General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe ACLU's own text contradicts its case for Snowden's asylum bid.
e)veryone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." The American Convention on Human Rights explicitly provides for a right of an individual "to seek and be granted asylum in a foreign territory, in accordance with the legislation of the state and international conventions, in the event he is being pursued for political offenses or related common crimes."
In the case of Mr. Snowden, the United States has interfered with his right to seek asylum in two significant ways. First, the U.S. revoked Mr. Snowden's passport.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/human-rights-national-security/us-actions-snowden-case-threaten-right-seek-asylum
The right does not apply to "non-political" crimes. Snowden's crime is not political, it's criminal. Leaking classified information is against the law. He's not escaping "persecution" as a potential political prisoner. He's a fugitive from criminal prosecution.
Bruce Schneier:
But before the Justice Department prosecutes Snowden, there are some other investigations that ought to happen.
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/06/prosecuting_sno.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023068663
Jimmy Carter on Snowden: "He's obviously violated the laws of America, for which he's responsible."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023119933
Snowden took a job with the intent of stealing information, and after doing so fled the country, leaked the information and revealed U.S. state secrets to other countries.
by Michael Tomasky
If this South China Morning Post story is right, Edward Snowden isn't admirable in the least and is nothing more than a spy:
Edward Snowden secured a job with a US government contractor for one reason alone – to obtain evidence on Washington’s cyberspying networks, the South China Morning Post can reveal.
For the first time, Snowden has admitted he sought a position at Booz Allen Hamilton so he could collect proof about the US National Security Agency’s secret surveillance programmes ahead of planned leaks to the media.
“My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked,” he told the Post on June 12. “That is why I accepted that position about three months ago.”
That's a spy. Period. True, he did not do the usual spy thing of selling the information. Lots of spies haven't been in it for the money. Start with Philby and his circle and go on from there. It seems quite obvious from his own words that Snowden is a sort of post-ideological Philby. If he's committed to an -ism, it's probably a vague kind of techno-post-nation-ism in which the nation state is perforce a tyrannical entity and must therefor become a thing of obsolesence. That, along with a healthy dose of me-ism.
- more -
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/24/snowden-is-a-spy.html
During his online chat, Snowden gave the impression that he hacked the system:
I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you, or your accountant, to a federal judge, to even the President if I had a personal email.
Do you stand by that, and if so, could you elaborate?
Answer:
Yes, I stand by it. US Persons do enjoy limited policy protections (and again, it's important to understand that policy protection is no protection - policy is a one-way ratchet that only loosens) and one very weak technical protection - a near-the-front-end filter at our ingestion points. The filter is constantly out of date, is set at what is euphemistically referred to as the "widest allowable aperture," and can be stripped out at any time. Even with the filter, US comms get ingested, and even more so as soon as they leave the border. Your protected communications shouldn't stop being protected communications just because of the IP they're tagged with.
More fundamentally, the "US Persons" protection in general is a distraction from the power and danger of this system. Suspicionless surveillance does not become okay simply because it's only victimizing 95% of the world instead of 100%. Our founders did not write that "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all US Persons are created equal."
He's basically responding to a question about having "authorities" with a statement that implies he could hack the system.
Then there is this:
Report: Snowden Stored Documents On Thumb Drive
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023010060
Within hours of news breaking that the US had filed charges against Snowden, the South China Morning Post reported that the whistleblower had handed over a series of documents to the paper detailing how the US had targeted Chinese phone companies as part of a widespread attempt to get its hands on a mass of data.
Text messaging is the most popular form of communication in mainland China where more than 900bn SMS messages were exchanged in 2012.Snowden reportedly told the paper: "The NSA does all kinds of things like hack Chinese cellphone companies to steal all of your SMS data."
The paper said Snowden had also passed on information detailing NSA attacks on China's prestigious Tsinghua University, the hub of a major digital network from which data on millions of Chinese citizens could be harvested.
As Snowden made his latest disclosures, the US issued an extradition request to Hong Kong and piled pressure on the territory to respond swiftly. "If Hong Kong doesn't act soon, it will complicate our bilateral relations and raise questions about Hong Kong's commitment to the rule of law," a senior Obama administration official said.
