an impact as anything.
Re: (Score:3)
No good or service has been generated by the leak.
So obviously there's no good there. Snowden's leak didn't make a car or a basket. But to claim that there is no service there?
Warning us (who for the most part aren't trees) about several abuses of government power by one of the more unaccountable organizations of the US. That has value to me and hence, is a service. Especially, when it gets confirmed by the powers that be.
They said what they had to say, to organize people to fight.
So speaking words to organize people to fight tyranny? That's a service in my book.
If it offends you, you should probably disconnect from the internet and go live in a tree somewhere.
There's no need here to QQ the internet. Just stop
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Words and ideas are the most powerful thing in the Universe, more powerful than the strongest standing army. As someone's sig here says, "the tyrant fears a laugh more than a bullet."
Re: (Score:3)
And you're overdue for some basic instruction in decency. Also, ad hominem attacks are not an acceptable alternative to debate.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, because we all know how successful government spying on every citizen had managed to keep Muslim militants in line and cartels and gangsters from existing.
Boston Marathon bombing.
Sarin Gas attack by Syria.
School shooting rampages
9/11
1000 killed by car bombs in Iraq in September alone
One Drug Killing every half hour in Mexico
With protection like that, who needs them!
Re:Comparative sacrifice (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, because we all know how successful government spying on every citizen had managed to keep Muslim militants in line and cartels and gangsters from existing.
Yes... let's have a closer look, shall we?
Boston Marathon bombing
Caught with the assistance of a multitude of surveillance cameras in the area. The internet pundits identitifed the wrong people, repeatedly. This shows that not only is surveillance important, but that processing surveillance data is not something that an untrained, or even talented, individual can do.
Sarin Gas attack by Syria
Thanks to real-time satellite intelligence over the middle east, we were able to not only spot the attack, but able to warn local health care of the impending crisis. The casualty count was very low considering thousands were exposed; This was not accidental. As well, those same satellites allowed near real-time communication between activists and the global community, assisting in bringing prompt political pressure to the government to cease use of chemical weapons. As a direct result of that, a few weeks later, the government agreed to surrender its entire stockpile.
School shooting rampages
Cameras in schools have allowed us to quickly identify attackers and separate facts from fiction. One of the earliest examples is the Columbine massacre, where review of surveillance footage was able to provide immediate identification of the attackers, as well as their moment by moment movements within the school. Eyewitness accounts were highly divergent and many myths, including that they were purposefully targeting christians, came out of that. The camera, however, had no such agenda, and recordings set the record straight.
9/11
An unprecidented terrorist attack caught on film by dozens of eyewitnesses is a strong barrier against accusations that the government planned it, that the airplanes were loaded with explosives, and a great many other conspiracy theories. Videographic evidence has been able eliminate all of these. As well, a global network of satellites was able to gather valuable scientific data on contrails during the time where there were no flights over the United States; Being able to have high resolution copies of all clouds over the entire continent generated valuable data for weather forcasting and the impact on contrails in the natural environment.
1000 killed by car bombs in Iraq in September alone
Iraq lacks much in the way of surveillance. Many of those planting car bombs are never caught because there are no pictures until after the bomb explodes.
One Drug Killing every half hour in Mexico
Mexico contains very little in the way of surveillance gear, except that used by the drug cartels to track the movements of both rival gangs and local law enforcement. They have even built their own cellular communications network; The labor was provided by kidnapped telecoms employees. Needless to say, without access to surveillance equipment, Mexican authorities have no way to get a handle on the problem, and it is running rampant.
With protection like that, who needs them!
Your own examples provide an ample rebuttal to your snarky reparte here; In fact, surveillance has provided a great deal of protection in every case mentioned... and where it was lacking, unattributed violence and mass acts of terrorism is present.
I think this provides clear and unambiguous evidence that surveillance does help keep crime down; Not just those "muslim militants" and "cartels and gangers", but police officers as well. Dash cameras have led to more than a few corrupt officers being dismissed, and our courts are less clogged with traffic court cases than ever before -- thanks in part to impartial video footage that shows every detail. Conviction rates have improved as well, as anyone who watches the TV series Cops can attest to -- there's many things an officer misses during a pursuit that the camera records. Like how 7 minutes into the chase, they threw their drugs out the window, or a gun, etc. These are things officers can then go back and recover, before children come across them and injure or kill themselves.
