Don’t just pardon Edward Snowden; give the man a medal
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
Or whether James Clapper deserves a pardon for committing perjury during a testimony to Congress: http://www.hasjamesclapperbeenindictedyet.com
Edit: /s
In the absence of that I'm just assuming that nothing will happen.
In case you didn't notice, the Snowden leaks revealed filters that removed US citizens' communications, showing that they were complying with US laws that prevent the US military (of which the NSA is part of) from spying on US citizens.
Why would the NSA have these compliance filters as part of a classified program if they were allegedly performing illegal activities?
See the first link in my comment.
> In case you didn't notice, the Snowden leaks revealed filters that removed US citizens' communications, showing that they were complying with US laws that prevent the US military (of which the NSA is part of) from spying on US citizens.
So what? As one of the 7.1 billion people who are not US citizens, I object to the notion that only the rights of Americans warrant protection. As surprising as this may sound, those of us born in other countries have the same rights too, and deserve the same protections. I regard suggestions to the contrary as insulting.
(for the record, I'm Australian, and I consider my own government's participation in these programs to be reprehensible)
Citizens of other countries in fact don't have the same rights and protections against the NSA as citizens. It's why the NSA exists.
So if the fourth amendment right to protection against unreasonable searches applies here (which there seems to be some debate about), it would apply to everyone. Not just to US citizens. The government does not have the right to perform searches of personal property without a warrant detailing exactly what will be searched. Again, this restriction applies to the government, it is not a protection afforded to citizens.
My understanding has it that in practice "the people" means roughly "all citizens and residents of the US", not all people anywhere. You can disagree with the courts over what the words mean, but do so deliberately.
The main take-away that I had is that the courts generally uphold "the people" to mean "citizens", but there are some strong divisions on that and the case is far from settled. At the very least I agree with Harvard's opinion that this judgement cannot hold true to all instances of the the phrase "the people" without massively undoing hundreds of years of case law.
Based on that I will change my statement here to say "the Constitution restricts the government, but it's unclear in the courts whether it restricts the government's actions against non-citizens, although it probably should according to constitutional law scholars". So if you're a tourist in the US, watch what you say and do, because you may not have any right to freedom of speech or protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
'Article 1 of the Basic Law (in German legal shorthand GG, for Grundgesetz), which establishes this principle that "human dignity is inviolable" and that human rights are directly applicable law, ...'
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law_for_the_Federal_Re...
My understanding is that it's entirely uncontroversial (as a question of "is" rather than "ought") that those who are neither US citizens nor US residents, while also not present in the US, are not afforded the protections in the Constitution given to "the people". It is also entirely uncontroversial that they do apply (in sometimes disputed form) to American citizens in the US (and probably also while abroad), and that they usually apply to long-term US legal residents present in the US. Some other points on those spectra are less certain (especially to me).
The question is not whether foreigners are people, but whether they are a part of "the people", usually taken to mean "the people of the United States" - which is the context in which "the people" first appears.
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
And yes, I know, human rights and international law are kind of lacking enforcement, so compared to stealing a lollipop or something, of course there is no legal problem with what the NSA is doing. But "it's gotta be okay or it wouldn't happen"? Nah.
Not in US law we don't. To my knowledge there is no internationally agreed and enforceable privacy law. Now, as a UK citizen, I'm not exactly jumping with joy for either what the NSA or GCHQ have done but, from the point of view of US courts, spying on me is not something that bothers them hugely.
Article 8?
https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/what-ar...
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
This is the moral/philosophical aspect. (I consider privacy to be one component of liberty, but expect it's not a universally-held view).
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
This is the legal aspect.
So it depends on which you look at. In my comment above I was referring to the former. And specifically, my argument was based on that laid out at the very beginning of one of the country's most important founding documents, which I hope would carry some weight with those US citizens who believe in the moral principles on which their country is purportedly based.
It's important to keep in mind the spirit of these historical documents and how that spirit can be applied today, but it's also important to remember that these are imperfect documents from an imperfect time and that they can't be treated as gospel. Even the founding fathers believed that, which is why they built in mechanisms for updating the Constitution.
Different people involved with the writing of that document had different ideas, and there were many drafts, and it was a creation of compromise. That it was left as open as it was, when prior revisions had specific clauses critical of the slave trade removed[1], is a testament to how contentious it was. That it was still used as later evidence for the abolition of slavery is to the credit of those that fought for a more inclusive wording. That it didn't include specific reference to women... well yeah, that sucks, but at least you can argue later that "man" was meant in the sense of (or should be interpreted as) "humanity".
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal#Slav...
It is what a U.S. spy agency does. And the spy agency of other countries, western and non-western, are supposed to be doing, e.g. spying on people outside of their countries. (Spying on your own people is akin to living in a totalitarian state.)
What Snowden did was reveal to the world how extensive and deep the NSA's reach was. His initial objection was NSA's ability to spy on Americans, but when he blew the whistle, the entire world found out they too were being spied on.
Misfire! Should he be punished or rewarded? It is a double edged sword.
People who are neither within the US, nor US citizens, have generally less protection from rights guaranteed by the US Constitution, even when the actor involved is the US government. You can object to that all you want, but its unlikely to change. Fundamentally, neither our Constitution nor our government is about you.
> As surprising as this may sound, those of us born in other countries have the same rights too
The big advance of popular government was that people have enforceable personal rights against their government, at least by citizenship and sometimes even by geography without citizenship. But it hasn't reversed the fundamental issue of sovereignty that there is very little in the way of substantially enforceable personal rights against a foreign sovereign, except those which your own sovereign guarantees and is willing to go to war (and capable of winning) to enforce.
And whether this is the way thing should be or not, it is fundamentally incorrectable -- its the essential nature of sovereignty. You could make it irrelevant by establishing a single world sovereignty guaranteeing the rights you believe should exist for all against all governments, but that doesn't seem likely in the near future.
If you're that keen to be covered by the United States Constitution, you can always petition for statehood; there's a procedure right there in Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1. Go to it, and good luck!
The 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures apply to everyone, everywhere. The U.S. government must always get a warrant, regardless of borders.
U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990) [0] established precedent stating otherwise, but I agree with Brennan's dissent and Stevens' concurrence. The majority opinion basically said it would be too difficult for the U.S. to project its power overseas if it still had to obey its own laws there. I don't find political expedience to be an acceptable argument for voiding anyone's rights.
Of course, outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., those protections are unenforceable in practice regardless, because the target likely cannot access any court that might be able to grant relief. It might be interesting for a foreign national to ask to enter the U.S. for the purpose of petitioning for redress of grievances against the U.S. in a U.S. court.
A foreign state need not petition for statehood. It would be sufficient to establish by treaty a court wherein a foreign person may sue a U.S. government and its agents for violations of U.S. law. That would be a double-edged sword, of course. It might also allow a U.S. entity to sue foreign persons for violations of U.S. laws in that foreign state's jurisdiction. (I'm thinking specifically about intellectual property suits.)
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Verdugo-Urqui...
