So what should happen to Edward Snowden? - Page 3

Bob001 · 25th November 2020, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

I'm sure the Kremlin could find a way to fly him to any nation of his choice, willing to grant him asylum. Not to mention the fact that many of those nations have intelligence services that could use some whistle-blowing.

The U.S. government forced down a plane carrying the President of Bolivia that they wrongly thought carried Snowden. Unless the Russians put him on a military transport, Snowden's not flying anywhere.
https://www.cnn.com/2013/07/02/world...ane/index.html

theprestige · 25th November 2020, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

The only question the jury would be allowed to consider at present is whether in fact he exposed secret documents. That's why the verdict is pre-ordained.

How is this different from every other verdict that's "pre-ordained" by giving the jury the agreed-upon facts and letting them issue a verdict?

Matthew Ellard · 25th November 2020, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

Your link is to a case about cannibalism. Snowden didn't kill and eat anybody and claim he had to.

Commonlaw (Judge made law) cases work by Stare decisis, where the majority judges make a decision and issue both a ratio for the current case's decision and issue an obiter dictum, that define how the created law applies to lower court cases.

That is how barristers and lawyers introduce the obiters from higher courts in court even though the case is not the same facts.

If the facts had to be exact matches, lawyers could not argue the higher decisions in lower court cases.....and yep......I'm a lawyer.

Necessity is not justification but may mitigate sentencing under sentencing guidelines.

Additionally. despite the war of independence, the USA continued with UK existing commonlaw rulings, and may apply to the court to use subsequent reached obiters across US and other jurisdictions. That's why I had to learn current USA superior court obiters in Australian and international taxation law.

Matthew Ellard · 25th November 2020, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

The only question the jury would be allowed to consider at present is whether in fact he exposed secret documents. That's why the verdict is pre-ordained.

There would be both criminal charges (beyond reasonable doubt) and a civil claim (on the balance of probabilities) as he signed a contract.

However as Snowden is making roughly USD $200,000 a year on the Russian Federation's sponsored speakers circuit, I doubt he will be leaving Moscow soon.

(I was in Moscow when Snowden arrived)

trustbutverify · 25th November 2020, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

The U.S. government forced down a plane carrying the President of Bolivia that they wrongly thought carried Snowden. Unless the Russians put him on a military transport, Snowden's not flying anywhere.
https://www.cnn.com/2013/07/02/world...ane/index.html

Putin's been poisoning his enemies to death and near death, all over the world. I think he can manage to transport one hero wherever he wants, if he was so motivated. In fact, i'd bet his advisors could come up with multiple methods.

theprestige · 25th November 2020, 04:34 PM

If Snowden is a hero that's trying to make America great again, why is Putin helping him at all?

trustbutverify · 25th November 2020, 04:49 PM

Same reason he helped McDonald Trumps Make America Great Again. He's an icon of peace and justice.

Roger Ramjets · 25th November 2020, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

If Snowden is a hero that's trying to make America great again Russian, why is Putin helping him at all?

Because 'Make America great again' is a synonym for 'Destroy America'.

In fact though, Putin doesn't really care whether America survives or not, so long as we don't get in the way of Russia's hegemony.

fishbob · 25th November 2020, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

The illegal activity he exposed was classified. Arguably classified because it was illegal, but classified nonetheless.

Classifying illegal activity to hide the existence of the illegal activity is illegal.
And an activity.

angrysoba · 25th November 2020, 08:31 PM

Okay, so just out of interest, is there any dispute that he exposed illegal behaviour, even if exposing it was itself illegal?

trustbutverify · 25th November 2020, 08:39 PM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Okay, so just out of interest, is there any dispute that he exposed illegal behaviour, even if exposing it was itself illegal?

No dispute here.

angrysoba · 25th November 2020, 08:41 PM

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

No dispute here.

May I ask if there have been any prosecutions of those conducting that illegal behaviour?

Matthew Ellard · 25th November 2020, 08:45 PM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Okay, so just out of interest, is there any dispute that he exposed illegal behaviour, even if exposing it was itself illegal?

Hang on. He released 15,000 Australian and 58,000 UK files and 50,000 to 150,000 USA files.

You would have a hard time in court arguing all those files concerned an illegal activity". Most were about normal secret procedural military activities. That's the dilemma with applying legislated whistle-blower protection. He can't say he saw evidence of a crime in all those files as his reason for acting as he did.
Snowden knew that and it will be argued he had the special knowledge that he was handing out secret evidence of both illegal and legal activities.

Chris Boyce initially received 40 years, but he didn't claim any of his material was concerning whistle-blowing an illegal activity.

trustbutverify · 25th November 2020, 09:12 PM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

May I ask if there have been any prosecutions of those conducting that illegal behaviour?

Well, since Trump was supposed to drain the swamp and defeat the deep state, and had 4 years to do so, I can only assume there were.

angrysoba · 25th November 2020, 09:15 PM

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

Hang on. He released 15,000 Australian and 58,000 UK files and 50,000 to 150,000 USA files.

You would have a hard time in court arguing all those files concerned an illegal activity". Most were about normal secret procedural military activities. That's the dilemma with applying legislated whistle-blower protection. He can't say he saw evidence of a crime in all those files as his reason for acting as he did.
Snowden knew that and it will be argued he had the special knowledge that he was handing out secret evidence of both illegal and legal activities.

Chris Boyce initially received 40 years, but he didn't claim any of his material was concerning whistle-blowing an illegal activity.

I see. So he was committing a more widespread crime than merely exposing illegal activity.

However, as I asked before, is there any dispute that some of what he exposed was illegal activity by someone in some US government capacity?

angrysoba · 25th November 2020, 09:18 PM

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

Well, since Trump was supposed to drain the swamp and defeat the deep state, and had 4 years to do so, I can only assume there were.

I am not sure if I understand what you mean. I guess you are being sarcastic here, and saying that you can't trust Trump to do anything as useful as prosecuting illegal activity, but I don't suppose it was merely his responsibility, was it? After all, haven't plenty of Trump's people ended up in jail themselves for certain activities? Roger Stone, Michael Flynn etc... people he has pardoned and some others as well.

Besides, surely some of this could have been prosecuted by the Obama administration.

Anyway, this brings me to my other question that I asked earlier:

From a utilitarian standpoint, is it better that he leaked it or would it have been better left concealed?

trustbutverify · 25th November 2020, 10:59 PM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I am not sure if I understand what you mean. I guess you are being sarcastic here, and saying that you can't trust Trump to do anything as useful as prosecuting illegal activity, but I don't suppose it was merely his responsibility, was it? After all, haven't plenty of Trump's people ended up in jail themselves for certain activities? Roger Stone, Michael Flynn etc... people he has pardoned and some others as well.