Re:Comparative sacrifice (Score:4, Insightful)
Your rebuttal seems to have demonstrated how surveillance technologies, mostly in the hands of private entities have aided after the event
The GGP implied that government surveillance did not stop events like these. In particular, the NSA surveillance.
Boston Marathon bombing
Caught with the assistance of a multitude of surveillance cameras in the area.
Who owned the cameras, Boston PD, businesses and private entities in Boston or the NSA?
Sarin Gas attack by Syria
Thanks to real-time satellite intelligence over the middle east, we were able to not only spot the attack, but able to warn local health care of the impending crisis.
This is a tenuous link at best. A very long bow to draw. In reality it probably did SFA to help the victims given the limited humanitarian resources in the area and the fact they were in a war zone.
But again it did not do anything to stop the attack. Further more, this is the CIA's regular duties of foreign surveillance that proves no value in the NSA's domestic surveillance.
School shooting rampages
Cameras in schools have allowed us to quickly identify attackers and separate facts from fiction.
Again, how were the attacks stopped by government surveillance?
And again, who owned the cameras?
9/11
1000 killed by car bombs in Iraq in September alone
One Drug Killing every half hour in Mexico
Here you've cited a lack of surveillance. When the NSA surveillance fails to foil the most poorly planned mass shooting how will more cameras and wiretaps help here? The simple answer is that it wont. In fact, all you've managed to show is that surveillance is only good after the fact and wont help in stopping an attack. The car bombs in Iraq are a direct result of the US removing a oppressive yet stable government which was, whilst brutal managed to keep the various ethnic and religious groups from fighting. School and mass shootings are a cultural problem and can only be stopped by fixing the culture around guns. Domestic killings can only be solved by better police work. Tapping the phones of every American and putting cameras on every street corner wont fix a damn thing. There is practically a camera on every corner as it is when we count private security cameras but footage is only useful after the fact, before the fact you rely on tip offs and good old fashioned investigative police work to follow up those tips.
Finally, attacks like 9/11 are stopped in two ways, stop acting like giant dicks. It is a well known and oft proven fact that people who like you are less likely to attack you. This also reduces the workload on number 2, identify your potential enemies and keep tabs on them. There's no point in surveilling everyone, you get so much useless information about who had what for lunch that useful clues are overlooked and lost. Re read that last sentence, it's the biggest reason the NSA hasn't and wont do any good.
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to have missed the point. Your rebuttal seems to have demonstrated how surveillance technologies, mostly in the hands of private entities have aided after the event. The GGP implied that government surveillance did not stop events like these. In particular, the NSA surveillance.
If that was the point, it's a stupid point. Why do we have a justice system at all then, if there's no relationship between punitive responses to crime and a decrease in the severity and/or frequency of crime? There is, in fact, a relationship: It's basic psychology that if you see someone being punished for a behavior, you're less likely to engage in that behavior yourself.
Here you've cited a lack of surveillance. When the NSA surveillance fails to foil the most poorly planned mass shooting
This is a classic example of a cognitive error. You are taking the minority of examples where [government agency] wasn't able to preven
Re: (Score:3)
This technology does work. It is helping.
And yet, all we to show that mass surveillance of phones helps is your a hypothetical example that reads more like a CSI plot than anything that could actually work.
Everyone thinks the NSA is run by people with no morals and even less brains... but that's an absurd statement.
But it isn't an absurd statement that they could be so sheltered that their morals, while internally consistent, is far removed from what the rest of us would consider good. That they have spent so much time telling each other how important stopping terrorists are that they are convinced it trumps any privacy consideration. The semantic games t
Re: (Score:2)
So, your contention is that there is no point in reporting a crime because 'the activities disclosed had already happened by then, and the damage done'?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he meant "uncontrolled dump"?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
PRISM, purposefully weakening encryption, putting backdoors in products sold domestically, etc. seems to cover their actions against US citizens.
The damage that Mr. Snowden has done to the American intelligence community is incalculable and WILL cost lives going forward.
