Snow job

[Gob]

US intelligence whistle-blower Edward Snowden has hailed a European Parliament vote urging EU member states to take him in and offer protection as an "extraordinary" gesture of support.

In a resolution, EU politicians called on the bloc's 28 member states to grant protection to Snowden as a "human rights defender" after he blew the whistle on the US government's mass surveillance programs.

In a tweet, Snowden said the vote was "extraordinary".

"This is not a blow against the US government but an open hand extended by friends. It is a chance to move forward," he said in a second tweeted message.

The politicians urged member states to "drop any criminal charges against Edward Snowden, grant him protection and consequently prevent extradition or rendition by third parties, in recognition of his status as whistle-blower and international human rights defender."

Snowden has been living in exile in Russia since June 2013 and faces US charges of espionage and theft of state property which could put him in jail for 30 years.


He says he was doing his duty as a citizen by informing others about the surveillance programs which scooped up massive amounts of personal data in the name of national security.

[Lord Jim]

USintelligence whistle-blower traitor Edward Snowden

It's not going to be easy, but we're going to have to put this narcissistic traitor to ground....

How we're going to do it while he sits in Putin's Russia is problematic...

But we've got to figure out a way to do it....

We can not allow anyone to think they can get away with this sort of treason, ever again...

No matter how much time it takes, an example must be made of this traitor...

[Guinevere]

You're in the minority, LJ. Many think he is a hero. I've heard him compared to Prometheus.

[Lord Jim]

In retrospect, it was mistake to corner this traitor in Russia...(yet one more way for Putin to give us The Finger)

We should have allowed him to move on to Venezuela, or Bolivia, as he wanted to...

If we had done that, it would have been much easier to send in a commando unit to perform a "snatch and grab" and bring this traitor to justice...

As it is, we're going to have to exchange proper Russian spies for him...

[wesw]

you are only in the minority here (italics), jim

if he had made his stand here, he would have, at leas,t earned my respect.

by going to china and Russia and WikiLeaks he has earned only a bullet or a jail cell

traitor is the correct term

[Guinevere]

Hardly. And for the record, I've not come to a final conclusion concerning Snowden, my beef with LJ (and you) is that "traitor" is a legal conclusion. You are each only expressing your opinion on the matter. Saying something over and over does not make it so. Although it's a (weak) mode of argument you each tend to rely on quite a bit.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/1 ... rd-College

I spent an extraordinary few hours yesterday, seeing Edward Snowden, live from Russia via Google Hangout, address and answer questions at the "Why Privacy Matters" conference that took place at the Hannah Arendt Center at Bard College in Annandale, New York (thanks to my friend, author David Brin, who delivered a lecture at the conference on Thursday, for the invitation to this event). The day was beautiful and cool, the Fall foliage peak, but what made the day truly exceptional was what Snowden said - the kinds of things that, well, offer grounds for a little hope for our species after all, or, if you already had such hope, a little more. .

There were lots of quotable moments. Snowden thinks all the candidates in the first Democratic debate on Tuesday, save the one (Lincoln Chafee) who didn't want to see him brought before our criminal justice system, lacked political "courage". Yet he was heartened that, unlike in 2013, when many politicians were quick denounce him as a "traitor," no one on stage uttered that word on Tuesday. Snowden correctly sees that far more incursions on our privacy have occurred under Obama than during George W. Bush's administration. And he was unafraid to call out his host, Russia, for its own violations of human rights.

But what most struck me about Snowden, and made this event so memorable, was his philosophic depth. In a phrase, he thinks that human values, decided upon by individuals, can be more compelling of our loyalty than any laws. Yeah, I know this can push us down the slippery slope of anarchy as everyone does what they want to do regardless of the law. And I know that such a principle can easily be used against a progressive law that we support, such an anti-discrimination ruling or statute. But the general principle still holds. The government, which already holds so many cards, including a monopoly of power (as Snowden also aptly noted), cannot always be the ultimate authority in our lives.

Certainly our right to some small bit of privacy, a piece of our lives not available to governmental scrutiny, would be one place in which human judgement should be superior to governmental fiat. Snowden's leaking of classified information was designed to expose our government's massive incursion on our privacy. He committed an illegal act to lay bare our government's activities which, legal or not, are intrinsically at odds with one of the very bases of our humanity, our need to have at least a little time off the screen.

