Snowden: getting enough?

[+ friendofsheila]

Is Edward Snowden getting enough blowjobs?

 

Maybe the new documentary will tell us.

 

[video=youtube;6ADUs8iN7NE]

 

If not, maybe we need to take turns flying out there, show our support, you know?

[+ Cash4Trash]

Saw Citizen Four yesterday. Well worth making an effort to see. (Spoiler) Regrettably, friendofsheila, you learn that his girlfriend of 10 years has moved to Moscow.

[+ friendofsheila]

(Spoiler) Regrettably, friendofsheila, you learn that his girlfriend of 10 years has moved to Moscow.

 

You know as well as I do we can do him better!

[Diverdan]

I will not see this... HE IS A TRAITOR TO THIS COUNTRY.... I hope we catch him someday so he can get what he deserves...

[Guest boiworship08]

I will not see this... HE IS A TRAITOR TO THIS COUNTRY.... I hope we catch him someday so he can get what he deserves...

 

Really? Time will tell. Remember Thomas Jefferson's admonition about tyranny.

[Rod Hagen]

I don't need to wait for history, nothing Snowden's done makes him a traitor. I do find it interesting that Glen Greenwald became heroic out of this; certainly didn't earn it. Snowden just chose him based on his articles. The Film is good, a bit too detailed sometime (I REALLY don't need 8 minutes on how insufficiently Glen secures his laptop), but damn good movie actually.

[+ friendofsheila]

The subject is blowjobs, fellas.

 

Blowjobs, blowjobs, blowjobs.

 

Think of this thread and think about blowjobs.

 

[+ quoththeraven]

Sorry, FoS, mention "Edward Snowden" and blowjobs are about the last thing I think of.

 

He is neither a traitor or a hero. I am glad someone revealed the extent of NSA surveillance activities on US soil, though they don't fill me with the same kind of dread others seem to experience; call me naive, but access to metadata is not the same thing as access to actual messages. Nevertheless, I consider those activities overbroad, illegal (despite being authorized by the FISA court), and unconstitutional.

 

One reason I am more blase about this than others is my experience working for one of the largest and most feared federal agencies, where the left hand didn't know what the right had was doing. I'm sure the NSA is more technologically sophisticated than the IRS -- Congress is happier to throw money at national security even though if this were a business, you'd prioritize the needs of the one component that generates revenue rather than gives it away -- but I'm still skeptical that the NSA is the all-seeing eye people think it is.

 

On the other hand, I believe in people living with the consequences of their actions. Edward Snowden is a coward with no concept of what civil disobedience entails. Fleeing to Russia -- a country with a demonstrably worse record on civil liberties than the US -- to avoid prosecution in the US is cowardly. I'd have a lot more respect for him if he stood trial in the US and made necessity (as in this was the only way to get the word out about an unconstitutional abuse of government power) his defense. Think of the Berrigans (who were in fact guilty of the crimes of which they were accused) and Daniel Ellsberg, who escaped conviction because of the procedural irregularities in which the authorities engaged. Ellsberg may support Snowden now, but Edward Snowden is no Daniel Ellsberg.

 

Ellsberg is a hero; Snowden is a whistleblower.

[bigvalboy]

As always QTR, you are spot on with your analysis.

[Lookin]

What seems pretty clear to me is that, without Snowden (and Greenwald and Poitras), there would be no public debate about government surveillance of U. S. citizens; no awareness, even among those charged with Congressional oversight, of what the NSA is up to; and no opportunity for the Judicial branch to render an opinion on government overreach.

 

Before Snowden et al, few within the government had any idea what was going on and those that did had no inclination to share with the rest of us. The whole concept of a government 'of the people, by the people, and for the people' was at risk.

 

What amazes me is how close many of us were (are?) to see this principle go by the wayside. As a result of Snowden's actions, we now have an opportunity to recapture this ideal.

 

Will we take it? http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-fc/patriot.gif

[+ quoththeraven]

Poitras[/url]), there would be no public debate about government surveillance of U. S. citizens; no awareness, even among those charged with Congressional oversight, of what the NSA is up to; and no opportunity for the Judicial branch to render an opinion on government overreach.

 

You said it better than I did. In that regard, I consider what Snowden did a public service, but as mentioned above, I'm not impressed with his follow through.