Even granting that, what is "reasonable" depends on a lot of other factors (both legal -- such as specific grants of power to Congress, and laws passed under such grants -- and factual), and the nature of world of multiple sovereign states and the grant of power to Congress to regulate interactions with them, and laws passed by Congress make surveillance of purely foreign material "reasonable" under circumstances where it would not be domestically.
> It would be sufficient to establish by treaty a court wherein a foreign person may sue a U.S. government and its agents for violations of U.S. law. I don't see how such a treaty can be reconciled with Article III; the treaty power does not extend to contravention of the Constitution.
> It might also allow a U.S. entity to sue foreign persons for violations of U.S. laws in that foreign state's jurisdiction.
US entities can already sue foreign persons for violations of US laws in foreign states territory in US courts to the extent that the US law at issue has extra-territorial application.
I don't see how Article III would prevent the establishment of a U.S. District Court outside the territory of the U.S. There is no distinction there that makes the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington any more or less legal than a theoretical U.S. District Court for Ireland and Great Britain, or U.S. District Court for France.
28 U.S. Code § 1331: The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Article III, Section 2, allows an inferior court to hear a civil case brought by a foreign person against the U.S., with the Supreme Court having appellate jurisdiction.
A treaty cannot establish such a court; it can only require that Congress either establish such a court, or be in breach of the treaty.
It wouldn't, it would prevent something other than an Article III court from being established by treaty (and anything established by treaty would not be an Article III court.) Congress can establish, and has established Article III courts outside of the US (notably, the U.S. Court for China.) Not, of course, that such a court would be necessary to allow foreigners to sue US officials for violations of Constitutional rights, since offenses cognizable under US law that occur outside of any established judicial district can already be filed in district courts; see, 28 USC Sec. 1391(b)(1) and (b)(3).
(Aside from reducing inconvenience in the US government policing US citizens when granted an extraterritorial privilege to do so, as was the case with the sui generis US Court for China, the main benefit of a foreign-located US Court would be to provide a US -- from a legal perspective -- venue for parties to sue non-US persons local to the area where the court was located where forum non conveniens is less likely to be invoked as a reason for dismissal.)
> A treaty cannot establish such a court
But, upthread, you suggested that a court for the purpose you had in mind would be established by treaty, which I took issue with precisely because a treaty cannot establish such a court.
My main point was that foreign states need not become one of the United States to be protected by certain rights clauses in the U.S. Constitution. The key question is how to make the agents of the U.S. obey U.S. laws when outside of U.S. territorial jurisdiction, and there are many possible answers that do not involve extending U.S. territorial jurisdiction beyond its current bounds.
If there are no district courts outside U.S. territory, suing the U.S. as a foreign person may become prohibitively expensive in relation to the magnitude of the offense. The suit could further be impeded by using immigration laws against the plaintiff, possibly impeding discovery or appearances. Retaining a local attorney would be de facto required rather than optional, and hourly rates might combine with currency exchange rates and national economies to ensure that the price tag is simply too high.
But the courts argument is irrelevant to that. To the extent that the US Constitutional rights (or other rights under US law) extend to foreign nationals in foreign territory, the existence of a US court on their soil is irrelevant to such protection, it has no effect either way. So the whole court thing was a non sequitur.
> If there are no district courts outside U.S. territory, suing the U.S. as a foreign person may become prohibitively expensive in relation to the magnitude of the offense.
That might be a practical concern, but it is irrelevant to the actual legal concern, which is that it is well-established law that many protections of the US Constitution do not, in fact, apply to foreign persons outside of the US in the same way as they apply either to US citizens or to persons within the US (some don't apply at all, and even for those that do, the differences in factual circumstance between US and foreign jurisdiction and the fact that the US government has express granted powers in governing relations with foreign nations changes how they apply), and that, in fact, to be protected by those rights in the same way as would be the case for those within the US, the states they were in would, contrary to your argument, need to become part of the United States.
Are any other nations obligated to follow this principle as well, or just the United States?
>A foreign state need not petition for statehood. It would be sufficient to establish by treaty a court wherein a foreign person may sue a U.S. government and its agents for violations of U.S. law.
Why on Earth would we sign such a treaty?
They apparently have not plumbed the deeper meanings of "wherever you go, there you are".
Why, indeed? The foreign state might desire it so that U.S. agents could not act with such impunity against its subjects, but what would be in it for the U.S.? Like any other treaty, that would be a point for negotiation.
As I see it, that is exactly as it should be. Just as you are not subject to American law, except when you are in America or the provisions of a treaty, you should also not be protected by it, except when you are in America, etc. etc.
> As surprising as this may sound, those of us born in other countries have the same rights too, and deserve the same protections.
Those protections that you may have derive from your own government and your own set of laws and the treaties made within that framework. You want to be protected by the laws of the United States of America, then be a citizen, with all the duties and responsibilities thereof.
They "systematically collect millions of Americans' phone records" which is ruled by court to be illegal (the reuters link).
Then they lied about it to congress, saying they didn't collect "any type of data at all on millions of Americans" (the second link).
He also took an oath later to testify truthfully at that Congressional committee hearing.
When those oaths conflict, which one takes priority?
Note that due to the nature of Wyden's question, Clapper could not simply say that he could not answer and give as the reason for not answering that it would require revealing classified information, because that itself would strongly imply that the answer was "yes".
Also, didn't Wyden already know the answer to the question? I thought I read that the members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (and also those of the corresponding House committee) knew about these programs. If so, then Clapper's answer (no matter what he said) would convey no relevant information to the Committee. At common law, that would rule out any possibility of it being perjury. I don't know if there is a similar exception in the relevant perjury statutes for Congressional testimony.
This is true, but it's bizarre that that the "Unauthorized people" would include Congress.
> When those oaths conflict, which one takes priority?
That might be a relevant question for whether or not he should be pardoned for committing perjury, but it's not a relevant question to deciding whether he committed perjury.
I'm not a lawyer, but it could perhaps be an affirmative defense [0].
They say that all the time.
1. Congressional committees that handle classified information can use closed-door sessions to hear these kinds of answers. There was no need for Clapper to lie.
2. Clapper also took an oath to uphold the constitution, before any other more specific oaths. It is difficult to see how lying to Congress fulfills this oath.
At best your argument rests on whether Wyden knew the answer and the common law argument that no answer could then be perjury. But there was no reason for Clapper to lie to a committee of the Congress.
Call your reps: TryVoices.com Petition the president: pardonsnowden.org/
Not arguing either way, but if you are going to take a strong stance, don't make an article about how the opposing stance is only held by the weak minded.
What if you really think that's the case?
Screw it, I'll say it. I think anyone who condemns Snowden is intellectually lazy or has vested interests in NSA surveillance. I have yet to see a single cogent rebuttal of Snowden's moral case.
/s
Snowden has a well-argued moral case for what he did. He demonstrably tried to minimize harm and maximize the positive impact of his disclosures.
You give literally no reason for your condemnation (though in all fairness, your comment is likely to be rhetorical).