Should Snowden come back to the United States to stand trial for this? He allowed that he would, if he could explain in open court what the government was and is still doing to its citizens. I admire his willingness to do this but don't know that I would do the same, were I in a similar position. I've always been a firm believer in the precept that a government which acts immorally loses its claim on us to follow its laws. Had I been visited by Crito on the eve of my death sentence in Ancient Athens, I would have jumped on that ship in the harbor in a New York minute, and left the hemlock to those who immorally sentenced me to drink it, democracy or not.

In some ways, we've come a long way since then. We not only are constantly surveilled by the government, but have an increasing power to turn the lenses back on the government, record what it might be illegally doing, and therein begin to hold it to better account. David Brin has been talking about this kind of "sousveillance" (viewing from below) for years - I'll in effect be talking about it at Annenberg in Philadelphia in December in my Eye in the Sky in the Hand: How Video Cameras in Smart Phones are Finally Beginning to Bring Police to Justice lecture - and it's part of Snowden's optimism about the future.

Whether it's police killing innocent African-Americans, or the NSA attempting to erase our privacy and therein killing our freedom, these governmental activities deserve our peaceful but staunchest opposition. Hats off to Edward Snowdon for stepping up and acting on this, and articulating the profound issues embedded in his action so eloquently yesterday.

http://www.hannaharendtcenter.org/?p=13420

In the New York Review of Books, Sue Halpern argues that we should pay less attention to the character of actors like Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald and focus more on the governmental actions they have revealed. Yet much if not most of Halpern’s essay focuses on Snowden and Greenwald themselves, and the paragraph that stands out in Halpern’s essay goes directly to Snowden’s decision to leave the country and evade confronting the U.S. Government in court:


It is here that Edward Snowden’s story begins to sound much like those of Thomas Drake, William Binney, Kirk Wiebe, and Edward Loomis, longtime NSA employees who, a few years earlier than Snowden, attempted to raise concerns with their superiors—only to find themselves rebuffed—about what they perceived to be NSA overreach and illegality when they learned that the agency was indiscriminately monitoring the communications of American citizens without warrants. Binney, Wiebe, and Loomis resigned—and later found themselves the subjects of FBI interrogations. Drake, however, stayed on and brought his suspicions to the office of general counsel for the NSA, where he was told: “Don’t ask any more questions, Mr. Drake.” Frustrated, Drake eventually leaked what he knew to a reporter for The Baltimore Sun. The upshot: a home invasion by the FBI, a federal indictment, and the threat of thirty-five years in prison for being in possession of classified documents that, when he obtained them, had not been classified. After years of harassment by the government and Drake’s financial ruin, the case was dropped the night before trial. It was against this backdrop that Snowden found himself contemplating what to do with what he knew. Stymied by an unresponsive bureaucracy, seeing the fate of earlier NSA whistleblowers, and finding no adequate provisions within the system to challenge the legality of government activity if that activity was considered by the government to touch on national security, he nonetheless set about gathering the evidence to make his case.

For those who would defend Snowden, this narrative is essential. The claim is that the United States now is simply not like the United States of the 1960s and 1970s when Daniel Ellsberg gave himself up after releasing the Pentagon Papers. Ellsberg himself has made this argument while defending Snowden, arguing that Snowden and whistleblowers like him simply cannot and should not trust the U.S. government to treat them legally and humanely.

I have in the past defended Snowden’s act of releasing the NSA documents while also arguing that he was wrong to flee, and that in the name of democratic self-government and justice he should have given himself up and fought a public battle for fair and legal adjudication of his actions. In essence, there are times when doing justice requires that one risk one’s own safety:


I fully admit that it is likely that Snowden would have been treated much less generously than was Ellsberg. But aside from the fact that Snowden never gave the courts the chance to treat him justly, his refusal to submit to the law makes it impossible for his act of disobedience to shine forth as a claim of doing justice. He may claim that he acted in the public interest. He may argue that he acted out of conscience. And he may say he wants a public debate about the rightness of U.S. policy. He may be earnest in all these claims. But the fact that he fled and did not “transform the situation in such a way that the law can again operate and his act can be validated,” means that he does not, in the end, “render a service to justice.” On the contrary, by fleeing, Snowden gives solace to those who portray him as a criminal and make it easier for those who would do to discredit him.