Bullshit. That was claimed about Manning's leak. But then it was acknowledged [telegraph.co.uk] that no one had any actual evidence that anyone was actually harmed by it.
The sentencing hearing began with testimony from retired Brigadier General Robert Carr, who in 2010 led an emergency Pentagon review into the impact of leaked war logs from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Although the mass leak "hit us in the face" the review did not find any evidence that civilians named in the secret files had then been targeted by militants, Gen Carr said.
but I'm having a hard time seeing how leaking information about NSA's operations against China (just to pick one, there are others...) is anything but providing aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States.
Bullshit. Even James Clapper says otherwise:
As loath as I am to give any credit for what has happened here, which is egregious, some of the conversations that it has generated, some of the debate, is probably needed. So if there's a good side to this, maybe that's it.
Transparency of course is a double-edged sword. It's great for us, great for our citizens. But of course the adversary goes to school on that transparency too. But I'm convinced we have to err on the side of more transparency because, most importantly, we won't have any of this if we don't have the trust and confidence of citizens and their elected representatives.
And other quotes:
Nigel Inkster, former deputy chief of British intelligence service MI6, suggests of the leaks that they were “very embarrassing, uncomfortable, and unfortunate” but that while embarrassing the impact may not have been particularly great as “I sense that those most interested in the activities of the NSA and GCHQ have not been told very much they didn't know already or could have inferred.” He also suggests that Germany and other US allies have not been as outraged as they have seemed “The tears that have been shed internationally have been of the crocodile variety” so there is unlikely to be any reduction in ties between their intelligence agencies.
Stop believing the fear mongering nonsense told to you by people who only stand to gain power, favor and/or financial rewards by furthering these surveill
Re:Comparative sacrifice (Score:5, Interesting)
Snowden's revelations are much more important to the world as a whole. That the punishment wreaked on the person in Pakistan is much worse than that Snowden has yet received is beside the point. By exposing a corrupt machine that is used in the process of killing numerous innocents around the world through drone attacks is but one example of how Snowden's information can save many lives. Then of course there is the privacy right of the entire fucking planet. Female education abuses in some parts of Pakistan are important, but they just aren't anything like the scale of Snowden's whistleblowing.
Re:Comparative sacrifice (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think that comparing "importance" is very difficult. But in this situation I think on the grounds of "impact" Snowden carries the day. But then I'm an American and see the impact of Snowden more first-hand.
It depends on what criteria this group judges by.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Both are important. Without freedom you can only receive the eduction someone wants you to have. Without "proper" education you don't know what freedom is. You are both correct, and neither is more important than the other.
To that end, that is why the US Constitution and Bill of Rights define what our liberties are. None weigh more than another, since all are required to be a "free" person.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Comparative sacrifice (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd have to say education is a much more important, more fundamental right than phone/internet privacy. The damage done to people and societies by preventing girls from going to school is much greater than the NSA reading their emails.
It's not just privacy. It's the right not to be scrutinized by an agency of a government that calls its own dissenting citizens who speak out about oil spills, bloody wars on false pretenses, dangerous chemical pollution, or corruption "terrorists". It's a right to have a voice and dignity and due process in a law-abiding country instead of being tampered with and manipulated by bought politicians serving as the lackeys of their for-profit corporate donors.
This ties into every issue anywhere that the NSA and related agencies project power, and that's all over the globe. It's everywhere a grassroots needs to step up to a corporate/government/financial juggernaut about anything, including the women in school in Pakistan.
This government will give everything you've sent or received through your phone or your laptop to a foreign agency with at most a rubber stamp from a court that the public knows nothing about, but will - yes - hand the educational system of America over to predatory lenders and ensconced social elites rather than earnest teachers and staff.
The government that is invading privacy is also denying your right to know about what is in your food and your medicine. Seen the recent headline about Bayer? This same government that has invaded all of our privacy still guarded Bayer's secrecy when its medication for hemophiliacs was infected with HIV and has thus allowed hundreds, perhaps thousands of people to be infected, to protect Bayer's profits at the cost of lives.
This government will record your every call, but it won't prosecute the banks which shredded the world's economy and have illegally foreclosed homes - some of which were owned by people who'd bought them with cash with no bank involved, ever, for "lack of evidence."