More to the point, you will likely argue that he broke laws and cite some unspecified damage to the intelligence community that can neither be qualified nor quantified. Importantly, you will likely do this -- as every condemning voice has -- without offering a cogent rebuttal to Snowden's case. Lastly, and perhaps more importantly, you will fail to address the the clear and present danger of allowing a government to perform dragnet surveillance on its citizens without suspecting them of criminal activity.
If that's not intellectual laziness, then I honestly don't know what is.
If that's not going to be your line of argumentation, then congratulations! You are literally the first person I have encountered who condemns Snowden without being intellectually lazy or dishonest. I'll believe it when I see it.
(I feel compelled to mention, once more, that I mean no disrespect. I think your comment is rhetorical in nature, so I beg of you not to take anything personally.)
Dragnet surveillance that is being abused.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOVEINT
"Most incidents are self-reported", which says to me that they do not have effective monitoring - there are doubtless abuses that have gone undetected.
But the unproven collateral damage of Snowden's leaks, which had the giant upside of revealing democracy-chilling surveillance techniques, leads to mass reaction from the government. So, undeniable upside/debatable downside = Enemy of the State, threats to nations that offer him asylum.
How does this arithmetic work out for anyone?
But they are wide awake and outraged when Snowden's ostensible act of espionage has caused an enormous amount of public good and technological innovation.
It's not really the American's fault. We hear few of their real voices. It's the media that speaks the loudest.
I've only ever heard official policy statements condemning him. I am not even really sure those stating such policy agree with what they are saying (at a personal level).
[0] This is a non-partisan view. I hear it from Democrats, Republicans, and some Libertarians (who hold more to the fiscal sense of modern libertarianism than the civil liberties sense, which is a shame). There's a large group of people in the US who seem to believe that security for-its-own-sake cannot be evil, in an ends-justify-the-means version of morality.
Edward Snowden isn't an elected official. It wasn't his job to decide which US policies he agrees with. Government can't function if low level employees take it upon themselves to rule.
Seriously, there are very few traits that I can think of which really represent all Americans; we're much too diverse for that, and we're growing farther and farther apart. The lifestyles and attitudes in rural areas are extremely different from those in urban centers, and it's becoming more and more divergent (for instance, Millennials are abandoning car ownership).
So any time you see someone say something like "Americans think..." you have to take it with a grain of salt, and at best realize that they're talking about some sizeable demographic, which probably is not an absolute majority, but is large enough to make it a valid statement, unless you want to quibble about what qualifies such a statement, as if you demand that it apply to a clear majority (say, over 60%), then no such statement will probably ever be true of Americans, except things that are also true of people in many other places (for instance: "Americans like smartphones" -- not at all unique to Americans).
Pro-authoritarian boards do indeed represent a sizeable swath of Americans, like it or not. Just look at how popular the alt-right is these days.
This is an enormously basic fallacy. I was born and raised in the US and have spent a quarter century of life here, so I think it's fair to say "I know quite a few" Americans. But I would think it beyond insane to claim that my sample is useful for statements like "I know a lot of Americans and none feel this way. Who are they?". I also don't know any Trump supporters, any single parents, any heroin addicts, any cardiosurgeons, any farmers...is it really that difficult to believe that your sample of Americans isn't typical (despite its impressive size of "quite a few")?
(The comment I was replying to said that Americans are ok with one thing but not ok with another. It was implying that all Americans think the same way and I disagree)
Whether the government is actually doing that (and whether---even if it were---that's sufficient for completely extrajudicial killing that would be called "waging warfare" in any other context) may not be things an average American is asking before going to sleep at night.
No, 90% of the drone deaths weren't known indented targets. If you bomb a Taliban camp to kill a known Taliban leader, you are going to kill a lot of people, but they aren't going to be mostly civilians.
Sure some of them are civilians who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. But that's legal under international law and essentially unavoidable in war.
You could argue that maybe America is aiming at targets without any regard for who surrounds them, but that you can't use that 90% figure to do it. And I also believe that you'd be wrong.
In counter point, if we start allowing anyone who feels like they can leak this stuff on their own authority, and it starts costing lives of Americans, how many would you consider "worth it"? At what point does it move from whistle-blowing so it's okay to treason?
You haven't even bothered to provide an argument to justify your condemnation. Case closed.
In any case, I think the article we're commenting upon makes the case better than I could. Opinions to to the contrary (from what I've seen) tout the damage (unquantified and unqualified) that was done to the intelligence community and gloss over the obvious wrongdoing on the part of the government. Further, I have yet to see a single article that both condemns Snowden while directly arguing against his moral case for whistleblowing.
But again, none of this was my point. My point is rather that I see no reason why such an opinion should invalidate or detract from a movie/article/whatever.
I interpreted the parent comment as saying "if you accuse anyone of intellectual laziness, that detracts from your work". I find this view problematic, especially when there's ample evidence of intellectual laziness: condemnation without addressing a well-argued moral case.
Does anyone really still have the time or energy to argue with a birther? Or a Holocaust denier? There's no evidence supporting their point of view, so why is it up to me to have to prove them wrong? Every reasonable person already accepts that what the NSA was doing is wrong. You can't hold the simultaneous opinions that Snowden was a traitor who should be punished and that the NSA was wrong for conducting illegal wiretaps.
I would actually argue that it's not wasting time to insult them, it's wasting time arguing with them. If you try to prove them wrong, they're going to engage you in their nonsense, because their mind is already made up. If you insult them, they're more likely to just leave you alone. But no matter what, you're not going to change their minds.
That's exactly the attitude that brought us Donald Trump. If you mock and delegitimize people for long enough, they'll stop taking the system seriously and just give you the finger in any way they can.
Donald Trump is what happens when you tell someone "yes, it's okay for you to think the president is a Muslim from Kenya" and not challenge that opinion. Unless you seriously think we should continue to pretend that these are actually legitimate opinions to hold? If someone says "vaccines cause autism" and you show them the facts but they come back and say "but those facts were made up by so-called "scientists"!", what then? What's your next move? You've already proven them wrong, they've already ignored you.
Either you continue to listen to them, thereby legitimizing their point of view, or you say they're crazy and move on with your life. Because you can only argue with facts. If you argue with them, you're inherently accepting their opinion as fact. We need to foster the idea that it's not okay to ignore easily provable facts. Ignorance is not an option. We need to shut down Donald Trump and Jenny McCarthy as soon as they start talking, not hear them out like they're part of the conversation.
And they get pissed off at being called crazy, and elect Donald Trump as President. So that didn't work out so well for you.
>We need to shut down Donald Trump and Jenny McCarthy as soon as they start talking, not hear them out like they're part of the conversation.
"Shutting down" people like that legitimizes their persecution narrative, which is a really, really bad move.
There's a lot to unpack here, but briefly, the idea of "legitimizing" an opinion suggests that there is some group of people who have the authority to decide what opinions are okay to hold and what aren't. The problem is, a) there is no dispassionate authority you can refer to when we're talking about political issues; everyone brings their own biases whether consciously or not, and b) people who already disagree will not cooperate with that authority voluntarily, and c) the authority has no actual power in a democratic polity anyway. You can't arrest the other side, you can't put them in camps, you can't fine them. All you can do is yell insults at them, and if they don't care what you think, you are effectively powerless -- and obviously powerless to anyone watching.