- more -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/22/edward-snowden-us-china
Snowden plans more leaks...will let foreign press decide if leaks endanger Americans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023084875
Does anyone see a distinction between the government and the press in China?
What are the chances that the Chinese press didn't turn the information over to the government?
Did he think about that or is he naive? Could that be the reason for his repeated denials?
Snowden: I never gave any information to Chinese or Russian governments
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10023215155
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
GeorgeGist
(25,570 posts)I'm pretty confident that non-authoritarian states would consider Mr. Snowden's actions as political.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I'm pretty confident that non-authoritarian states would consider Mr. Snowden's actions as political. "
..."non-authoritarian state" like China and Venezuela?
Does Snowden know Venezuela records and broadcasts activists' phone calls?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023204235
11 Bravo
(24,310 posts)is without merit.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Unless you forgot the sarcasm thingy … I wish I had known that cites to supporting documentation proved that an argument is without merit! I could have really used that wisdom in my Grad School and Law School days, since both insisted on those "linky-facty" things.
Cha
(319,079 posts)use the sarcasm tag, 1StrongBlackMan. 
Understandable if you haven't read him a lot.. to wonder.
11 Bravo
(24,310 posts)that not everybody is a sarcastic SOB like me.) 
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)My bad. I can do sarcasm with the best of them; but on DU? ... Hell ... any thread castigating President Obama, defending GAS (I really liked when a DUer used that for greenwald, assuange and snowden, collectively ... noting that they seem to be one in the same) or containing the terms "whistle-blower", "authoritarian" or "Democrat"? These day, there's no telling!
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
Progressive dog
(7,603 posts)LOL
BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)as a condition of asylum?
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)I don't see too many that are sympathetic except those which are decidedly authoritarian.
Just sayin'
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)He leaked documents and information on illegal and immoral activities. He didn't sell the information, or provide it to another intelligence agency (foreign) exclusively. In other words, he didn't just hand it over to the Chinese Intelligence, or the Russian Intelligence. He released it to the world in an effort to raise awareness of the extent of the spying on the population. PUBLIC AWARENESS.
That qualifies to many in the world as a whistleblower, exposing illegal and immoral activity by our Government. Now, give me a choice between siding with an Authoritarian view of the issue, and the ACLU, historic defenders of Civil Rights, and guess which way I, a Liberal with a long history of defending civil rights will go?
"He leaked documents and information on illegal and immoral activities."
...bullshit! The fact that you're trying to make that claim shows how baseless the whistleblower label is.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)For the government to spy on the citizens?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"So your contention is that it is both legal and moral For the government to spy on the citizens?"
...my "contention" is that this claim:
"He leaked documents and information on illegal and immoral activities."
...is bullshit! The fact that you're trying to make that claim shows how baseless the whistleblower label is.
It's illegal and immoral for the government to spy on the citizens, but Snowden revealed no such activities.
The claim is bullshit.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Then what do they want him for? What crimes did he commit? He is accused of releasing the warrant for Verizon to give up all user data every single day to the DOJ/NSA/Everybody else with an alphabet soup name. He is accused of releasing information on PRISM, which was the seizing of all internet data including emails, and browser patterns. Search data from search engines. He is accused of exposing our fiber optic line tapping operations, where we spy on the worlds internet. He is accused of exposing our spying operations on foreign individuals and Governments.
So he didn't release information on the Government spying on us, the Verizon warrant was a forgery? Wow, that's awesome. Then he didn't release information on PRISM, and other data collection by the NSA? Awesome. So why do we want him again? What crime did he commit? Oh that's right. He stole classified data on programs that supposedly don't exist. You understand, that if they try him they'll have to admit that the programs exist, and they'll have to describe the damage done to the nation by the exposure of these programs.
You can't have it both ways. If he stole information that was top secret, the top secret information that was made public, then the programs, and the immoral/illegal activity exists. If the programs that are agreed by you to be immoral and illegal, do in fact exist, then he committed no crime because he exposed immoral and illegal activity.
RC
(25,592 posts)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)RC
(25,592 posts)All I am doing is pointing.
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)
RL
Zorra
(27,670 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Then what do they want him for? What crimes did he commit?"
From the OP, Bruce Schneier:
But before the Justice Department prosecutes Snowden, there are some other investigations that ought to happen.