And yes, this government will send drones over skies foreign and domestic, and without due process fire missiles, napalm, chemicals, and bullets made of radioactive waste into civilian areas all over the planet, including Pakistan. Schools count, but imagine going to school where the missiles can fall arbitrarily. It will call the instigators of these crimes leaders, and the whistleblowers traitors, and use these privacy-invading tools to manipulate people and hunt down those who step out of line.
This government will protect Wall Street while infiltrating dissenting movements with psy-ops and undercover agitators who generate the props for cheap propaganda to justify gestapo tactics in a supposedly free country, and use its surveillance tools to know better how to deliver its deceitful war. PRISM is an abuse of power meant to help politicians abuse even more power at will.
Malala and Snowden have both done awesome things in the face of power that would crush them and kill them and then lie to the public about the whole matter, and it'd be stupid to compare their personal level of heroism. I mean, some of us might only get the clear opportunity to get a cat out of a tree, whatever our merit. Snowden got a chance to expose an oppressor of a much more central and global nature. That's what makes his arena more widely significant, and I think that deserves consideration.
Re: (Score:2)
Well stated, too bad I have no mod points.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think the big issue is that they were reading emails then you are one of the most clueless people on the planet.
There can be no greater damage to a (supposed) democracy than the undermining of every principle for which is stood. There are many countries where women are free to get an education, and I certainly insist that it is an inalienable right that no
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I disagree.
pakistan has their problems and frankly, I don't care one bit about what issues they have. they are localized to their own culture and we have no business even trying to change their culture. they own their own and when they are good and ready, they'll change. maybe.
otoh, the NSA taps the whole world and I do believe that privacy is a core fundamental right of every single person.
what pakistan does affects one country. the NSA fucks things up for everyone. its far more serious and affects pr
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Was going to say the same thing, it's horrible that Malala got shot in the face but this isn't a Suffering At the Hands of Tyrants Award AFAIK.
And leaking proof that the NSA is spying on everyone on the planet and making a mockery of the US legal system > saying inspiring things in the name of women's education in a particular region of the middle east. Sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
The punishment in Pakistan is being dumped on a whole class of people, not just one girl. The scale of drone attacks is large, but the scale of terrorist attacks and roadside bombs and retaliation attacks and honor killings is larger, and that's before you get into the whole issue of depriving an entire generation and gender of education and rights.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, Snowden didn't know he'd be able to get asylum, and the death penalty was only taken off the table [washingtonpost.com] in an attempt to keep the Russians from giving it to him.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt death penalty was ever on the table, except in the words of some politicians trying to score points.
Re: (Score:3)
Malala gets this one hands-down. Both made very important statements we must pay attention to, but a fucking headshot beats hanging out in a Russian airport IMHO.
Arguably, they are risking the same thing: Both knew that they were taking a bullet to the head risk. Only one got a bullet to the head. If we're judging these people on the basis of the risks they took on behalf of human rights, they are equal. If we're only judging them based on how much punishment they took for making the choices they did, then all human rights' awards would be post-humous.
Although both were risking death, the fact that one of them escaped it apparently matters to you. I sincerely hope y
Martyr is not preferable but it happens (Score:3)
I see what you are saying, however there is a difference between dying for a cause and dying because of a cause.
Had the Taliban successfully snuffed her, she'd already be a martyr -- and a reinforcement why the Taliban must be stopped. Malala gets recognised for standing up for her rights, whether she got capped or not... the fact that she took one to the lobe made her voice louder, and the fact that she lived means she will not soon be forgotten like most martyrs because she can still speak.
Re:Martyr is not preferable but it happens (Score:5, Insightful)
Had the Taliban successfully
You missed my point. When we're discussing a human rights award, it should be on the merits of the actions they took, not the consequences they suffered. It doesn't matter whether she took one bullet, or five hundred, or none at all, or whether she lived, or died. She stood up against an injustice and that is what is being rewarded... not that she couldn't get out of the way fast enough, or they were better armed, etc.