Your only option in a democratic society is to have faith in the truth, plainly and calmly and repeatedly and respectfully spoken. When the other side comes at you with illogical nonsense, don't get angry; look at it as an opportunity to educate the onlookers, an opportunity that the other side has generously given you. And take that opportunity as often as they foolishly provide it to you.
And yes, one can be cynical and believe that the truth doesn't always win out. But suppression of lies either ends up in the fascist state you're trying to prevent, or eventually collapses in on itself and creates an even worse reaction. In an open society, the fascists are a couple of losers in basements complaining to themselves while the world moves past them. In an increasingly closed society such as the one we live in now, they become the brave rebels fighting the Establishment. Don't let them be the brave rebels.
Thanks for the opportunity to express these thoughts.
Thanks for the conversation, I do see your point and I agree. It's a no-win (or at least a only-partial-win) situation, but stating the facts and moving on is probably the most effective route, with the hope that the truth wins in the end.
They're just so damn annoying though!
Have a cordial interaction with someone who sees things differently
Learn from this person about one of the things they are an expert on
Understand more deeply the pseudo-logic of their mindset and where it comes from
All of those goals are realistically achievable which should make them less frustrating than trying to win. And as a side benefit if you succeed at any of the above, you should be in a better position to bring them around should you go back to trying to do that.
>You can't hold the simultaneous opinions that Snowden was a traitor who should be punished and that the NSA was wrong for conducting illegal wiretaps.
Sure I can. Snowden could have leaked one single document that would blow open the illegal meta data case--the FISA subpoena. Instead he leaked thousands upon thousands of pages about stuff that had nothing to do with illegal wiretapping. He leaked stuff that is the unambiguously legal.
A huge percent of what snowden leaked was stuff he just didn't personally agree with. And sorry, that's not good enough for me. The USA isn't run by Edward Snowden.
I don't think he's a traitor, but he is a leaker.
And yeah, it's fine to believe that Snowden went too far while also believing the NSA went too far. But you specifically are not arguing against what I said. I said "you can't believe Snowden is a traitor...", you said "yes I can", and then went on to say "but I don't think he's a traitor". So... anyway.
"I base my opinion on X on the fact that my religion says X is right/wrong, I base that religion on faith" doesn't mean the opinion is based on fact. You've got me on that one.
Very few of the principles that basically everyone relies on to make value judgements are based on actual research. Most people who purport to base their opinions solely on scientific research are saying that because they have some small number of sample opinions that contradict commonly held opinions and which are based on facts. They then generalize to "all my beliefs are based on facts" even though basically none of these people actually audit their beliefs in any systematic way. The subjective experience of being an outspoken proponent of a factual analysis leads to the false generalization of that story into all aspects of their life.
But in fact we make thousands of judgements every day, the vast majority of which are based on a few casual observations, or our internal model of the universe, which, while based on facts, is not a reliable witness, nor is it a scientifically valid source of data.
Fact doesn't have to be based on research or science, all it means is "the truth". It is a fact that I have a dog sitting on my couch. I don't need actual research to back that up, it's just a fact. It is not a fact that my friend, who died a few years ago, is also sitting on the couch beside me. That's just a belief, based on faith. There has been zero scientific research into either of these claims, but one is undeniable fact and the other is not. It doesn't matter if you don't believe that I have a dog. Your lack of belief doesn't make it less true.
I honestly don't even remember what we're actually talking about, and at this point I'm pretty sure I don't care anymore. Sorry.
That's not a rational conclusion. Why make a baseless comparative judgement like "it's the best" when you can make a qualitative judgement, like "it's good" or "my wife likes it".
That's my point. You think you're scientifically minded, but you have opinions like "Old Spice is the best" that aren't based on facts at all.
> It is a fact that I have a dog sitting on my couch.
This falls into the category of "mundane historical events" I mentioned above.
> I honestly don't even remember what we're actually talking about, and at this point I'm pretty sure I don't care anymore. Sorry.
My guess is you don't have any rational disagreement with what I said, so you just started saying random things about hypothetical situations and you bored yourself.
If the opposite view is truly held by the weak-minded, then there is way more value in further ostracizing them than providing a case to and trying to reason with them.
While I disagree with the "anyone" part, I do believe that condemnation of Snowden comes most often from ignorance. The more I learned of the leaks in particular, and Snowden's reasoning on the information, the more I came to view his actions as necessary for a free society.
One person may not have the whole picture or understand everything they need to know to weigh the costs. IMO, Snowden didn't know everything he needed to prove what he was doing was the right course at the time. He just got help from the fact that the government is too secret for its own good and that we are in a relatively peaceful time and don't have many existential threats.
(Honestly, I am seeing a general trend toward better arguing and less fallacious logic as time goes on, but you are absolutely right, the argument should not be based on a basic logical fallacy)
(I thought it was funny, but both I and the GP should probably be voted down to keep whimsical humour like this off HN. The GP will probably argue I should be upvoted for suggesting a downvote of whimsical humor.)
1. They kept promising it was just metadata they were collecting. Alexander got specific on all extra services they weren't collecting on. This was lies.
2. Another lies under oath to Congress about same thing.
3. They said it was just selective stuff to find terrorists. Snowden leaks revealed vast majority of this spying was on Europe, South America, and Asia with stuff like Dell PowerEdge servers terrorists probably aren't using. ;)
4. Americans assumed it was us and our allies versus the terrorist again with these tools for that. Instead, we find they were doing stuff like spying on Beligian industry taking down their telecoms in the process. Stuff like that, done in secret by groups with immunity, could really bite Americans in the ass as a whole and should be up for national, policy debate.
5. The NSA has been pushing INFOSEC recommendations to military, defense contractors, federal government, and rest of us for years. I pointed out most of it was EAL4+ or less, meaning it definitely get hacked by enemies. They knew this. Incompetence or evil (SIGINT)? Snowden leaks indicate it was them leaving backdoors in for themselves that our enemies might use against us as well. Did in a few cases I believe.
6. Similar to 5, they were believed to be helping us improve our security standards and cyberspace readiness. Instead, BULLRUN program aimed to subvert that as much as possible in ways that would damage us. The combo of 5 and 6 makes the NSA the 2nd greatest threat to American INFOSEC of them all right after American capitalism insistence on treating INFOSEC like a liability.
7. Prior to leaks, Alexander and others always explained they only collected on Americans when they had a court order. Nobody explained that FISA warrants are for "targeting criteria" run against all the data of all Americans they're already intercepting. On top of a court that virtually never rejects anything and doesn't imprison offenders.
So, these are 7 quick revelations from the leaks that should result in resistance from Americans, some job openings in government, and prosecution of specific individuals for actual crimes. Internal channels always squashed information like this since the problems were driven from top down by people who lie to Americans and Congress. US government also kept saying judicial system couldn't participate at all. Leaking to public is all that's left in such a situation. He certainly could've filtered the leaks themselves a bit but the domestic stuff would have to come out pretty much in full to back his assertions.
It's also common knowledge that allies spy on each. America's biggest counter-intelligence threat is actually Israel. They are spying on us all the time.