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/06/prosecuting_sno.html
People are free to ignore facts, but they're still facts. So go on, keep ignoring them.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)I contend, and you agreed that the Government was performing illegal and immoral spying upon the citizenry. The release of this criminal and immoral activity is exactly what whistleblowing is all about. Exposing corruption and violations of the law and the outright lies of the Government. So if the information is true, that the Government is performing illegal and immoral spying upon us, then Snowden did commit a technical crime, by exposing a much larger criminal activity. (Be sure to snip only part of the sentence to support your argument) That is by the common sense and reasonable definition exactly what Whistleblowers are supposed to do, expose illegal and immoral activity within the Government.
So if you say that the information is valid, then the larger issue of the illegal and immoral activity of those within the Government must be the first concern. The larger crime trumps the smaller criminal activity. Additionally, we do not recognize the right to keep such illegal activity secret. It is not covered by Attorney Client Privilege for example. A lawyer can not be informed of criminal activity, if so, he loses the privilege of the Attorney Client Protections. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%E2%80%93client_privilege#Disclosure_to_prevent_a_crime.2C_tort.2C_or_fraud
If an attorney learns from his client that the client is intending to commit a crime, then the attorney is legally bound to notify authorities. In doing so the attorney is not violating attorney client privilege, because there is no legal authority to keep a criminal act secret. There is some debate about the relationship between clergy and parishioner. Yet, we have tried and convicted ministers for conspiracy to commit crimes. They had no religious justification to keep criminal activity secret under the law.
Game, set, match. Better luck next time.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"But the nature of the information is what we were debating. I contend, and you agreed that the Government was performing illegal and immoral spying upon the citizenry."
A leak is a leak. The crime isn't whether the informaton shows wrongdoing or not, it's leaking said information.
Whistleblower protections are in place for those who exposed illegal activitivities by the goverment. Snowden bypassed those protections for a reason.
Snowden did not reveal wrongdoing, he simply leaked classified information and shared U.S. state secrets with the world.
"Game, set, match. Better luck next time. "
Again, continue ignoring the facts.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)You utterly ignored the examples of even the civil rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights, the right to an attorney, does not give the attorney protection against conspiracy charges in failing to report criminal activity. You ignored that point, the point goes to me.
You ignored my examples of the ineligibility of religious protections in failing to inform authorities of criminal activity. The point is mine, you were unable to counter it.
So we have Attorney Client Privilege, one of the most necessary protections in our legal system that has an exception. Even with that privilege which is center to the ability under the Bill of Rights to get adequate representation, there is no protection for an attorney who is informed of a crime and fails to inform others. Again, the point is mine, the point is that there is no legal authority to insist that criminal activity be kept secret.
One of us is missing the point. If you possess adequate reading comprehension, then the term willfully could be inserted.
RC
(25,592 posts)You are people, are you not? Or just a person? Many of your long winded posts would do a Right-wing BLOG justice.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023231312
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023217632
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023203719
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023191175
And so on.
The problem is not Edward Snowden, but what our government is doing to us and the world. No matter how you twist, distort and throw tires on the fire, for your smoke screen, all Snowden is doing is exposing political wrong doing by our government. That is why he, Snowden, is a political refugee seeking political asylum. By no stretch of the imagination is it legal to hoover up all of our electronic commutations into huge data bases, for later searching. No matter how much you distort reality to try to make it as somehow legal, because a "warrant" was used. And a rubber stamped one at that.
A reading of the 4th Amendment by most anyone with a 5th grade education or above, would question the legality of what our government is doing in our name to "protect us" by hoovering up our digital communications.
Protect who? Most certainly not us, but themselves. That is obvious, yet you defend their action as somehow right and moral, because you think it is legal? Legal, yet in obvious violation of the Constitution, because a Right-leaning court ruled it is legal, in spite of the wording of that Constitution?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)The first true court test will come. I say first true court test, because the ACLU has filed a lawsuit saying that the Government monitoring of their phone calls and internet violates attorney client privilege, and the 4th Amendment.