Besides, surely some of this could have been prosecuted by the Obama administration.

The same reason Nixon never went to prison for any of his many serious crimes. Power corrupts, and people treat those aligned with their interests much differently than those who aren't. Obama was, I am told, part of the "deep state" establishment that conducted these illegal activities, while Trump was the populist antidote to that system, who was going to tear it all down. He could have filled the DOJ with loyalists, and ordered them to prosecute, but, apparently, he didn't.

Quote:

Anyway, this brings me to my other question that I asked earlier:

From a utilitarian standpoint, is it better that he leaked it or would it have been better left concealed?

I honestly don't know. Putting justice aside, I don't know how useful the data collected was vs the privacy value.

angrysoba · 25th November 2020, 11:20 PM

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

The same reason Nixon never went to prison for any of his many serious crimes. Power corrupts, and people treat those aligned with their interests much differently than those who aren't. Obama was, I am told, part of the "deep state" establishment that conducted these illegal activities, while Trump was the populist antidote to that system, who was going to tear it all down. He could have filled the DOJ with loyalists, and ordered them to prosecute, but, apparently, he didn't.

I thought he didn't go to jail because he was pardoned.

But okay, if what Snowden revealed was illegal, then shouldn't someone somewhere who was doing the illegal stuff be prosecuted?

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

I honestly don't know. Putting justice aside, I don't know how useful the data collected was vs the privacy value.

Then is the defence of the surveillance program merely the same as Snowden's defence of exposing it?

Sure, what we did was illegal, but we were doing it for a higher cause? Then will these martyrs allow themselves to go on trial and plead their case? After all, a fair trial means making the same rules for everyone, right?

But it seems that they won't even have to go through that inconvenience.

Matthew Ellard · 26th November 2020, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I see. So he was committing a more widespread crime than merely exposing illegal activity

However, as I asked before, is there any dispute that some of what he exposed was illegal activity by someone in some US government capacity?

You are correct some of the approximate 175,000 files will contain illegal activity and most won't. The prosecutor will identify that to the court and ask the defendant if he undertook any activities to hold those non-illegal files back, knowing they were not illegal. The defendant has the special knowledge to know there is a difference, which exposes him in different ways to different groups of files.

That's the aim of a prosecutor, to separate the various criminal activities and prosecute accordingly. I imagine there will be a range of charges.

Matthew Ellard · 26th November 2020, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

From a utilitarian standpoint, is it better that he leaked it or would it have been better left concealed?

The defendant will have to show he exhausted all other procedural methods of bringing the illegal activities to the attention of authorities. If he does, then he may have a defence or anticipate a mitigated sentence. However it's the other legal but secret activities in files that is going to put him in jeopardy.

( I'm still not sure how he was able to get on a plane to Moscow without his "invitation to Russia" document at departure already lodged. I go through a Russian agency that obtains invitations from the hotels that I am staying at. However, that's another story about why and when he decided to go to Moscow)

angrysoba · 26th November 2020, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

The defendant will have to show he exhausted all other procedural methods of bringing the illegal activities to the attention of authorities. If he does, then he may have a defence or anticipate a mitigated sentence. However it's the other legal but secret activities in files that is going to put him in jeopardy.

( I'm still not sure how he was able to get on a plane to Moscow without his "invitation to Russia" document at departure already lodged. I go through a Russian agency that obtains invitations from the hotels that I am staying at. However, that's another story about why and when he decided to go to Moscow)

I have been to Russia and received an invitation letter as well. But I was staying there and had to report to some offices in Moscow and St Petersburg.

If you land in Russia on transit to another country, do you need an invitation? I doubt it. My understanding is he was in transit and was stranded in Moscow airport after his onward ticket was cancelled.

ETA: sorry, I think I meant his passport was cancelled.

Roger Ramjets · 26th November 2020, 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

You are correct some of the approximate 175,000 files will contain illegal activity and most won't.

At the time that Snowden stole those files, was the NSA involved in known illegal activities, or was Snowden just upset with activities that he thought were unconstitutional but (as far as the NSA and the government was aware) were perfectly legal?

I find it hard to believe that Snowden had anything that he knew was illegal, since it hadn't been tested in court and he is no lawyer. Did he at any time identify specific events that triggered his decision to become a 'whistleblower', and if so did he try to expose those particular events? Or did he just become jaded regarding the 'wrongness' of surveillance in general, and decided to grab as much as he could for a fishing expedition?

Quote:

That's the aim of a prosecutor, to separate the various criminal activities and prosecute accordingly. I imagine there will be a range of charges.

I doubt that will ever happen though, which is a pity because some of us would like to know where the line would be drawn. I am not happy with the adulation heaped on 'whistleblowers', who may been motivated by some personal grievance, dumping vast numbers of documents into the public domain for partisans to misuse - and that includes journalists trying to create a story where there might not be one.

Take a large enough cache of emails or other documents and troll through them looking for dirt, and sooner or later you find something that might be useful - even if you have to quote it out of context. Once it becomes public people will believe it to be 'true', but also just the tip of an iceberg that may not exist. The damage done by this can be enormous.

Take for example climate deniers latching onto certain phrases to 'prove' that global warming is a hoax, or a presidential election being swayed by the contents of confidential party emails that didn't even talk of illegal or immoral actions. Those are two cases where the consequences have been devastating and are still doing irreparable harm, yet the perpetrators were not brought to justice for it.

Roger Ramjets · 26th November 2020, 07:32 PM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I thought he didn't go to jail because he was pardoned.

But okay, if what Snowden revealed was illegal, then shouldn't someone somewhere who was doing the illegal stuff be prosecuted?

Perhaps they didn't know it was illegal at the time? Or perhaps it wasn't 'illegal' enough to warrant prosecution. Or perhaps it wasn't illegal at all, just embarrassing.

Edward Snowden: Revelations

Quote:

The first program to be revealed was PRISM, which allows for court-approved direct access to Americans' Google and Yahoo accounts, reported from both The Washington Post and The Guardian published one hour apart. Barton Gellman of The Washington Post was the first journalist to report on Snowden's documents. He said the U.S. government urged him not to specify by name which companies were involved, but Gellman decided that to name them "would make it real to Americans."