To say that taking a bullet somehow makes your action more noble than the guy sitting next to you doing the same thing, but not getting hit by the bullet, is a slap in the face to both people with fast reflexes, and every soldier who watched their buddy get turned into hamburger and thought: "Holy shit, that could have been me." The guy that got hamburgered signed up for the same thing as the guys that made it back. They had the same job. The same training. That's what makes is so damned hard to live with -- survivors guilt. There isn't a reason why it should have been him instead of you. Maybe some physics about artillery shells or some other abstract thing of no comfort... but the fact is, there wasn't a deliberate choice. Sometimes bad shit just happens to people. Getting fucked over doesn't earn you an award: Taking the risk of losing everything for a chance at doing good does.
Re: (Score:2)
but a fucking headshot beats hanging out in a Russian airport IMHO.
For some reason, I misread this as "hanging at a Russian airport". Neither felt preferable to me.
But I still think that Iceland should have granted him asylum. Just think of the possibilities. "Hi, I'm Edward Snowden. Welcome to my snow den."
Re: (Score:3)
Just think of the possibilities. "Hi, I'm Edward Snowden. Welcome to my snow den."
Yeah, but how you gonna get there if he's snowed in?
Re: (Score:2)
Iceland couldn't grant Snowden asylum. It's an island with no army and no neighbours to buffer it from US peacekeeping operation. Nor could it smuggle him out of country through a blockade.
France with its nuclear weapons might have worked.
Re: (Score:2)
Both made important statements. However, that one managed to get away afterwards shouldn't weight against him.
Also, let's be honest here: that religion-dominated countries are horrible places to live is not news to anyone, nor is islamic countries being especially bad for women.
Re:Comparative sacrifice (Score:5, Interesting)
Snowden was and continues to be at far higher risk of assassination than Malala. He's just been luckier.
So far.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's not forget that DoJ promised Snowden wouldn't be tortured if he were returned to the U.S. As in, it was on the table and everyone assumed that would happen.
Correct, everyone assumed that if Snowden were returned to the U.S. then his torture would happen.
Re:Comparative sacrifice (Score:4, Insightful)
Snowden was and continues to be at far higher risk of assassination than Malala.
I don't think that's true. At this point Snowden being free is just embarrassing to the US. He's apparently already given the press everything he knows so killing him isn't going to improve anything from the NSA's perspective. On the other hand, if Snowden meets with a peculiar "accident" then the US government just comes out of it looking bad. Malala, on the other hand, is more than just an embarrassment to the extremists who shot her. She has chosen to remain vocal for her cause and therefore represents a continuing threat because she acts a nucleation site for the more liberal attitudes they are seeking to suppress.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Snowden was and continues to be at far higher risk of assassination than Malala. He's just been luckier.
So far.
Snowden is at no risk of assassination from the United States. He is at risk for arrest and prosecution for the crime of espionage. The most likely outcome of that would be a long sentence in prison. The only American citizens that the US has been targeting are those that have taken up arms against it such as al Qaida leader Anwar al-Awlaki [go.com].
If you want to claim otherwise, I think you need to provide some evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
The only American citizens that the US has been targeting are those that have taken up arms against it such as al Qaida leader Anwar al-Awlaki [go.com].
And that was proven in which court of law?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If you bothered to read the story it's nothing more than a series of accusations. If we did domestically what we did overseas, you would have nodded sagely at the drone strike that took out Richard Jewell, because accusations == proof.
What a pernicious hack you are. You wouldn't hesitate to argue that Israel is justified in fighting the existential threat p
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/us/us-acknowledges-killing-4-americans-in-drone-strikes.html [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Such a cynic. He merely has an elevated risk of having an accident.
Re:Comparative sacrifice (Score:5, Insightful)
Malala gets this one hands-down.
If that happens, the spectacle has officially won. Someone saying something that's a brave thing to say and getting an unusually extreme reaction to it isn't even on the same scale as someone revealing a world-wide illegal conspiracy affecting pretty much everyone in the civilized world.
Re: (Score:2)
Malala gets this one hands-down. Both made very important statements we must pay attention to, but a fucking headshot beats hanging out in a Russian airport IMHO.