So now, if the court is able to accept this case, that is to say if the Justice Department allows it, then it will be the first true test of the constitutionality of this program. All other challenges have been shut down, so as far as we can tell, it is not legal. If it was legal, and the Government had nothing to hide (Illegal activity) then they would be willing to state for the record they were not violating the constitution, and prove it. But they've always shut down the information requests. Now, they don't have that excuse.
The enemy knows we're capturing cell phone calls, the Verizon Documents proved that. The frothing at the mouth pursuit of Snowden in defiance of and in violation of international law is proof that the claims are absolutely accurate. The desperation to get him back proves that they are beyond desperate to get him back.
Therefore we can assume that the courts will find it illegal, unless the Democratic Party is counting on the Rethug Constitution violating bastards on the court like Roberts and Scalia to back them up. If so, then that tells me our Government is certainly doing things that are both immoral, and illegal.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)that's the inherent problem with Democracy.....Sometimes things are not the way YOU like them.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)If my reading comprehension is at least minimal, and the 4th Amendment has any principle behind it, then it is illegal. Passing a law, and then deciding that the Court System has no jurisdiction over it, certainly isn't legal. For our system to work, the checks and balances must have free hand to oversee one another.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)However, we can fight to make it change...
The first step is knowing the facts and not being hyperbolic.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)The thing is, it "was" legal when Snowden did whatever he did.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)The legality is often determined after the fact, by court review. It was legal to ban Gay Marriage under Prop 8 until the Courts ruled that it wasn't. It was legal to beat confessions out of prisoners until the court ruled it wasn't. It was legal to hang people until the court said it wasn't. Shall I continue?
Drug Dogs taken onto your property would seem to be just fine. After all they can walk around your car until they get a hit, or a hint of a hit to justify a search. But it was ruled unconstitutional when a Detective did just that. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/26/drug-sniffing-dogs-unconstitutional-search_n_2956079.html
Was just fine, until it wasn't.
It was illegal for Citizen United to pour tons of cash into the political process, until the Supreme Court ruled that it was an abridgement of free speech, and thus perfectly legal to buy elections under the guise of free speech.
Shall I continue even more? The Courts have implemented some of our finest legal principles, and some of our worst. But the decision if something ultimately is, or is not legal, rests in the hands of our Judicial System. By excluding the entire third branch of Government from the discussion, you provide cover for an immoral, and illegal policy. Until it finds full judicial review, it can't be considered truly legal. Even then, it should be stopped because again, it is at the very minimum immoral.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)Doesn't mean they throw everyone in jail when it was legal.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Which is how it got before the court in the first place.
AllINeedIsCoffee
(772 posts)Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)What legal credentials do you posses that gives you such authority to declare Snowden's actions "non-political" ?
Do any of the dreaded blue linkies offer his actions were non-political or did you simply make that up in your own little head?
Cheers!
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"What legal credentials do you posses that gives you such authority to declare Snowden's actions 'non-political'? "
...I realize common sense doesn't count for much, but do you think Snowden is being "persecuted" as a potential political prisoner?
Do you think the that leaking classified information is not a criminal offense?
G_j
(40,569 posts)Ever engage in a discussion of liberal/democratic/progressive ideas for the pure love of those ideas and principles?
polichick
(37,626 posts)
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)If congress passes a law making what you consider a political crime a 'crime' is it then a political crime anymore?
If a government calls something a crime is it automatically one and therefore no longer covered under Article 14?
" e)veryone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."
Definition of POLITICAL CRIME
: a violation of the law or of the public peace for political rather than private reasons; specif : one directed against a particular government or political system
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)I felt it needed repeating.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)he has political reasons for his crime too!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)cause clearly he had a political agenda....
Sancho
(9,205 posts)right to privacy, and unconstitutional FISA court actions.
Shooting the messenger (over and over and over again) won't change whatever happens to Snowden. It really doesn't matter.
I'd love to see more information released by Snowden if it's similar to the previous reveals. I don't want the US Gov. to spend my tax money intercepting ANY electronic information from me unless there's a public warrant issued by a public court.
If there was some "legal" way to find out what the spooks are up to, then that's another thing that ProSense might research. It appears that a number of folks have tried to use the courts, some previous whistleblowers have tried normal channels without success, and even Congress has been unable to get the truth out of the power-brokers. As such, is there any other way than Snowden or Wikileaks or something similar for us to ever find out? I suspect that Obama didn't really know everything the NSA was up to (if he knows now?).