Such systematic deception of American people, Congress, courts, etc is a problem. That they were targeting Americans themselves while saying they werent is bigger. That two leaders committed perjury but dont get punished makes it worse.
This isnt some authorized action conducting itself ethically, effectively, and accountably. It's been opposite across the board. And the leakers are only reason we knew.
And the unanimous, bipartisan report of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence: http://intelligence.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?Docum...
We can analyze the claims Gellman makes here, though, and further our understanding of the controversy. I believe these are all of them:
* The House report claims Snowden lied saying he left military training due to broken legs, and instead washed out due to "shin splints". Gellman objects, saying he has a documented diagnosis for Snowden saying he was discharged with "bilaterial tibial stress fractures". But tibial stress fractures are a form --- a common form --- of shin splint.
* The House report claims Snowden never completed his high school equivalency. Gellman has the score Snowden got on his equivalency back in 2004. The House report's claim is inexplicable.
* The House report claims Snowden was a very low level employee. Gellman objects based on his titles and the fact that he was sent to Europe under diplomatic cover. It's difficult to evaluate this dispute. His claims about Snowden's titles are very unconvincing --- it's also extremely unlikely that Snowden had the role Gellman claims he had w/r/t/ Dell's cybersecurity group (Dell employs a huge number of infosec people). You'd also want to know whether it was routine for people employed at CIA to be deployed under diplomatic cover, because Gellman uses that as evidence of his seniority.
* The House report claims Snowden doctored his performance evaluations. Gellman rebuts that Snowden was demonstrating a vulnerability in the web app that displayed it. I'm inclined to believe both sides of this story could believe their side in good faith, but you might disagree.
* The House report claims Snowden stole the answers to an employment questionnaire. (This claim was also made by officials on 60 Minutes) Gellman rebuts that the test in question was very basic, and by this point in Snowden's career he'd had so much experience --- and an MCSE certificate --- that he wouldn't need to. Gellman doesn't know whether this happened, or what test they're talking about. The 60 Minutes claim is that the test involved getting into NSA's TAO group, which makes me think the MCSE certificate not so relevant. But ultimately: we don't know, and neither does Gellman.
* The House report makes mention of Snowden's flight to Russia. Gellman rebuts that it was in fact a thwarted flight to Ecuador. I think Gellman is probably wrong about this: the claim that Snowden was diligently trying to reach Ecuador depends on him being stuck in Sheremetyevo due to passport invalidation, but it's been pointed out repeatedly that he could have obtained an exit visa without a valid passport. There's also the wrinkles that Snowden spent time (days) in the Russian consulate in Hong Kong, and that he was advised by others to seek asylum in Russia. Both sides again might have valid reasons to push their arguments, but Gellman's rebuttal isn't dispositive.
* The House report notes that Snowden didn't avail himself of whistleblower protections in the US. Gellman claims he could not have. Both sides can be right. There is very little evidence that Snowden attempted to escalate his findings through channels (there are a lot of public claims that he did, but the actual evidence apparently comes down to a single email that makes no mention of an urgent complaint). Further, we have Snowden's own claim that he took the Booz Allen job specifically to get access to these documents and send them overseas --- internal whistleblower channels would impede that objective. Moreover: this is a slippery argument: Gellman can always define some action (for instance: bulk delivery of internal documents to The Guardian) for which whistleblower protections would not apply.
* The House report claims that Snowden stole 1.5MM documents. Gellman says we don't have evidence as to the specific number. I mean, sure. Whatever.
* Members of the House Intelligence Committee have claimed that Snowden did more damage to US interests than anyone in history. Gellman, rightly, points out that this is total bullshit.
It's worth remembering that Gellman is focusing primarily on a single section of the executive summary of the House report --- the one claiming that Snowden is a fabulist.
Like I said: I'm an admirer of Gellman's. It's clear to me that Gellman is several steps removed from the lingo and trade knowledge of information security, so I think he can sometimes find himself convinced by things that would leave an expert wary. But I also think Gellman, more than some other writers, is at pains to make reported, fact-based, good-faith arguments.
I didn't find this piece totally convincing, but there are clearly claims that the House IC has made that don't withstand any scrutiny, so the fact check is definitely valuable. Thanks again for finding it!
But only by grace of some entity with the power to grant him such a visa, right? He couldn't just ask for one and get it (someone in Slate I think said something like, look, Russia could have given him a visa and Cuba could have let him in—yeah, but those are things Russia and Cuba have to decide to do, not things Snowden can do off his own bat).
You can simplify this whole point to:
Unless the Russians aren't benign --- in which case it's a very bad thing that Snowden is in Russia --- if Snowden wanted to be in Ecuador, he'd be in Ecuador.
I think this is very naïve. The US wanted him very badly, and we can throw our weight around pretty well. [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident
The US can't prevent Snowden from boarding a plan in Moscow. (Well, I mean, there are all kinds of means by which it might attempt to do so, but no one in this thread has suggested that they would be likely to use them.)
It can, and would be far more likely to, OTOH, use its influence to a prevent a plane from Moscow from reaching Ecuador without being forced to the ground, searched for Snowden, etc., if Snowden did board it (or was suspected to have done so.)
Which is exactly what happened (except, of course, that Snowden had not actually boarded the plane, despite the US suspicion that he had, and that the destination was Bolivia, not Ecuador) in the Evo Morales grounding incident referenced upthread, so I'm somewhat surprised that you didn't understand the fairly direct implication.
Furthermore, what does any of this have to do with Snowden's suspended passport? The passport isn't what's keeping him in Russia. I think the two plausible things that might be are: (1) Snowden, (2) Russia. You think there's a third? Can you explain it in some detail?
The US has foreign intelligence services, utilizing both human and technical means, and they attempt to monitor movements of persons who are of concern to the US, with varying degrees of success.
(The degree to which Snowden is still actively a concern to the US is a bit less clear.)
> If you believe Assange
I don't, particularly, but on this particular point his claim isn't implausible, and, more to the point, isn't materially relevant.
> the reason for the Morales incident was that Assange leaked false information to make that happen.
Sure, that might be what they US believed Snowden was on the plane. Of course, were the US not both able and inclined to stop even a foreign leader's plane from transitting unmolested from Russia to South America if Snowden was believed to be on it, Assange's false leak (assuming that is the source of the belief) would be immaterial. That they have the capacity and will, however, to take such acts is demonstrated by the Morales incident independently of the source of the false belief that Snowden was on the plane.
> Furthermore, what does any of this have to do with Snowden's suspended passport?
Nothing, I wasn't responding to a claim about a passport I was responding to the claim that if Snowden wanted to be in Ecuador, he would be in Ecuador, and there is nothing the US could do to stop him from simply boarding a plane in Moscow and flying to Ecuador.
Their manifestly is something the US could do, and has demonstrated both the ability and willingness to do, to stop him from doing that.
> The passport isn't what's keeping him in Russia. I think the two plausible things that might be are: (1) Snowden, (2) Russia. You think there's a third? Can you explain it in some detail?
The United States. And I think I've explained it in excruciating detail in this post, and my prior post in this subthread.