I disagree, strongly. Have you actually listened to her speeches? Sample:
"If you want to see peace in Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan; if you want to end the war; to fight against the war; then instead of sending guns send books,â
Riiiiiiiiiiight. The only reason she's so popular is because she's a harmless photo-op for politicians who a
Re: (Score:2)
Except she had no idea what she was doing (if anything) at the time she did it, and only became a "hero" by surviving, or being saved by British doctors.
Snowden, on the other hand knew he was putting himself in the bullseye for the head-shot, knew ahead of time that he had to give up
everything he had, and would very likely end up (best case) in prison, or worst-case dead of a head-shot "trying to escape".
Malala has changed nothing, for all her suffering. Islam is still Islam. Snowden has changed the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Malala gets this one hands-down. Both made very important statements we must pay attention to, but a fucking headshot beats hanging out in a Russian airport IMHO.
But Malala didn't volunteer to get shot in the head, that was done to her, although she has displayed great personal fortitude since then.
Contrast that with Snowden who deliberately gave up his career, his family, his girl friend, and his life to date to reveal the US's dirty doings. My Vote is for Snowden.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Comparative sacrifice (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not like you'd actually ask to be shot in the head to prove your worth.
No, but it takes a lot more guts to stand up to armed gunmen for what you believe in than run away where they can't get you. She might not have chosen to take a bullet to the head, but she did choose to confront the cowards & show the world what they truly are and risk her life doing so. Unlike what some would like, Snowden only risked life behind bars.
Re:Comparative sacrifice (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
That's the problem with this kind of award, it turns it into a contest which seems rather gauche. "Oh yeah, well this person got shot in the head, beat that!"
That's reason enough to not use that as a criteria for the award. They should be asking how much of an impact the individual had on human rights and for how many people (and probably giving weight to impact on Europeans for this prize).
Malala was very brave, had a terrible thing happen to her, by very bad people, and stood up for an excellent cause.
Re:Comparative sacrifice (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a human rights prize, not a guts prize. Utilitaristically, Snowden has done a lot more for a lot more people than Malala Yousafzai.
Re: (Score:3)
This is a human rights prize, not a guts prize. Utilitaristically, Snowden has done a lot more for a lot more people than Malala Yousafzai.
What's the purpose of the prize? Typically it's the increase awareness of the issue, in order to help motivate change. Everyone's talking about Snowden and NSA surveillance. Plenty of people are talking about Yousafzai as well, but I think that cause would benefit from the extra attention more than the anti-surveillance issue would benefit. Snowden getting the prize is really just going to deteriorate into a conversation about anti-US sentiment in Europe, instead of the real issue.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you bloody kidding me?!?!?
Are you bloody kidding me?!?!?
It's highly debatable if Snowden actually risked his life for what he did. Even if he did, it would be at the hands of a well organized state, so he would know the time, place and means.
Yeah, maybe he wouldn't be assassinated, just deported back to the US for a show trial and get slammed with a 35 year sentence. So given life expectancy at around 70 years, he just risked *half* of his life.... I mean, when he gets out from a 35 year jail he'll just be in his sixties, it's not like he doesn't have many more years before him!
Or have you forgotten that the same people who tried to silence her are also responsible for throwing acid in these young girls faces, poisoning the water wells these schools use, and other horrid ways to terrify little girls.
The same people trying to silence Snowden are also known to employ tactics considered torture, like waterboarding, hypothermia, sleep depri
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike what some would like, Snowden only risked life behind bars.
Not so - Washington power brokers were calling for Snowden to swing from the gallows, and that's after he got NDAA'ed and waterboarded at Gitmo.
Obama offered to not execute him for one specific charge if Putin would give him up.
Re: (Score:2)
The US does not like to call it "water boarding" so they can say it was not common or not used or not found.
If you do some reading Cold you can easily find the term the US liked was "wet towel" technique to contain the perception of water boarding.
Re: (Score:2)
"Unlike what some would like, Snowden only risked life behind bars."
Only life behind bars? Funny things can happen in jail, you know. And maybe you should tell the innocents that were incarcarated in Guatanamo that they should be happy because they were still set free and not killed on the spot.
Re: (Score:2)
Snowden only risked life behind bars.
What kind of fantasy world are you living in where pissing off several of the most powerful intelligence agencies is not risking your life? These guys routinely kill people for a lot less.