So no specific 'crimes', just an apparently legal (court-approved) program that people might get upset about. Perhaps we should prosecute the judges, or the President?

Quote:

The NSA, the CIA and GCHQ spied on users of Second Life, Xbox Live and World of Warcraft, and attempted to recruit would-be informants from the sites, according to documents revealed in December 2013. Leaked documents showed NSA agents also spied on their own "love interests," a practice NSA employees termed LOVEINT. The NSA was shown to be tracking the online sexual activity of people they termed "radicalizers" in order to discredit them. Following the revelation of Black Pearl, a program targeting private networks, the NSA was accused of extending beyond its primary mission of national security. The agency's intelligence-gathering operations had targeted, among others, oil giant Petrobras, Brazil's largest company. The NSA and the GCHQ were also shown to be surveilling charities including UNICEF and Médecins du Monde, as well as allies such as European Commissioner Joaquín Almunia and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Spying organizations doing spy stuff. Who'd have thought?

Meanwhile, nobody seems to care that private companies are constantly collecting data on your online activities.

Quote:

Snowden said in a January 2014 interview with German television that the NSA does not limit its data collection to national security issues, accusing the agency of conducting industrial espionage. Using the example of German company Siemens, he said, "If there's information at Siemens that's beneficial to US national interests—even if it doesn't have anything to do with national security—then they'll take that information nevertheless." In the wake of Snowden's revelations and in response to an inquiry from the Left Party, Germany's domestic security agency Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV) investigated and found no concrete evidence that the U.S. conducted economic or industrial espionage in Germany.

So here we have Snowden inventing 'crimes' that don't exist.

Motivations

Quote:

Snowden first contemplated leaking confidential documents around 2008 but held back, partly because he believed the newly elected Barack Obama might introduce reforms. After the disclosures, his identity was made public by The Guardian at his request on June 9, 2013. "I do not want to live in a world where everything I do and say is recorded," he said. "My sole motive is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them.

IOW, he didn't care whether what the NSA did was legal or not, he intended to 'inform the public as to that which is done...' regardless.

So the question is, should a 'whistleblower's own crimes be forgiven if he is not revealing any crimes?

angrysoba · 26th November 2020, 08:28 PM

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Perhaps they didn't know it was illegal at the time? Or perhaps it wasn't 'illegal' enough to warrant prosecution. Or perhaps it wasn't illegal at all, just embarrassing.

Edward Snowden: RevelationsSo no specific 'crimes', just an apparently legal (court-approved) program that people might get upset about. Perhaps we should prosecute the judges, or the President?

Spying organizations doing spy stuff. Who'd have thought?

Meanwhile, nobody seems to care that private companies are constantly collecting data on your online activities.

So here we have Snowden inventing 'crimes' that don't exist.

Motivations

IOW, he didn't care whether what the NSA did was legal or not, he intended to 'inform the public as to that which is done...' regardless.

So the question is, should a 'whistleblower's own crimes be forgiven if he is not revealing any crimes?

Sorry, could you summarize for me.

Are you saying that the US government (or agencies) were:

a) not doing anything illegal
b) were doing something that they didn't realize was illegal

This is why I am asking if there is any dispute that he revealed something that is illegal or not.

My take is that surely it is not down to whether a court later rules something was illegal. That's always how it works: "Sure, I killed someone for fun with my gun, but until the court ruled I had committed murder, how was I to know it was illegal?"

I didn't think that ignorance of the law would be an excuse in any situation, and seems even less plausible if we are talking about government behaviour.

Beyond that, "other people do this" is not an excuse either. "Why did I get done for pirating DVDs, what about all those other people using torrents to pirate their stuff. UNFAIR!!"

That said, maybe you have hit on something here: "nobody seems to care that private companies are constantly collecting data on your online activities"

Maybe this is it. Perhaps it explains why Snowden seems to draw a lot of ire for his illegal behaviour ("releasing classified documents"), but nobody is really that upset if the government is surveilling its citizens ("Hey, whatchagonnado? They do shady stuff. That's just what they do!").

Maybe everyone is inured to it.

Matthew Ellard · 26th November 2020, 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

If you land in Russia on transit to another country, do you need an invitation? I doubt it.

Do you think he would be transiting to Ecuador, by going through Moscow, from Hong Kong, on Aeroflot Flight SU213 ? Why not fly direct to Ecuador from Hong Kong?

Originally Posted by angrysoba

ETA: sorry, I think I meant his passport was cancelled.

Soooooo......he became aware his passport was cancelled and got off the plane in transit in Moscow rather than wait for the connecting flight to Ecuador?

Are you starting to see the problems.

Matthew Ellard · 26th November 2020, 10:26 PM

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

At the time that Snowden stole those files, was the NSA involved in known illegal activities, or was Snowden just upset with activities that he thought were unconstitutional but (as far as the NSA and the government was aware) were perfectly legal?

I don't know. He hasn't been cross examined in court, has he? I can't say what the defendant was thinking unless I have supporting evidence.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

I find it hard to believe that Snowden had anything that he knew was illegal, since it hadn't been tested in court and he is no lawyer. Did he at any time identify specific events that triggered his decision to become a 'whistleblower', and if so did he try to expose those particular events?

I agree with you. I do not know what evidence exists as to his motive. However it would be hard to argue he thought he was a protected whistle-blower if he released other documents without any review of whether they were legal activities at all. Additionally, how would he assess Australian secret activity information?

To be frank, how would he understand the legal or illegal use of things like Australia's use of passive anti-submarine listening cables discussed in files. It does suggest he took what he could with the hope experts could interpret content later.

angrysoba · 26th November 2020, 10:26 PM

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

Do you think he would be transiting to Ecuador, by going through Moscow, from Hong Kong, on Aeroflot Flight SU213 ? Why not fly direct to Ecuador from Hong Kong?

Soooooo......he became aware his passport was cancelled and got off the plane in transit in Moscow rather than wait for the connecting flight to Ecuador?

Are you starting to see the problems.

I don’t know. I am not sure how much of this is established fact. I’m not trying to do some kind of JAQing off, here. I am basing a lot of what I am asking based on stuff I have heard and am interested to hear how much of it is real and how much of it is made up.

Matthew Ellard · 26th November 2020, 10:34 PM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I don’t know. I am not sure how much of this is established fact.

It is a fact he was on a flight to Moscow from Hong Kong. The government of Ecuador said they received an asylum application from Snowden, (not actually granted).......but Snowden didn't go to Ecuador. He went to Moscow.