It actually doesn't, since the logic at issue is "they have shown both the capacity and the will to do this to planes they believe are carrying Snowden from Russia to South America in the past".
They clearly have not shown the capacity and will to grab Snowden off the street in the past.
Its certainly not impossible that they could, but its a different category of risk from something that they have demonstrated both the capacity and will to do against the specific target in the past.
I will note, with bemusement, that our shadowy spy network was unable to effect his capture when he was known to be in Hong Kong. We must have a gap in capabilities for the most westernized part of China.
If he remains in Moscow, he has near zero chance of being rendered. If he leaves, he is one piece of HUMINT/SIGINT away from being grounded and taken into custody.
I think even a few of the more intelligent dog breeds would be able to choose correctly here.
I found an interesting Assange interview on the Morales incident [0]. The whole thing is worth reading, but let me just quote one bit:
Portugal, Spain and France closed their airspace. Some other things happened. Some preemptive extradition requests were sent out, for example, to Iceland, which we got hold of and published. So there was — the U.S. was pressuring countries where flights might go through or land or refuel. And as a result of that operation, then it became clear that in fact it was too dangerous to — at that moment, at least, to take any flight out of Moscow. And this is what then led to his eventual asylum. It wasn’t just the removal of the passport, which removed his ability to use commercial flights. It was that the U.S. was closing airspace and acting in a manner where you would have to assume that they — you know, if a flight went past the United States — not over U.S. territory, but past the United States — there might be some kind of interdiction.
Assange goes on to suggest that Russia had their hands forced by the US Government's willingness to pull strings to catch Snowden, and by the willingness of Western Europe -- France, Portugal, and Spain, at least -- to roll over. This put Putin in the position of either granting Snowden's asylum request or looking like another US patsy. Well, the last thing Putin would ever do is look weak. (I suspect Putin is not really too unhappy to make sure Snowden stays alive.)
Anyway, although Putin's cooperation is clearly necessary, the primary force keeping Snowden in Russia is, and has always been, the US Government.
[0] http://www.democracynow.org/2015/5/28/assange_on_the_untold_...
We're talking about why, of all the places he could be in the world, he's in Russia --- and not Ecuador, where he claims he intended to go.
You used the word "hostage" upthread. I don't think this is in any sense a hostage situation.
There are direct flights between Moscow and Havana every day.
Fun fact: the country Snowden supposedly wanted to flee to has an extradition treaty with the US.
Anyway, you yourself mentioned the possibility of grabbing Snowden off the streets. I don't think for a moment that Putin would allow that to happen; the governments of Central and South America are another matter (not that they would willingly cooperate, necessarily, only that they couldn't do anything about it).
(For the record, I don't accept your claim that the passport is irrelevant. I don't really know how these things work, but I don't have the impression that it's easy for a known international fugitive to persuade a commercial carrier to board him with a canceled passport. I will grant that if Putin wanted Snowden to leave Russia, he could have made it happen; in that sense, the passport is not a barrier.)
As for the extradition treaty -- is it possible Snowden would have made a mistake in selecting his destination? Of course it is. What's your point? [ETA: I get it. You think the whole story is a lie and Snowden planned to stay in Russia all along. I think the absurdity of that view is matched only by its cynicism.]
The language I'm seeing says that "shin splints" refer specifically to what's called a "medial stress syndrome", which is different from (and of lesser degree) than an actual "stress fracture" like Snowden was diagnosed with.
The main point is no one would normally accuse someone who suffered a stress fracture of exaggerating or misstating the nature of their condition by referring to it as a "broken X." The Committee's attempt to get us to believe otherwise in Snowden's case (along with the gratuitous phrase, "washed out") is a blatant attempt at semantic and psychological manipulation.
I would: I think that it indicates a propensity to exaggerate.
Moreover, I know folks who've had far worse than just shin splints (broken legs, in fact), and did make it through basic training. Washing out is generally indicative of one wanting to wash out: the military gives one the tools to either succeed or fail, as one wishes.
Perhaps you would, but if so you'd be placing yourself at odds with the consensus definition of what constitutes a "broken bone". Not that it specifically includes "stress fractures":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone_fracture
Moreover, I know folks who've had far worse than just shin splints (broken legs, in fact)
I'd continue, but you're going in circles. It's already been established Snowden did not merely have "shin splints."
Neither Gellman nor the House Intelligence report is incorrect here.
The whole point is that there's no way one can reasonably claim Snowden was exaggerating or misstating the reason for his discharge. The Committee's assertions on this point were just a smear, and a pretty crude one at that.
Unfortunately, your argument is made more difficult by the original narrative of Snowden's story, which claims he "broke both legs in a training accident". Were tibial stress fractures what anyone conjured up from that description?
Both sides --- Gellman and the House committee --- spun this particular issue. Both sides should have provided more context.
Personally, I also think both Gellman and the House report are litigating the dumbest, least important aspect of the Snowden events. I don't really care what kind of person Snowden is, and I don't understand what his personality has to do with public policy. I'm surprised Gellman conceded this dimension of the debate --- especially because a lot of the facts aren't really on his side, in the persuasive sense. Surely Snowden was more sympathetic when we thought he'd been in a pair of casts after a parachute mishap. The House report succeeded in re-casting this part of the story, with some assistance by Gellman.
Well, granting the analogy for the sake of argument, the problem here is the House report says that Snowden lied by saying he was diagnosed with chronic pharyngitis when he really had a sore throat.
IOW, he is being called a liar for saying something that is literally and exactly factually true about his discharge, and which is exactly supported by the discharge papers.
(The analogy isn't precise, because at best the description used in the House report is less specific, and implies a much less serious injury in the common mind even if it can include the actual injury that occurred. So, the House report is even more dishonest than the analogy in the above paragraph would suggest.)
> Personally, I also think both Gellman and the House report are litigating the dumbest, least important aspect of the Snowden events. I don't really care what kind of person Snowden is
Sure, you don't, but you aren't representative of the masses of the public, and what the House report is trying to do (and do so at least as dishonestly as it is trying to paint Snowden as doing) -- and Gellman is trying to negate (and perhaps even turn back on the House report itself) -- is poisoning the well. They know that the substance of the matter regarding Snowden's action is difficult and complex, and they want to give the public a clear and easy to grasp reason to tune the whole thing out because "Snowden is dishonest".
Politically, its in a way the most important thing even if it is substantively least important, because its exactly the kind of thing which will -- and this is the whole reason that any time and ink has been spent on it -- prevent the substantive parts from getting attention.
I know my original post reads like a list of complaints I have about Gellman's post, but it isn't: it's a list of all the claims Gellman makes, and a short take on each of them.
So, I think it's worth knowing that when Gellman says the House Report is lying because Snowden has a diagnosis of "bilateral tibial stress fractures", he's describing a common result of seeking medical attention for shin splints. That's all.