...and for the record, I think the NSA efforts are far more "political" than truly aimed at keeping me safe.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I'd love to see more information released by Snowden if it's similar to the previous reveals."
...sure that's going to happen.
"Big news is that #Snowden is applying for political asylum in Russia"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023231657
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)and while what the NSA does is the law (excuse) it is not in the interests of our rights to privacy if we so chose to have our info be private. What's funny and yet sad is that there have been so many anti Snowden rants that it looks like some sort of deranged obsessive compulsive disorder.
gholtron
(376 posts)You bring all the evidence out. I try to do the same. Now that does not mean that I exonerate the government of any other crimes it has committed such as drone strikes on the innocent, illegal wars, etc. But I also feel that if there is someone or some organization trying to take down the government or threaten our national security over false allegations that we as citizens have to demand proof of these allegations or expose these people as traitors or enemies. It appears that Snowden is playing off of hype, innuendos, half truths and fear that the government is reading our emails or listening to our phone conversations. He has NO proof of any violations of the 4th amendment. He is just playing off the fact that government shouldn't be trusted and hope that his allegations will lead people to believe that their rights are being trampled on. Here is a guy that no one knows and he wants the world to believe him because he use to work there. Yet he doesn't want people to see the crimes that HE has committed with the theft of Government property and violating an oath that he signed not to expose secret documents. His actions have damaged relationships with our allies and only helped those who want to do us harm. It is clear that he has a dislike for the current administration and which that is his right. As time goes on and more evidence is brought forth from people like you, history will judge him not as a hero but as a traitor and instigator against this country.
Our administration has damaged our relationship with our allies. This focus on Snowden is BS and a weak smokescreen by those who lack any real morals or ethics. It's plain to see that anyone criticizing the current administration is fair game.
I'd love to see you, ProSense or Randome actually discuss real issues but you narrowly focus on Snowden. Why don't you tell my your position on the most recent drone killings of innocent people in Pakistan? How about why our government may be illegally spying on private companies, potentially stealing trade secrets? How does that keep us safer? Why, with all the info from russia did they not disrupt the Boston bombings? The apparatus according to the NSA is specifically designed to do just that. How about the pressure we applied to force down a plane with a head of state?
By the way, if Snowden had no bite, the administration would not be going after him so rabidly.
gholtron
(376 posts)is because of the false allegations of N.S.A breaking the law or in your words illegally spying on companies without proof of those allegations. The focus is on Snowden is because he is giving interviews, leaking confidential information. The focus is on Snowden is because he is asking countries for asylum and asking people to condemn the actions of the N.S.A. He made this a focus on him. You said, “It’s plain to see that anyone criticizing the current administration is fair game”. Well the same could be said that anyone that don’t like the current administration will go to such lengths to embarrass or bring down this administration. His views about whistleblowers changed from that of the Bush administration to the current administration. With lack of evidence of any laws being broken, we have to speculate why all of a sudden this was wrong. Remember the Patriot Act was created under the Bush administration. It was the Bush administration that did not seek warrants. The secret FISA court has been in existence well before the Obama administration and all of a sudden they are notorious in rubber stamping warrants? You want us to talk about the real issues of the collection of information. Well what are the issues? They are collecting the information legally. You might think it’s immoral but so are a lot of things that happens on a day to day basis. That does not mean that we break laws in the name of what you based is immoral.
It was wrong under Bush and it was abused. It is wrong now and it is being abused. Again, why the administration threats to other countries if this is a mole hill?
The ignorance displayed by saying Bush did it first is appalling. If you are so firm in your convictions, please lay them out.
Why should all metadata be stored on all communications inside and outside this country?
Why is it ok to hack our allies?
How exactly are we safer? You probably already forgot about the Boston bombing because it shows a failure in this system right? This system was specifically designed to stop this. We had a heads up and nothing was prevented.
I wish I could be so naive and blind but I don't believe a letter next to a candidates name makes everything they do ok. You really believe that because administration officials say they aren't doing some of what Snowden claims, that they are being truthful.
After every claim you guys change that line in the sand.
gholtron
(376 posts)
why the administration threats tis no other countries if this is a mole hill?