Beelzebuddy · 26th November 2020, 10:56 PM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Are you saying that the US government (or agencies) were:

a) not doing anything illegal
b) were doing something that they didn't realize was illegal

This is why I am asking if there is any dispute that he revealed something that is illegal or not.

It was illegal and they knew it full well, because when it came time for courts to use the information they were gathering they chose to lie about its provenance. The term to google is "parallel construction."

Roger Ramjets · 27th November 2020, 04:11 AM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I didn't think that ignorance of the law would be an excuse in any situation, and seems even less plausible if we are talking about government behaviour.

Not ignorance, interpretation. We have so many laws, and many of them conflict with others or are ambiguous, which is why they have to be tested in court. Until a law is tested in court, you can't know for sure that someone is breaking it.

Our government makes the laws, so you would think they would be in a better position to know what they mean than us. I am pretty sure that Snowden was more ignorant of the law than the government's lawyers who were advising the NSA on what they could legally do, so if anyone 'had no excuse' for being ignorant it was Snowden.

Quote:

Beyond that, "other people do this" is not an excuse either. "Why did I get done for pirating DVDs, what about all those other people using torrents to pirate their stuff. UNFAIR!!"

Funny thing is, people like Snowden are the types who argue that copyright laws are onerous and therefore they are justified in pirating DVDs etc. This is one of the reasons they are so against surveillance - because someone might catch them breaking such laws.

Quote:

That said, maybe you have hit on something here: "nobody seems to care that private companies are constantly collecting data on your online activities"

Maybe this is it. Perhaps it explains why Snowden seems to draw a lot of ire for his illegal behaviour ("releasing classified documents"), but nobody is really that upset if the government is surveilling its citizens ("Hey, whatchagonnado? They do shady stuff. That's just what they do!").

That's right. You see, we realize that in order to protect us from the real bad guys out there, a certain amount of surveillance is necessary. It doesn't upset us when the government does it because we know they have a good reason, and we don't want to hamstring them from doing what is needed to do the job properly.

But there are many people who have something to hide for various reasons, who are worried that it might come out - and don't seem to understand that the NSA isn't interested in their little secrets. These people would rather we suffered another 911 than risk the wife finding out what they were really doing when 'working late at the office' etc.

Personally I don't think the government is doing enough surveillance, partly due to capabilities taken away from them by Snowden, and partly because they are now too scared to do what they should be doing because it might be deemed 'illegal'. If I was in control I wouldn't hesitate to monitor potential terrorist activities using all the tools available. I would also keep a very close eye on libertarians and anarchists like Snowden, other nutcases like the Qanon crowd and cult religions, and even trolls who are just in it for the 'lols'. These people are a real threat to our national and personal security, so we have a valid reason to keep them under surveillance.

Sadly we currently have a president who has managed to replace real intel with nutty conspiracy theories and self-serving lies, and Snowden is partly to blame for it. He sowed the seeds of mistrust in government institutions, and Trump nurtured them. Now we have over 2,000 people dying every day because too many people so mistrust the government that they won't listen to common sense. Snowden helped create that situation, so he has a lot to answer for.

Athyrio · 6th January 2023, 07:00 PM

Wonder how Snowden is doing since he became a Russian citizen back in September, what with the sanctions and all, and I also wonder what his position on the special military operation may be.

Bob001 · 6th January 2023, 11:09 PM

Originally Posted by Athyrio

Wonder how Snowden is doing since he became a Russian citizen back in September, what with the sanctions and all, and I also wonder what his position on the special military operation may be.

I'm pretty sure he's doing way better than he would be if his homeland had been able to put him in Supermax for the rest of his life.

Crazy Chainsaw · 7th January 2023, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by Athyrio

Wonder how Snowden is doing since he became a Russian citizen back in September, what with the sanctions and all, and I also wonder what his position on the special military operation may be.

Tank Front Line in Ukraine hopefully, but Doubt Russians will trust him for anything above the Rank of Bullet stopper.

TragicMonkey · 7th January 2023, 09:41 AM

Originally Posted by Bob001

I'm pretty sure he's doing way better than he would be if his homeland had been able to put him in Supermax for the rest of his life.

Prisons at least have few windows, and in Russia sometimes windows are very dangerous things to be around.

Bob001 · 7th January 2023, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Prisons at least have few windows, and in Russia sometimes windows are very dangerous things to be around.

Snowden has been very careful not to criticize his hosts.

trustbutverify · 7th January 2023, 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

Snowden has been very careful not to criticize his hosts.

Speaking truth to power... when convenient.

mgidm86 · 10th January 2023, 01:40 PM

It's winter there so wherever he is he's probably snowed in.

dudalb · 10th January 2023, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

Speaking truth to power... when convenient.

Why this guy still has fans in the West I can't figure out., except they hate the West.
He has a couple here, thpugh.

dudalb · 10th January 2023, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

Snowden has been very careful not to criticize his hosts.

And,given what PUtin has done, that is OK with you????????

Roger Ramjets · 10th January 2023, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

Why this guy still has fans in the West I can't figure out., except they hate the West.
He has a couple here, thpugh.

Not 'the West', governments - in particular the US government. Russia hates the US government too, so in a way it makes sense that they wouldn't be too concerned about Snowden being holed up in Russia. Anywhere outside the reach of the US government is OK to them.

It's very naive, but we have seen plenty of that where Russia is involved. People with (possibly justified) grievances against our own governments don't realize how much worse it is in Russia. But some just don't care. they are so blinded by their hatred of one enemy that they will willingly jump into bed with another.

25th November 2020, 04:26 PM	#85
trustbutverify Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 10,030	Originally Posted by Bob001 The U.S. government forced down a plane carrying the President of Bolivia that they wrongly thought carried Snowden. Unless the Russians put him on a military transport, Snowden's not flying anywhere. https://www.cnn.com/2013/07/02/world...ane/index.html Putin's been poisoning his enemies to death and near death, all over the world. I think he can manage to transport one hero wherever he wants, if he was so motivated. In fact, i'd bet his advisors could come up with multiple methods.
	__________________ "To me, Hitler is the greatest man who ever lived. He truly is without fault, so simple and at the same time possessed of masculine strength" -Leni Riefenstahl Wollen owns the stage

25th November 2020, 04:49 PM	#87
trustbutverify Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 10,030	Same reason he helped McDonald Trumps Make America Great Again. He's an icon of peace and justice.
	__________________ "To me, Hitler is the greatest man who ever lived. He truly is without fault, so simple and at the same time possessed of masculine strength" -Leni Riefenstahl Wollen owns the stage

25th November 2020, 04:53 PM	#88
Roger Ramjets Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 6,043	Originally Posted by theprestige If Snowden is a hero that's trying to make America great again Russian, why is Putin helping him at all? Because 'Make America great again' is a synonym for 'Destroy America'. In fact though, Putin doesn't really care whether America survives or not, so long as we don't get in the way of Russia's hegemony.
	__________________ We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.