Plus awards should be given for what you did and what good that caused to happen, not for what evil has befallen you. If that were what matters, there are many thousands who had it much worse than a headshot.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Hey, aren't you guys suppose to leave your office this morning due to the U.S. government shutdown?
Does your boss know you are still trolling forums?
Re: (Score:2)
ITS A TRAP!!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:ITS A TRAP!!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
As it is said... (Score:2, Insightful)
Pissing off the US Govt. may mean that Snowden is happy with that and anything else is just gravy. . .
Re: (Score:3)
Awards are for those that need them.
Pissing off the US Govt. may mean that Snowden is happy with that
Yes, that was clearly Snowden's goal. Social change, government by consent, he didn't even think about that hippy-dippy stuff.
No award is going to protect that girl from more attacks by the Taliban. They don't give a damn about what the west thinks about her, if anything they'll see it as a challenge - once again the west trying to attack their religion. But if the award goes to Snowden it makes it that much harder for the US to put him in prison.
If the US tried to put Mandela in prison for being a terro
Re: (Score:2)
So what? You didn't dispute the basis of my post, are you doing so now? Under what rationale? Or was it really just another way for your to be snippy about some group you don't like?
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Snowden should get the Nobel Peace Prize. (Score:5, Insightful)
In contrast, Obama had done fuck all before receiving the Prize. His most relevant achievement at the time was to be Not Dubya. He also managed to be the first black president of the US, which is noteworthy but in itself hardly something to award a Peace Prize for
Re:Snowden should get the Nobel Peace Prize. (Score:5, Insightful)
Consider that's Zionist revisionist history. Arafat was willing to make huge concessions to Israel, letting them keep a great deal of land illegally sized in the 1967 war. Israel kept moving the goalposts on the peace deal until it fell apart.
Because Israel doesn't want peace, it wants land and complete military dominance in the region. It's why Bibi is running around right now threatening Iran for having the nuclear weapons program his own minister of defense says Iran doesn't have. [globalresearch.ca]
Re:Snowden should get the Nobel Peace Prize. (Score:5, Insightful)
For what it is worth, the grandparent probably went too far. But it seems pretty clear Israel don't want any peace with the Palestinians. If they really wanted peace, they wouldn't continuously make that peace harder and harder to achieve, by creating settlements further and further into the occupied territories. They know they are winning and are showing no sign of wanting to stop.
Re: (Score:2)
Asylum? (Score:5, Insightful)
Boy, that will really send a message to the US.
You know what else would send a message? Asylum.
But if no one's feeling that bold, I'm sure the award will really pick Eddie's spirits up during the Russian winter.
Re:Asylum? (Score:5, Insightful)
You know what else would send a message?
An EU member giving Snowden asylum and the CIA *still* finding a way to put him in Guantanamo or some other concentration camp. That's the reason it's better for Snowden not to even be offered asylum by any country too close to the Americans.
Both? (Score:5, Interesting)
People have shared the Nobel Peace Prize and such before, why not award the prize to both Snowden and Malala this year? What they each did took a tremendous amount of courage and has made a powerful statement for human rights everywhere. And when I think about it, pissing off the Taliban the next village is a very scary and brave thing to do, but then so is pissing off the most powerful government on the planet which commands unlimited numbers of scary commandos, assassins, and gunmen who can kill you no matter where you go. They're both epic, epic heros for what they've done.
Props to the Green Party (Score:5, Insightful)
PRICELESS (Score:2)
Fighting for the rights for women to get education is a very noble act by Malala (and she very nearly paid a heavy price for it with her life), but Snowden revealing the NSA spying AND pissing off the most powerful and most arrogant nation in the world?...PRICELESS...oooh, I'm getting a tingling feeling all over.
you should get (Score:3, Funny)
a bullet in the kneecap
Re:he should get (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
She didn't really do much for human rights within the European Union. Snowden did.
Re:There's three nominees (Score:5, Informative)
It's three Belarusian political prisoners.
Belarus is a European country that has a really nasty government that has basically continued in the Soviet era style despite the fall of the Soviet Union. Some call it the last dictatorship in Europe.
The Belarusians are already up for the Nobel Peace Prize and have won the Vaclav Havel Human Rights Award.