 

My opinion is also colored by the fact that unlike Ellsberg, Snowden was a low-level contractor and didn't understand, and therefore oversold, the import of documents that described programs he had no involvement with and by the fact that I don't have a conceptual problem with the law under which he'd be charged with a crime. Downloading, removing, and releasing properly classified documents should be a crime. I do not want government contractors doing this as a routine matter; knowledge of human nature tells us that most of the time, this will be done for nefarious purposes. That Snowden's purposes weren't nefarious and that many of the documents he downloaded show that the NSA misrepresented that extent of its domestic surveillance activities doesn't negate the law or the validity of its objectives.

[Rod Hagen]

to avoid prosecution in the US is cowardly.

It's not. The over-arching authority the patriot act etc. give to those he "wronged" make impossible a reasonable defense on his behalf, and therefore a fair trial can't happen. So, what, he should roll over and spend the rest of his life in jail for having done the just thing?

[Bart]

I know this is getting awfully political for here but Rod the answer is if truly believes in what he did yes he should go to jail. What do you think Mandela did? What did Mohamed Ali do? He went to Russia, he went to god dammed Russia. A place which will hardly let you rally the troops from and is such a democratic place isn't it. Did any other free country give him landing? Did Canada, did any European country, did any Asian Country? Maybe he should have sought asylum in Iran or Syria. Personally if he were smart get Katie Couric or a well known journalist over to do a full interview, plead your case in the public and then come back and stand up for what you believe in. There are not going to ship to Guantanamo Bay never to be heard from again if he give a full scale interview. If his goal was to help the American public than I believe his best pulpit will be here in America not in Russia.

[MsGuy]

... if truly believes in what he did yes he should go to jail. What do you think Mandela did? What did Mohamed Ali do?.

 

Mandela joined the Communist Party (member of SA central committee), co-founded the armed wing of the ANC, went into temporary exile, came home, went underground, began a sabotage campaign against the SA state blowing up power stations, bridges and the like, was captured and stuffed into prison after a show trial. Not the best example of your point.

----

If I remember right, Mohamed Ali fought his conviction for draft evasion (successful on appeal) on the grounds his IQ was so low that he shouldn't have been drafted in the first place. Any port in a storm but not exactly a principled stand.

----

The decision to stand trial and get your ass locked up has usually been a tactical decision rather than a moral one.

 

And when 'locked up' = tens of years, very few people are going to defy the government. Why else do you think the government goes to the bother in the first place?

[Rod Hagen]

I still don't see how it follows that since these significant men did something he should feel compelled to do the same. They made a choice. The truth is if Katie Couric, Theodore Olsen and David Boise worked on his behalf, Snowden still couldn't receive a fair trial. It's just not possible.

[Lookin]

The truth is if Katie Couric, Theodore Olsen and David Boise worked on his behalf, Snowden still couldn't receive a fair trial. It's just not possible.

 

Very true. At least a year and a half ago when he blew his whistle, it seems likely that he would have been stuck away somewhere incommunicado. It also seems likely that his lawyers would not have had access to the information needed to defend him. All for 'national security' reasons, of course.

 

By keeping out of reach for a few years, I expect he still retains the option to return for trial when the outcome of public debate may give him a better chance of getting a fair hearing.

 

Who knows whether or not he'll eventually return but, in my opinion, going on ice for a while is not such a bad legal strategy.

 

I doubt Russia was his first choice but I think his options were pretty limited at the time.

 

http://www.homebirth.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/pitchfork-mob.jpg

 

 

(And yes, I plan to see the movie. http://r23.imgfast.net/users/2311/19/66/24/smiles/651682.gif)

[Steven_Draker]

He went to Russia, he went to god dammed Russia.

 

Russia gave him asylum. If you were in Snowden's shoes I doubt you get to be "picky".

 

http://rt.com/files/news/1f/87/90/00/road.jpg

[AdamSmith]

There is also Obama's cynicism in pointing to his extension of the Whistleblower Protection Act to cover the intelligence community, when in fact that extension specifically excluded external contractors such as Snowden's employer, Booz Allen Hamilton.

 

Not that the government has a tradition of respecting whistleblower protections in any event, having simply resorted to trumping up other charges to get at whistleblowers before.

[+ WilliamM]

Russia gave him asylum. If you were in Snowden's shoes I doubt you get to be "picky".

 

I agree. It's very easy to post on an Internet chat site about what someone else should do or not do.