It's worth mentioning here that the Snowden movie --- I haven't seen it, but that's why all this stuff is coming up now --- appears to be false on this point in no uncertain terms. But then, the broader narrative point the movie is trying to make --- that Snowden was prevented from joining the Special Forces for medical reasons --- might not be. But then a narrower issue is whether he washed out of X-ray Special Forces Training (the "street directly to special forces training" program), or out of the military in general --- that is: did he wash out because he was only willing to serve if he could go straight to Special Forces, when he could have managed his repetitive stress injury, stayed engaged with the Army, and taken the conventional path into Special Forces? And on and on. The whole thing is a mess.
We are rapidly approaching a point where I am going to start reading reports on parachutists managing tibial stress fractures and I'd be happier if we didn't get all the way to that point.
No, it's not. It's quite a silly comparison, actually.
"Shin splints" is a diagnosis, in that its the popular name for medial tibial stress syndrome.
If the only point you're making is that the House Report is dishonest in not acknowledging that nobody is diagnosed with literally the term "shin splints", OK, sure, I agree.
But it's a little crazy to me that we're discussing this to this extent, since it's the least important claim in both Gellman and the House's documents.
And attempted comparisons to a "runny nose", even more so.
They are, or rather, they are diagnosed with medial tibial stress syndrome, which is a distinct and generally less serious thing from a tibial stress fractures (though, AFAICT, may include tibial stress fractures.)
But the relationship between the "shin splits" and medial tibial stress syndrome is clear -- one is the common name and one the formal medical term.
And that's not, in fact, what Snowden was diagnosed with.
And what Snowden was actually diagnosed with is, in fact, broken bones in both legs, so for the House report to paint him as a liar in saying that he was discharged with broken legs because he was -- by the reports description -- discharged with mere shin splints is a lie of such breathtaking brazenness, on such a trivial matter, so far from the substantive meat of the issue, that it demonstrates that the report was written with the intent to smear Snowden everywhere possible without any regard for the actual facts. And that's what makes it important, rather than the importance of the particular claim to the substantive matter.
A stress fracture is a broken bone. Tibial stress fractures are (among the more severe and longer-healing) manifestations of medial tibial stress syndrome ("shin splints"). So, Gellman's evidence is consistent with the House reports claim that Snowden washed out due to "shin splints", but nevertheless rebuts the House reports claim that Snowden lied about broken legs.
Essentially, the House report is itself lying in a fairly brazen fashion (and counting on ignorance of the meaning of the terms used to get away with it) by claiming that they can paint something as a lie based on a fact which is itself entirely consistent with the claim it is supposed to demonstrate is a lie.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12535114
I think both sides are spinning. It's clear to me how the House Report lawyers Snowden's training history, but where you see Gellman rebutting a House Report claim that no bone fractures were involved in Snowden's separation from the army, I see Gellman failing to acknowledge that a tibial stress fractures are a common medical diagnosis for "shin splints".
I think it's clearer in light of Snowden's original claim to the Guardian that he left training after "breaking both legs in a training accident" (it is possible, but unlikely, that Snowden acquired stress fractions as a result of a single discrete training event --- but Snowden was getting a lot of mileage out of the ambiguity).
Even if "shin splints" weren't the common name for a different and lesser less severe diagnosis, those wouldn't be equivalent.
The House report would still be dishonest in calling Snowden a liar for a statement that is completely accurate. And Gellman would still be completely dishonest (even with the failure to acknowledge that you suggest) in painting the House report as dishonest for dishonestly calling Snowden a liar for a statement that is completely accurate.
This isn't "both sides spinning". It is one side outright lying and using misdirection to get away with that, and one side pointing this out without any misdirection.
The acknowledgement (even if it were accurate) that you fault Gellman for giving is irrelevant to the point in dispute, which isn't "Snowden actually had something that can be described with the term 'shin splints'", but "Snowden was dishonest in saying that he had broken legs". His discharge report indicates that he had broken bones in both legs. Snowden was not dishonest. At best, if one accepts your description, the House report relied on people's ignorance to sell a different, nonconflicting-but-also-not-incorrect description of the events as a conflicting one so that it could call Snowden a liar; at worst it actually invented a false narrative to call Snowden a liar, but whether it was a false narrative or simply relied on a false presentation of conflict, the House report relied on deliberate falsehood to call Snowden a liar.
> I think it's clearer in light of Snowden's original claim to the Guardian that he left training after "breaking both legs in a training accident" (it is possible, but unlikely, that Snowden acquired stress fractions as a result of a single discrete training event --- but Snowden was getting a lot of mileage out of the ambiguity).
Its not all that unlikely that the stress fractures, if not being acquired, became acute enough to cause him to leave training as a result of a single discrete training event, and its even less unlikely that he became unable to train and sought or was referred to medical attention as a result of pain and lack of ability to take weight occurring in the immediate context of a discrete training event and in the course of being diagnosed, was not disabused of the notion that the training event in which the injury was recognized was not necessarily the sole or major cause. So, its not improbable that Snowden's description to the Guardian was accurate, and even more likely that it accurately reflected the facts as he knew them.
If you washed out it would have to be severe -- if the shin splints were minor you'd simply be given time to heal and the ability to rollback into the next class. But even if they were severe, we (recruits and staff alike) called them 'shin splints', not 'broken legs'.
However technically true Snowden's usage of 'my legs were broken' may have been, we would never have called it 'broken legs' unless he'd suffered a macroscopic fracture or a break (in other words, something that'd normally require a cast, splint, or crutches).
So the fact that Snowden did so is actually quite consistent with the HPSCI's assertions about his 'narcissistic' and 'self-serving' nature. There /should/ be little shame in washing out for shin splints, certainly not enough to be deceptive about it when your credibility is about to be closely examined for something that is theoretically far more important to you.
I haven't gone through anything close to SF training but wash-outs happen all the time; you heal up and generally get to try again, since it's not like you can just stay with your class, and the military services need SOF-quality forces bad enough that if you're otherwise qualified to get into that pipeline then it's beneficial for them to give you that opportunity.
On the other hand in a basic training environment, if you get shin splints you may get a medical profile or light duty chit saying not to do certain types of exercise (or even to wear different shoes) to give your lower legs time to heal. But if it's bad enough you can be pulled out of training completely and put in a holding company to heal up properly and then roll back into a class.
I was briefly in a holding company for something else; there were recruits there who had been out of training due to shin splints for months, usually when they refused to go to medical when they first started noticing symptoms and tried to tough it out.
We have Barton Gellman defending Snowden by saying that he was diagnosed with 'bilateral tibial stress fractures'. But, this is consistent with shin splints (albeit more severe) and could be the result of trying to maintain the exercise regimen that gave you shin splints in the first place. But nor are bilateral tibial stress fractures something you get in a training accident or other single event -- it's a repetitive injury that you get when your body cannot sustain the level of demand being placed on it over time.
It still hurts like a bitch if you let it get to that point, and Snowden would not be anywhere near the first or the last to wash out of a military training pipeline due to that. But he sells it like he broke his legs in some sort of accident at a single SF training event, not like the exact same type of repetitive stress injury that has been a common cause of medical washouts in many other men and women attempting the same training (even for ceremonial duties! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2807419/).
Every single movie "based on real events" is pretty much made up. Pointing to the differences between the movie and real life is (IMHO) a pointless exercise. More so when it's used then to justify a political position.