25th November 2020, 05:08 PM	#89
fishbob Seasonally Disaffected Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chilly Undieville Posts: 7,312	Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy The illegal activity he exposed was classified. Arguably classified because it was illegal, but classified nonetheless. Classifying illegal activity to hide the existence of the illegal activity is illegal. And an activity.
	__________________ "When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer . . . " - Stevie Wonder. "It looks like the saddest, most crookedest candy corn in an otherwise normal bag of candy corns." Stormy Daniels I hate bigots.

25th November 2020, 08:31 PM	#90
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 33,740	Okay, so just out of interest, is there any dispute that he exposed illegal behaviour, even if exposing it was itself illegal?
	__________________ Слава Україні! **** Putin!

25th November 2020, 02:28 PM	#81
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 16,336	Originally Posted by trustbutverify I'm sure the Kremlin could find a way to fly him to any nation of his choice, willing to grant him asylum. Not to mention the fact that many of those nations have intelligence services that could use some whistle-blowing. The U.S. government forced down a plane carrying the President of Bolivia that they wrongly thought carried Snowden. Unless the Russians put him on a military transport, Snowden's not flying anywhere. https://www.cnn.com/2013/07/02/world...ane/index.html

25th November 2020, 02:39 PM	#82
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Antimemetics Division Posts: 63,086	Originally Posted by Bob001 The only question the jury would be allowed to consider at present is whether in fact he exposed secret documents. That's why the verdict is pre-ordained. How is this different from every other verdict that's "pre-ordained" by giving the jury the agreed-upon facts and letting them issue a verdict?

25th November 2020, 03:50 PM	#83
Matthew Ellard Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 4,094	Originally Posted by Bob001 Your link is to a case about cannibalism. Snowden didn't kill and eat anybody and claim he had to. Commonlaw (Judge made law) cases work by Stare decisis, where the majority judges make a decision and issue both a ratio for the current case's decision and issue an obiter dictum, that define how the created law applies to lower court cases. That is how barristers and lawyers introduce the obiters from higher courts in court even though the case is not the same facts. If the facts had to be exact matches, lawyers could not argue the higher decisions in lower court cases.....and yep......I'm a lawyer. Necessity is not justification but may mitigate sentencing under sentencing guidelines. Additionally. despite the war of independence, the USA continued with UK existing commonlaw rulings, and may apply to the court to use subsequent reached obiters across US and other jurisdictions. That's why I had to learn current USA superior court obiters in Australian and international taxation law.

25th November 2020, 03:59 PM	#84
Matthew Ellard Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 4,094	Originally Posted by Bob001 The only question the jury would be allowed to consider at present is whether in fact he exposed secret documents. That's why the verdict is pre-ordained. There would be both criminal charges (beyond reasonable doubt) and a civil claim (on the balance of probabilities) as he signed a contract. However as Snowden is making roughly USD $200,000 a year on the Russian Federation's sponsored speakers circuit, I doubt he will be leaving Moscow soon. (I was in Moscow when Snowden arrived)

25th November 2020, 04:34 PM	#86
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Antimemetics Division Posts: 63,086	If Snowden is a hero that's trying to make America great again, why is Putin helping him at all?

25th November 2020, 08:39 PM	#91
trustbutverify Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 10,030	Originally Posted by angrysoba Okay, so just out of interest, is there any dispute that he exposed illegal behaviour, even if exposing it was itself illegal? No dispute here.
	__________________ "To me, Hitler is the greatest man who ever lived. He truly is without fault, so simple and at the same time possessed of masculine strength" -Leni Riefenstahl Wollen owns the stage

25th November 2020, 08:41 PM	#92
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 33,740	Originally Posted by trustbutverify No dispute here. May I ask if there have been any prosecutions of those conducting that illegal behaviour?
	__________________ Слава Україні! **** Putin!

25th November 2020, 08:45 PM	#93
Matthew Ellard Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 4,094	Originally Posted by angrysoba Okay, so just out of interest, is there any dispute that he exposed illegal behaviour, even if exposing it was itself illegal? Hang on. He released 15,000 Australian and 58,000 UK files and 50,000 to 150,000 USA files. You would have a hard time in court arguing all those files concerned an illegal activity". Most were about normal secret procedural military activities. That's the dilemma with applying legislated whistle-blower protection. He can't say he saw evidence of a crime in all those files as his reason for acting as he did. Snowden knew that and it will be argued he had the special knowledge that he was handing out secret evidence of both illegal and legal activities. Chris Boyce initially received 40 years, but he didn't claim any of his material was concerning whistle-blowing an illegal activity.
	Last edited by Matthew Ellard; 25th November 2020 at 08:48 PM.

25th November 2020, 09:12 PM	#94
trustbutverify Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 10,030	Originally Posted by angrysoba May I ask if there have been any prosecutions of those conducting that illegal behaviour? Well, since Trump was supposed to drain the swamp and defeat the deep state, and had 4 years to do so, I can only assume there were.
	__________________ "To me, Hitler is the greatest man who ever lived. He truly is without fault, so simple and at the same time possessed of masculine strength" -Leni Riefenstahl Wollen owns the stage

25th November 2020, 09:15 PM	#95
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 33,740	Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard Hang on. He released 15,000 Australian and 58,000 UK files and 50,000 to 150,000 USA files. You would have a hard time in court arguing all those files concerned an illegal activity". Most were about normal secret procedural military activities. That's the dilemma with applying legislated whistle-blower protection. He can't say he saw evidence of a crime in all those files as his reason for acting as he did. Snowden knew that and it will be argued he had the special knowledge that he was handing out secret evidence of both illegal and legal activities. Chris Boyce initially received 40 years, but he didn't claim any of his material was concerning whistle-blowing an illegal activity. I see. So he was committing a more widespread crime than merely exposing illegal activity. However, as I asked before, is there any dispute that some of what he exposed was illegal activity by someone in some US government capacity?
	__________________ Слава Україні! **** Putin!