Because Snowden stole government equipment with top secret classified information on it. And he broke the law by leaking such information. He is wanted by this country to stand trial for those actions. If other countries are helping him escape illegally, then there will be diplomatic issues
Why should all metadata be stored on all communications inside and outside this country?
Because it's a legal intelligent tool in which it is used to track terrorist and then if something is found, another warrant could be requested to read the emails if there is probable cause.
Why is it ok to hack our allies?
There is no proof of that. If there was then that is wrong and should be addressed.
How exactly are we safer?
I can't answer that question.
I wish I could be so naive and blind but I don't believe a letter next to a candidates name makes everything they do ok. You really believe that because administration officials say they aren't doing some of what Snowden claims, that they are being truthful.
Do you believe a person that you don't know that hasn't proven any violation of law and asking for asylum in countries that have a far more worse human rights violations than our own? Isn't that violating his own morals? Isn't that's why he did what he did in the first place? And you say you wish you were so naive? Maybe your wish came true.
sickening. Nothing will move you from you unshakeable belief that Obama does no wrong.
There is a right of asylum and the Administration jumped the gun with their threats. No, they don't get to do what they did, that is why there is an uproar at the UN.
Wanna explain why with all the red flags, the Boston bombers did what they did? Isn't this intelligence web designed to pick up on such a visible and profound threat?? No? is it designed to store my contacts?
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2013/07/01/kerry-tries-quell-european-outrage-over-nsa-eavesdropping/i53kOnIwOOfb9BGM5fzkmM/story.html
Administration says no big deal, everyone does it. Does Kerry need proof or only Snowden?
I await your hypocrisy.
As far as countries with far greater human rights violations, that gulf isn't as wide as you hope for. Just this week another group of men women and children killed by a Good ole US of A drone.
Have you seen our prison system? Notice any patterns there? I will give you a hint, it has to do with the color of a persons skin. We are awful when it comes to human rights and we always have been. We have destroyed whole races throughout our short history but as long as you wrap yourself in that blanket of denial, we'll be ok.
None of this matters does it?
gholtron
(376 posts)Your hero committed a crime. He stole equipment with documents that are top secret. This has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PRESIDENT. If Snowden is being persecuted for his political beliefs then he has a right to asylum. But he is a thief and tratior. Just because you feel that a thief can get away without being brought to trial doesn't make it right.
I don't know why the Government could prevent the Boston terror. I did hear something that the Russian government did not share information with the FBI; however they did manage to catch them by tracing the cell phone of the owner of the car they hijacked BEFORE they could continue on to Time Square in NewYork.
disidoro01
(302 posts)Are you kidding me? lol
Since when does an alleged thief and traitor get all of this attention from our government? I, and the entire friggin world, do not believe that being accused of these things allows the US government to threaten other countries nor force down the plane of a head of state.
You know he has some damaging goods, don't you? Otherwise there is no way you'd be advocating a complete usurpation of international law, US law and good judgment.
Absolutely nothing alleged should have elicited the response the government has given.
gholtron
(376 posts)You go ahead and defend this Fucking traitor. God knows he can't get a lawyer to do it.
gholtron
(376 posts)Maybe if the NSA had read the emails or listen to the phone conversations of these Boston bombers as you and Snowden have alleged, then maybe it could have been prevented.
disidoro01
(302 posts)and do your research. Your intellectual laziness is disheartening. Half truths wrapped up in misguided beliefs.
sigmasix
(794 posts)sigmasix
(794 posts)
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)let us know
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)sort of feels like this with regards to the personal attacks every single time prosense posts anything.
How many times does the noble haters of the pro -Obama groups tell us that when they don't like a topic they simply don't open and move on. Yet...here they are.......swarming.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)And thank Bog he did.
I presume you are also calling for Clapper to be prosecuted for breaking the law when he lied to Congress?
If you could just blue link me to those threads where you are calling righteously for Clapper's prosecution it would be much appreciated. Thanks!
RC
(25,592 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)I haven't been deluged by a sea of blue links yet. ProSense is usually quite energetic in posting links that purport to support her position. I'm sure there must be some showing her calling for Clapper's head over his breaking of the law. I can't imagine she'd have a different view of him breaking the law as she does of Snowden breaking the law.