Put another way: as good as JFK is, I wouldn't put anyone in jail because of it.
I like when they say a movie is inspired by a true story. That's kind of silly. "Hey, Mitch, did you hear that story about that lady who drove her car into the lake with her kids and they all drowned?" "Yeah, I did, and you know what - that inspires me to write a movie about a gorilla!"
Claiming moral high ground comes with scrutiny. If for example he had indeed stolen the test questions to pass the test that paints a slightly different picture of the character he and his supporters are trying to sell.
https://tcf.org/content/commentary/house-intelligence-commit...
You mean these statements? 'He claimed to have left Army basic training because of broken legs when in fact he washed out because of shin splints. He claimed to have obtained a high school degree equivalent when in fact he never did.'
They go to Snowden's credibility (or complete lack thereof). Presumably the full report (an unclassified version of which has not yet been released) goes into details.
Regarding his stress fractures, he made it sound as though he was left a temporary cripple; shin splints aren't that big a deal and plenty of people heal up and complete basic training after having them.
Right now, one of Snowden's allies claims Snowden got a GED; the House Committee claims he did not get a high school degree equivalent. I'll trust the House Committee until the report is released.
For now, I see someone who claimed to have mono, who claimed to have epilepsy, who claimed to have washed out of basic training due to broken legs (leaving 'on crutches,' which may be technically true but misleading), who claimed to have all sorts of evidence of illegal actions, not one of whose claims of illegal actions has been borne out, yet who also claims to have released evidence of legal activity to adversary state. His trustworthiness rating looks incredibly low.
There's no reason to believe they'd be hiding the "goods" on these accusations in the classified report. The only reason they aren't providing any more detail is because... they don't have any.
Regarding his stress fractures, he made it sound as though he was left a temporary cripple;
Where? Quotes, please.
BTW if you've ever had any kind of a bone fracture -- in that part of the body, it does make you a "temporary cripple". Presumably the Army agreed, which is why they discharged him.
Shin splints aren't that big a deal and plenty of people heal up and complete basic training after having them.
But he wasn't diagnosed for shin splints (or anything equivalent to it); his actual diagnoses was for something different (and categorically more serious). "Shin splints" are just an invention of the Intelligence Committee.
Right now, one of Snowden's allies claims Snowden got a GED; the House Committee claims he did not get a high school degree equivalent. I'll trust the House Committee until the report is released.
The article refers to documents on file with the Maryland State Department of Education, which is the authority I'll trust on this matter. But if you want to believe what the IC report nakedly asserts on the matter (despite not providing a shred of evidence), go ahead -- whatever works for you.
It is said in this article that Snowden leaked information that is appropriately done by the NSA as part of their charter. The direct quote:
Whatever one’s views of U.S. foreign policy in those parts of the world, these activities are legitimate aspects of the NSA’s charter
I think that Stone took some liberties with historical facts, but everyone else I was with didn't agree with my skepticism. In any case, I would recommend seeing the movie.
People like Snowden 'cause he seems like a nice guy who genuinely believes in what he says.
... which, one could argue, is a problem with the way the US runs espionage.
How about the existence of "setting an example" sentences, which would absolutely happen to Snowden?
None of this would have been possible without Snowden.
So, thanks, I guess.
Snowden revealed the things the NSA was doing that he believed to be illegal. The government agreed that what the NSA was doing was illegal, but no one really knew about it before Snowden revealed it. However in the aftermath, the government decided that while the NSA was doing something illegal, they were doing it because they believed it was necessary, and the government agreed. So they changed the laws to make legal what the NSA had previously been doing illegally. The net result is, everything Snowden warned us about is now legal and nothing has changed.
An unfortunate, unintended consequence, but I would strongly hesitate to blame it on Snowden. If he hadn't said anything, it would have continued, hidden away. If he did say something, it would be codified into law. Net result is, it was going to happen anyway. But at least everyone knows about it now, and I consider that to be a positive.
A key part of any propaganda war is convincing people to abandon the cause. Now that Snowden has stood up, we have no option, as citizens who care about reformation, but to ultimately support him.
What they overlooked was that the patriot act section 215, which they relied on for power to ask for metadata records, only allowed to them data related to an investigation. But they were preemptively getting all meta data totally unrelated to any investigation.
So they created a new law to allow the NSA to collect targeted metadata. Which some privacy proponents believe is just as bad, but it's definitely more limited than what the NSA was doing before.
It was never reasonable to believe that the NSA couldn't ever get your meta data. Police can get it for regular investigations too. They just can't get everyone's for no reason.
IMO Snowden ended the bulk collection.
The same Washington Post that published Snowden's documents, and won a Pultizer for doing so.
Alas, there's been too much two-minutes-hate, Emmanuel Goldstein-style demonization ginned up against Snowden. He'll never get a pardon, much less a medal or the presidency.
What he did revealing domestic government activities is clearly whistle blowing. What he did after that is inexcusable and on par with what the Rosenberg's did.
It's not like it's a mystery what would happen if he did. Only tyrants make martyrs.
I don't believe he would get a fair trial. I don't think he believes he would, either. In fact, the US refuses to promise him one: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/edward-snowden-wants-t...
If you think he'd even get a fair trial if he returned to the US, then that's the point you need to be justifying.
The Constitution says we get due process in trials. People in Espionage Act trials don't. Further, there's no intent by the U.S. government or courts to prosecute anyone the leaks revealed were deceiving Americans in a number of ways. Accountability works both ways. Either they all get tried for their crimes with due process or I find it highly corrupt to only want one charged while others remain above the law. I'm against him being tried unless the others are and with a defense allowed with full access to relevant, classified info. At least what's already leaked.
He revealed what everyone interested was already suspecting. The reason Russia shelters him is that he was working for them. It's a reward, and one they have to give out, otherwise no on smart would cooperate with them.
If he wasn't a former Russian agent, it'd be better for them letting America make an example of him, because what would make US look worse than jailing for life someone who is widely considered a hero by a good fraction of population.
Oh, wait, that is what happened.
Yeah, Russia (e.g. not USSR, but the present second-tier world player) has so many spies in the US, including in major government agencies, and people affecting internal politics and decision making so much.
/s
It's time people understand that not all nations are alike or of the same power -- there is a single global bully who gets to do whatever they like and influence whatever it wants mostly unchecked and mostly unchallenged. And it's neither Russia, nor China. China has meddle somewhat in Asia, but it hasn't been in war or toppling governments and setting up Banana Republics at Europe or Latin America or Africa. Others had.
The only enemy to this single power, if it can even be called that, since unlike 99.9% of actual enemies in actual history it hasn't done to it an iota of damage statistically speaking, is the fanatic islamists -- random people from 20+ countries, including goat herders, conspiring, without even a single nation state daring to openly support them. In fact, their biggest supporter, state wise, is also in bed with the single power. Go figure.
Given the lack of evidence to support either theory, I choose to believe my conspiracy theory because I like it better. ;)
(The fun thing about conspiracy theories is bending them to account for new facts with increasingly twisted, interally-consistent logic ;) )