25th November 2020, 09:18 PM	#96
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 33,740	Originally Posted by trustbutverify Well, since Trump was supposed to drain the swamp and defeat the deep state, and had 4 years to do so, I can only assume there were. I am not sure if I understand what you mean. I guess you are being sarcastic here, and saying that you can't trust Trump to do anything as useful as prosecuting illegal activity, but I don't suppose it was merely his responsibility, was it? After all, haven't plenty of Trump's people ended up in jail themselves for certain activities? Roger Stone, Michael Flynn etc... people he has pardoned and some others as well. Besides, surely some of this could have been prosecuted by the Obama administration. Anyway, this brings me to my other question that I asked earlier: From a utilitarian standpoint, is it better that he leaked it or would it have been better left concealed?
	__________________ Слава Україні! **** Putin!

25th November 2020, 10:59 PM	#97
trustbutverify Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 10,030	Originally Posted by angrysoba I am not sure if I understand what you mean. I guess you are being sarcastic here, and saying that you can't trust Trump to do anything as useful as prosecuting illegal activity, but I don't suppose it was merely his responsibility, was it? After all, haven't plenty of Trump's people ended up in jail themselves for certain activities? Roger Stone, Michael Flynn etc... people he has pardoned and some others as well. Besides, surely some of this could have been prosecuted by the Obama administration. The same reason Nixon never went to prison for any of his many serious crimes. Power corrupts, and people treat those aligned with their interests much differently than those who aren't. Obama was, I am told, part of the "deep state" establishment that conducted these illegal activities, while Trump was the populist antidote to that system, who was going to tear it all down. He could have filled the DOJ with loyalists, and ordered them to prosecute, but, apparently, he didn't. Quote: Anyway, this brings me to my other question that I asked earlier: From a utilitarian standpoint, is it better that he leaked it or would it have been better left concealed? I honestly don't know. Putting justice aside, I don't know how useful the data collected was vs the privacy value.
	__________________ "To me, Hitler is the greatest man who ever lived. He truly is without fault, so simple and at the same time possessed of masculine strength" -Leni Riefenstahl Wollen owns the stage Last edited by trustbutverify; 25th November 2020 at 11:06 PM.

25th November 2020, 11:20 PM	#98
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 33,740	Originally Posted by trustbutverify The same reason Nixon never went to prison for any of his many serious crimes. Power corrupts, and people treat those aligned with their interests much differently than those who aren't. Obama was, I am told, part of the "deep state" establishment that conducted these illegal activities, while Trump was the populist antidote to that system, who was going to tear it all down. He could have filled the DOJ with loyalists, and ordered them to prosecute, but, apparently, he didn't. I thought he didn't go to jail because he was pardoned. But okay, if what Snowden revealed was illegal, then shouldn't someone somewhere who was doing the illegal stuff be prosecuted? Originally Posted by trustbutverify I honestly don't know. Putting justice aside, I don't know how useful the data collected was vs the privacy value. Then is the defence of the surveillance program merely the same as Snowden's defence of exposing it? Sure, what we did was illegal, but we were doing it for a higher cause? Then will these martyrs allow themselves to go on trial and plead their case? After all, a fair trial means making the same rules for everyone, right? But it seems that they won't even have to go through that inconvenience.
	__________________ Слава Україні! **** Putin!

26th November 2020, 06:10 PM	#99
Matthew Ellard Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 4,094	Originally Posted by angrysoba I see. So he was committing a more widespread crime than merely exposing illegal activity However, as I asked before, is there any dispute that some of what he exposed was illegal activity by someone in some US government capacity? You are correct some of the approximate 175,000 files will contain illegal activity and most won't. The prosecutor will identify that to the court and ask the defendant if he undertook any activities to hold those non-illegal files back, knowing they were not illegal. The defendant has the special knowledge to know there is a difference, which exposes him in different ways to different groups of files. That's the aim of a prosecutor, to separate the various criminal activities and prosecute accordingly. I imagine there will be a range of charges.

26th November 2020, 06:22 PM	#100
Matthew Ellard Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 4,094	Originally Posted by angrysoba From a utilitarian standpoint, is it better that he leaked it or would it have been better left concealed? The defendant will have to show he exhausted all other procedural methods of bringing the illegal activities to the attention of authorities. If he does, then he may have a defence or anticipate a mitigated sentence. However it's the other legal but secret activities in files that is going to put him in jeopardy. ( I'm still not sure how he was able to get on a plane to Moscow without his "invitation to Russia" document at departure already lodged. I go through a Russian agency that obtains invitations from the hotels that I am staying at. However, that's another story about why and when he decided to go to Moscow)

26th November 2020, 06:46 PM	#101
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 33,740	Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard The defendant will have to show he exhausted all other procedural methods of bringing the illegal activities to the attention of authorities. If he does, then he may have a defence or anticipate a mitigated sentence. However it's the other legal but secret activities in files that is going to put him in jeopardy. ( I'm still not sure how he was able to get on a plane to Moscow without his "invitation to Russia" document at departure already lodged. I go through a Russian agency that obtains invitations from the hotels that I am staying at. However, that's another story about why and when he decided to go to Moscow) I have been to Russia and received an invitation letter as well. But I was staying there and had to report to some offices in Moscow and St Petersburg. If you land in Russia on transit to another country, do you need an invitation? I doubt it. My understanding is he was in transit and was stranded in Moscow airport after his onward ticket was cancelled. ETA: sorry, I think I meant his passport was cancelled.
	__________________ Слава Україні! **** Putin! Last edited by angrysoba; 26th November 2020 at 06:50 PM.

26th November 2020, 06:56 PM	#102
Roger Ramjets Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 6,043	Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard You are correct some of the approximate 175,000 files will contain illegal activity and most won't. At the time that Snowden stole those files, was the NSA involved in known illegal activities, or was Snowden just upset with activities that he thought were unconstitutional but (as far as the NSA and the government was aware) were perfectly legal? I find it hard to believe that Snowden had anything that he knew was illegal, since it hadn't been tested in court and he is no lawyer. Did he at any time identify specific events that triggered his decision to become a 'whistleblower', and if so did he try to expose those particular events? Or did he just become jaded regarding the 'wrongness' of surveillance in general, and decided to grab as much as he could for a fishing expedition? Quote: That's the aim of a prosecutor, to separate the various criminal activities and prosecute accordingly. I imagine there will be a range of charges. I doubt that will ever happen though, which is a pity because some of us would like to know where the line would be drawn. I am not happy with the adulation heaped on 'whistleblowers', who may been motivated by some personal grievance, dumping vast numbers of documents into the public domain for partisans to misuse - and that includes journalists trying to create a story where there might not be one. Take a large enough cache of emails or other documents and troll through them looking for dirt, and sooner or later you find something that might be useful - even if you have to quote it out of context. Once it becomes public people will believe it to be 'true', but also just the tip of an iceberg that may not exist. The damage done by this can be enormous. Take for example climate deniers latching onto certain phrases to 'prove' that global warming is a hoax, or a presidential election being swayed by the contents of confidential party emails that didn't even talk of illegal or immoral actions. Those are two cases where the consequences have been devastating and are still doing irreparable harm, yet the perpetrators were not brought to justice for it.
	__________________ We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.