RC
(25,592 posts) Hmmm...Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)snip...
Both parties in Congress have declined to do anything about Clapper’s possible perjury. Sen. Wyden and Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) did not call for his removal; Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), and Reps. Mike Rogers (R-MI) and Dutch Ruppersberger (D-CA) have all declined to comment. “This administration views [NSA leaker Edward] Snowden as the problem, not Gen. Clapper,” said Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA).
http://blog.survivalstation.org/congress-set-to-let-dni-clapper-skate-on-possible-perjury-93284.html
Response to ProSense (Original post)
whatchamacallit This message was self-deleted by its author.
Progressive dog
(7,603 posts)at least the vast majority of the world's governments won't give it to him.
disidoro01
(302 posts)He didn't apply to the vast majority of the world's governments for asylum.
Progressive dog
(7,603 posts)and said they'd consider it. I didn't see any offers from the EU countries and even tiny Iceland didn't want him by a 10:1 vote in their parliament.
disidoro01
(302 posts)explain why he would go to the EU knowing they engage in the same behavior. But even they are outraged at how we snoop on them.
I think you are wrong on Iceland, they voted to table a vote on asylum, they did not vote to deny. It was on the last day before recess, why is that surprising? It will be taken up when they reconvene.
Forcing down Morales' plane through an intermediary tells you how badly the US wants him. It's crazy. Some countries not beholden to the US have stepped forward, those who rely on our money and are afraid of our penchant for regime change will not.
Progressive dog
(7,603 posts)he has asked for asylum are less free than most of the EU countries. As far as Iceland is concerned, tabling asylum is killing asylum.
disidoro01
(302 posts)the EU would not let him in. Parts of their network is being laid open.
You are wrong about Iceland, you should just drop it. Tabling a vote on the last day of session is nothing like killing asylum. It will be voted on in due time.
randome
(34,845 posts)If our laws apply to the entire planet then the entire planet is deemed to be governed by the United States.
The exact situation he claims to want to avoid.
The disconnect is immense.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Progressive dog
(7,603 posts)or Chinese concept?
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)inalienable, unalienable - Inalienable and unalienable are interchangeable for "unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unalienable
Progressive dog
(7,603 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and a principle from Nuremberg. Maybe you hadn't seen this as it was posted just minutes before your reply here. In citing the 4th and 5th, he said..."In my country....as it was one of three reasons given that he is adhering to. He makes no effort to tell the world it must abide to that particularly....or solely.
WovenGems
(776 posts)If one reveals info to a few for cash or other consideration that is spying. If here turns over inside info of a crime he is a whistleblower. Snowden fits neither definition.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/political-crime/
ProSense
(116,464 posts)In criminology, a political crime is an act or omission prejudicial to the interests of the state or government like espionage, sedition and treason. Political crimes generally arise from political disturbances. It includes offenses arising from attack on the political order. Extradition treaties evidences that political crimes involve violence and uprising of violent political disturbances. According to the principles of International law, the perpetrator of a political offense cannot be extradicted.
...I guess that's going to be largely determined by other countries' interpretations. In the U.S. he is charged with a criminal offense.
Snowden was charged with theft, “unauthorized communication of national defense information” and “willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person,” according to the complaint. The last two charges were brought under the 1917 Espionage Act.
- more -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-charges-snowden-with-espionage/2013/06/21/507497d8-dab1-11e2-a016-92547bf094cc_story.html
This is likely why Hong Kong didn't want him to stay, eventually claiming that the U.S. request included a mispelling of his name.
It's likely why Normay turned down his request.
Snowden’s asylum request rejected (Norway)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023170165
The only countries offering Snowden asylum are those wanting to snub the U.S.
Edward Snowden caught in asylum catch-22
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023233134
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)There is no wiggle room..
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts) 
hootinholler
(26,451 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)hootinholler
(26,451 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)hootinholler
(26,451 posts)polichick
(37,626 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)polichick
(37,626 posts)Well done you!
Cha
(319,079 posts)polichick
(37,626 posts)That's so chickenshit!
Cha
(319,079 posts)polichick
(37,626 posts)
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)Greenwald is a twit: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023244823