[+ friendofsheila]

Duplicate post.

[+ friendofsheila]

Sorry, FoS, mention "Edward Snowden" and blowjobs are about the last thing I think of.

 

 

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o243/mys2k/hijack.gif

[+ quoththeraven]

It's not. The over-arching authority the patriot act etc. give to those he "wronged" make impossible a reasonable defense on his behalf, and therefore a fair trial can't happen. So, what, he should roll over and spend the rest of his life in jail for having done the just thing?

 

Short answer: Yes, although I wouldn't characterize it as "rolling over".

 

I'm not as convinced as many of you are that Snowden would rot in jail for the rest of the life or that he did the just thing -- in many respects he did the right thing, but not necessarily the just thing. Do not underestimate what a good attorney and politically savvy supporters could do to make Snowden's prosecution a cause celebre and make a favorable plea deal in lieu of a messy trial possible.

 

Long answer: I'm measuring heroism and courage by the standards of exponents of civil disobedience and non-violent resistance like Henry David Thoreau, Mohandas Gandhi, Corrie ten Boom, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Daniel Ellsberg, all of whom stood up for their beliefs, suffered the consequences of it, and wrote about it themselves rather than through surrogates. For them, going to jail, or the possibility of going to jail, was not "rolling over" but was in fact part of their protest. Many of them risked death, not just jail, and some of them received death at the hands of assassins. Those are the kind of people who change the world. (I've left Nelson Mandela off the list because he at one point advocated violent resistance, a discussion of which would take me even farther afield.)

 

In Civil Disobedience, Thoreau wrote: "Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison." This was something Thoreau himself acted on, as have civil rights activists and anti-war activists. It's a founding principle of civil disobedience and non-violent resistance.

 

Of the six principles of non-violent resistance Martin Luther King, Jr. outlined, one was unjustified suffering. "The non-violent resister accepts suffering without retaliating; accepts violence, but never commits it. Gandhi said, 'Rivers of blood may have to flow before we gain our freedom, but it must be our blood.' Gandhi and King both understood that suffering by activists had the mysterious power of converting opponents who would otherwise refuse to listen." If someone is willing to risk injury, jail or death for a cause, that impresses people and becomes a PR tool. It also helps to make the other side look bad. But when the person who is trying to enact change acts in a self-interested, expedient way, that decreases the moral power of their acts and their credibility because it makes them look self-motivated like everyone else is rather than motivated by idealism or principle.

 

Others may consider these unreasonable standards. But if standing up for a principle is consequence-free, it becomes a matter of expediency rather than principle.

 

I am also turned off that Snowden has played into the hands of Vladimir Putin, an authoritarian, homophobic bully whom I consider more morally reprehensible than anyone in the Obama administration. That he may have had few or no other alternatives only shows how little regard Snowden and his advisers, whoever they were, gave to the practical and moral consequences of his actions. If he wasn't willing to pay the price (i.e, be prosecuted for the leak, with all that implies), he wasn't ready to act in a way I would characterize as heroic.

[armadillo]

Poitras[/url]), there would be no public debate about government surveillance of U. S. citizens; no awareness, even among those charged with Congressional oversight, of what the NSA is up to; and no opportunity for the Judicial branch to render an opinion on government overreach.

 

Before Snowden et al, few within the government had any idea what was going on and those that did had no inclination to share with the rest of us. The whole concept of a government 'of the people, by the people, and for the people' was at risk.

 

What amazes me is how close many of us were (are?) to see this principle go by the wayside. As a result of Snowden's actions, we now have an opportunity to recapture this ideal.

 

Will we take it? http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-fc/patriot.gif

 

Thank you Mr. Lookin.

 

Before anyone judges Snowden, they should see CitizenFour.

 

BTW, when he is sans glasses, shaved and hair combed... he is quite studly.

[Rudynate]

Thank you Mr. Lookin.

 

Before anyone judges Snowden, they should see CitizenFour.

 

BTW, when he is sans glasses, shaved and hair combed... he is quite studly.

 

 

Studly? That's a stretch. Bookish handsome, maybe. I, for one, really go for bookish handsome. I think Snowden is really precious.

[hornytwells]

Studly? That's a stretch. Bookish handsome, maybe. I, for one, really go for bookish handsome. I think Snowden is really precious.

 

+1 !