26th November 2020, 07:32 PM	#103
Roger Ramjets Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 6,043	Originally Posted by angrysoba I thought he didn't go to jail because he was pardoned. But okay, if what Snowden revealed was illegal, then shouldn't someone somewhere who was doing the illegal stuff be prosecuted? Perhaps they didn't know it was illegal at the time? Or perhaps it wasn't 'illegal' enough to warrant prosecution. Or perhaps it wasn't illegal at all, just embarrassing. Edward Snowden: Revelations Quote: The first program to be revealed was PRISM, which allows for court-approved direct access to Americans' Google and Yahoo accounts, reported from both The Washington Post and The Guardian published one hour apart. Barton Gellman of The Washington Post was the first journalist to report on Snowden's documents. He said the U.S. government urged him not to specify by name which companies were involved, but Gellman decided that to name them "would make it real to Americans." So no specific 'crimes', just an apparently legal (court-approved) program that people might get upset about. Perhaps we should prosecute the judges, or the President? Quote: The NSA, the CIA and GCHQ spied on users of Second Life, Xbox Live and World of Warcraft, and attempted to recruit would-be informants from the sites, according to documents revealed in December 2013. Leaked documents showed NSA agents also spied on their own "love interests," a practice NSA employees termed LOVEINT. The NSA was shown to be tracking the online sexual activity of people they termed "radicalizers" in order to discredit them. Following the revelation of Black Pearl, a program targeting private networks, the NSA was accused of extending beyond its primary mission of national security. The agency's intelligence-gathering operations had targeted, among others, oil giant Petrobras, Brazil's largest company. The NSA and the GCHQ were also shown to be surveilling charities including UNICEF and Médecins du Monde, as well as allies such as European Commissioner Joaquín Almunia and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Spying organizations doing spy stuff. Who'd have thought? Meanwhile, nobody seems to care that private companies are constantly collecting data on your online activities. Quote: Snowden said in a January 2014 interview with German television that the NSA does not limit its data collection to national security issues, accusing the agency of conducting industrial espionage. Using the example of German company Siemens, he said, "If there's information at Siemens that's beneficial to US national interests—even if it doesn't have anything to do with national security—then they'll take that information nevertheless." In the wake of Snowden's revelations and in response to an inquiry from the Left Party, Germany's domestic security agency Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV) investigated and found no concrete evidence that the U.S. conducted economic or industrial espionage in Germany. So here we have Snowden inventing 'crimes' that don't exist. Motivations Quote: Snowden first contemplated leaking confidential documents around 2008 but held back, partly because he believed the newly elected Barack Obama might introduce reforms. After the disclosures, his identity was made public by The Guardian at his request on June 9, 2013. "I do not want to live in a world where everything I do and say is recorded," he said. "My sole motive is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them. IOW, he didn't care whether what the NSA did was legal or not, he intended to 'inform the public as to that which is done...' regardless. So the question is, should a 'whistleblower's own crimes be forgiven if he is not revealing any crimes?
	__________________ We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.

26th November 2020, 08:28 PM	#104
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 33,740	Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets Perhaps they didn't know it was illegal at the time? Or perhaps it wasn't 'illegal' enough to warrant prosecution. Or perhaps it wasn't illegal at all, just embarrassing. Edward Snowden: RevelationsSo no specific 'crimes', just an apparently legal (court-approved) program that people might get upset about. Perhaps we should prosecute the judges, or the President? Spying organizations doing spy stuff. Who'd have thought? Meanwhile, nobody seems to care that private companies are constantly collecting data on your online activities. So here we have Snowden inventing 'crimes' that don't exist. Motivations IOW, he didn't care whether what the NSA did was legal or not, he intended to 'inform the public as to that which is done...' regardless. So the question is, should a 'whistleblower's own crimes be forgiven if he is not revealing any crimes? Sorry, could you summarize for me. Are you saying that the US government (or agencies) were: a) not doing anything illegal b) were doing something that they didn't realize was illegal This is why I am asking if there is any dispute that he revealed something that is illegal or not. My take is that surely it is not down to whether a court later rules something was illegal. That's always how it works: "Sure, I killed someone for fun with my gun, but until the court ruled I had committed murder, how was I to know it was illegal?" I didn't think that ignorance of the law would be an excuse in any situation, and seems even less plausible if we are talking about government behaviour. Beyond that, "other people do this" is not an excuse either. "Why did I get done for pirating DVDs, what about all those other people using torrents to pirate their stuff. UNFAIR!!" That said, maybe you have hit on something here: "nobody seems to care that private companies are constantly collecting data on your online activities" Maybe this is it. Perhaps it explains why Snowden seems to draw a lot of ire for his illegal behaviour ("releasing classified documents"), but nobody is really that upset if the government is surveilling its citizens ("Hey, whatchagonnado? They do shady stuff. That's just what they do!"). Maybe everyone is inured to it.
	__________________ Слава Україні! **** Putin!

26th November 2020, 10:12 PM	#105
Matthew Ellard Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 4,094	Originally Posted by angrysoba If you land in Russia on transit to another country, do you need an invitation? I doubt it. Do you think he would be transiting to Ecuador, by going through Moscow, from Hong Kong, on Aeroflot Flight SU213 ? Why not fly direct to Ecuador from Hong Kong? Originally Posted by angrysoba ETA: sorry, I think I meant his passport was cancelled. Soooooo......he became aware his passport was cancelled and got off the plane in transit in Moscow rather than wait for the connecting flight to Ecuador? Are you starting to see the problems.

26th November 2020, 10:26 PM	#106
Matthew Ellard Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 4,094	Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets At the time that Snowden stole those files, was the NSA involved in known illegal activities, or was Snowden just upset with activities that he thought were unconstitutional but (as far as the NSA and the government was aware) were perfectly legal? I don't know. He hasn't been cross examined in court, has he? I can't say what the defendant was thinking unless I have supporting evidence. Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets I find it hard to believe that Snowden had anything that he knew was illegal, since it hadn't been tested in court and he is no lawyer. Did he at any time identify specific events that triggered his decision to become a 'whistleblower', and if so did he try to expose those particular events? I agree with you. I do not know what evidence exists as to his motive. However it would be hard to argue he thought he was a protected whistle-blower if he released other documents without any review of whether they were legal activities at all. Additionally, how would he assess Australian secret activity information? To be frank, how would he understand the legal or illegal use of things like Australia's use of passive anti-submarine listening cables discussed in files. It does suggest he took what he could with the hope experts could interpret content later.

26th November 2020, 10:26 PM	#107
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 33,740	Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard Do you think he would be transiting to Ecuador, by going through Moscow, from Hong Kong, on Aeroflot Flight SU213 ? Why not fly direct to Ecuador from Hong Kong? Soooooo......he became aware his passport was cancelled and got off the plane in transit in Moscow rather than wait for the connecting flight to Ecuador? Are you starting to see the problems. I don’t know. I am not sure how much of this is established fact. I’m not trying to do some kind of JAQing off, here. I am basing a lot of what I am asking based on stuff I have heard and am interested to hear how much of it is real and how much of it is made up.
	__________________ Слава Україні! **** Putin!

26th November 2020, 10:34 PM	#108
Matthew Ellard Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 4,094	Originally Posted by angrysoba I don’t know. I am not sure how much of this is established fact. It is a fact he was on a flight to Moscow from Hong Kong. The government of Ecuador said they received an asylum application from Snowden, (not actually granted).......but Snowden didn't go to Ecuador. He went to Moscow.

26th November 2020, 10:56 PM	#109
Beelzebuddy Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 9,286	Originally Posted by angrysoba Are you saying that the US government (or agencies) were: a) not doing anything illegal b) were doing something that they didn't realize was illegal This is why I am asking if there is any dispute that he revealed something that is illegal or not. It was illegal and they knew it full well, because when it came time for courts to use the information they were gathering they chose to lie about its provenance. The term to google is "parallel construction."
Beelzebuddy Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 9,286

27th November 2020, 04:11 AM	#110
Roger Ramjets Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 6,043	Originally Posted by angrysoba I didn't think that ignorance of the law would be an excuse in any situation, and seems even less plausible if we are talking about government behaviour. Not ignorance, interpretation. We have so many laws, and many of them conflict with others or are ambiguous, which is why they have to be tested in court. Until a law is tested in court, you can't know for sure that someone is breaking it. Our government makes the laws, so you would think they would be in a better position to know what they mean than us. I am pretty sure that Snowden was more ignorant of the law than the government's lawyers who were advising the NSA on what they could legally do, so if anyone 'had no excuse' for being ignorant it was Snowden. Quote: Beyond that, "other people do this" is not an excuse either. "Why did I get done for pirating DVDs, what about all those other people using torrents to pirate their stuff. UNFAIR!!" Funny thing is, people like Snowden are the types who argue that copyright laws are onerous and therefore they are justified in pirating DVDs etc. This is one of the reasons they are so against surveillance - because someone might catch them breaking such laws. Quote: That said, maybe you have hit on something here: "nobody seems to care that private companies are constantly collecting data on your online activities" Maybe this is it. Perhaps it explains why Snowden seems to draw a lot of ire for his illegal behaviour ("releasing classified documents"), but nobody is really that upset if the government is surveilling its citizens ("Hey, whatchagonnado? They do shady stuff. That's just what they do!"). That's right. You see, we realize that in order to protect us from the real bad guys out there, a certain amount of surveillance is necessary. It doesn't upset us when the government does it because we know they have a good reason, and we don't want to hamstring them from doing what is needed to do the job properly. But there are many people who have something to hide for various reasons, who are worried that it might come out - and don't seem to understand that the NSA isn't interested in their little secrets. These people would rather we suffered another 911 than risk the wife finding out what they were really doing when 'working late at the office' etc. Personally I don't think the government is doing enough surveillance, partly due to capabilities taken away from them by Snowden, and partly because they are now too scared to do what they should be doing because it might be deemed 'illegal'. If I was in control I wouldn't hesitate to monitor potential terrorist activities using all the tools available. I would also keep a very close eye on libertarians and anarchists like Snowden, other nutcases like the Qanon crowd and cult religions, and even trolls who are just in it for the 'lols'. These people are a real threat to our national and personal security, so we have a valid reason to keep them under surveillance. Sadly we currently have a president who has managed to replace real intel with nutty conspiracy theories and self-serving lies, and Snowden is partly to blame for it. He sowed the seeds of mistrust in government institutions, and Trump nurtured them. Now we have over 2,000 people dying every day because too many people so mistrust the government that they won't listen to common sense. Snowden helped create that situation, so he has a lot to answer for.
	__________________ We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.

6th January 2023, 07:00 PM	#111
Athyrio Hipster Doofus Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Nutsack, FL Posts: 2,447	Wonder how Snowden is doing since he became a Russian citizen back in September, what with the sanctions and all, and I also wonder what his position on the special military operation may be.
	__________________ Knowledge is good.... Emil Faber Last edited by Athyrio; 6th January 2023 at 07:59 PM.

6th January 2023, 11:09 PM	#112
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 16,336	Originally Posted by Athyrio Wonder how Snowden is doing since he became a Russian citizen back in September, what with the sanctions and all, and I also wonder what his position on the special military operation may be. I'm pretty sure he's doing way better than he would be if his homeland had been able to put him in Supermax for the rest of his life.

7th January 2023, 08:49 AM	#113
Crazy Chainsaw Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 7,232	Originally Posted by Athyrio Wonder how Snowden is doing since he became a Russian citizen back in September, what with the sanctions and all, and I also wonder what his position on the special military operation may be. Tank Front Line in Ukraine hopefully, but Doubt Russians will trust him for anything above the Rank of Bullet stopper.

7th January 2023, 09:41 AM	#114
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 64,874	Originally Posted by Bob001 I'm pretty sure he's doing way better than he would be if his homeland had been able to put him in Supermax for the rest of his life. Prisons at least have few windows, and in Russia sometimes windows are very dangerous things to be around.
	__________________ You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.

7th January 2023, 03:07 PM	#115
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 16,336	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey Prisons at least have few windows, and in Russia sometimes windows are very dangerous things to be around. Snowden has been very careful not to criticize his hosts.