The reason Snowden’s actions are important above and beyond the governmental overreach he exposed is that he stands out as one of the few people today who publicly claim to be acting from conscience. For Snowden, it was his conscience that made him aware that someone needed to reveal to the people what our government was doing. Snowden’s actions are important, therefore, as a model of conscientious action in the face of systematic abuses of power. In short, we need to think about Snowden’s actions because we need to think about what it means to act according to one’s conscience.

There is quite a bit more, if you'd take off your blinders and actually be open to other ideas.

[Lord Jim]

"traitor" is a legal conclusion.

I rise to differ...

"Treason" is a legal conclusion...

"Treason" is defined in the Constitution at a impossibly high standard, in reaction to the ridiculously low standard for "treason" under The Crown...

Where anyone who questioned any diktat of The King could be charged with "treason"...(We have established "espionage" laws to make up for this shortcoming...and in the fullness of time, I expect that The Traitor Snowden will be charged under those laws..)

"Traitor" is not a "legal conclusion" ...

It is a moral and ethical conclusion; (And one that fits The Traitor Snowden like a glove)

A "traitor" is one who "betrays" their country...a person who gives aid and comfort to his country's enemies...

If I looked up the word "traitor" in the dictionary, I would expect to see The Traitor Snowden's smarmy, squinty-eyed weaselly looking face staring back at me....

[wesw]

you ll have to excuse guin. she has been putting lipstick on her pig for so long now that it has become habit forming...

oo oo, I m a lawyer! you re not! morons!

great argument there, guin.

[Guinevere]

ENOUGH with your ongoing attempts to put words in my mouth WHICH I NEVER SAID. It's your favorite tactic, it's completely dishonest, and it makes you look foolish.

[dales]

[rubato] All hate all the time, from some here who know no better.[/rubato]

[Guinevere]

If I looked up the word "traitor" in the dictionary, I would expect to see The Traitor Snowden's smarmy, squinty-eyed weaselly looking face staring back at me....

If you looked up the word "traitor" in the dictionary, you would find that it says "one who commits treason."

[Lord Jim]

If you looked up the word "traitor" in the dictionary, you would find that it says "one who commits treason."

Hmm...

trai·tor
ˈtrādər/
noun
noun: traitor; plural noun: traitors

a person who betrays a friend, country, principle, etc.
"they see me as a traitor, a sellout to the enemy"
synonyms: betrayer, backstabber, double-crosser, renegade, fifth columnist; More
turncoat, defector, deserter;
collaborator, informer, mole, snitch, double agent;
Judas, Benedict Arnold, quisling;
informal snake in the grass, two-timer, rat, scab, fink
"convicted traitors will be executed"

[Long Run]

My Oxford American Desk Dictionary (yes, I may be one of a few people who keep one handy) says a traitor is a: "person who is treacherous or disloyal, esp. to his or her country." Treacherous refers to treachery, which is a: "violation of faith or trust; betrayal". It seems reasonable to me that a person can be referred to as a "traitor" without being convicted of treason.

[Lord Jim]

a traitor is a: "person who is treacherous or disloyal, esp. to his or her country."

Poster Boy...

[Lord Jim]

you are only in the minority here (italics), jim

Well wes, I am perfectly prepared to be a minority of one...

Which I have been around here, on numerous occasions...

[Big RR]

Why is bringing something to light that the company is doing (and probably shouldn't be doing) disloyal or treacherous? To me he's a lot like Daniel Ellsberg, who exposed how the government was misleading the public. In either case, I fail to see disloyalty or treachery, but I'd be willing to listen.

And wes, why is leaving rather than face being buried in some hole, likely without a trial, somehow traitorous? I would agree with you if he could get a fair public trial, but let's not kid ourselves about what the government can, and does, do contrary to the rights of its citizens. I'd leave as well; why would you stay?

[wesw]

RR, if I remember correctly I made a point of pointing out that he went to china and Russia, he didn t run to france to party with Polanski.

he preferred Venezuela and cuba I think, but had to settle.

I don t know man, if something is worth civil disobedience, it is worth the slings and arrows I guess. that s how I see it anyway.

but what do I know, I don t seem to think the way people do today. I don t do kardashians, I think Survivor is a hideous scurge on society.
I think doctor king is a hero , and Sharpton is a charlatan.

hell, even deepthroat found a way....

plus, any one associated with assange is suspect in my view.

where is a drone when you need one?

guin..., yeah yeah I know..., it s a war on women....

[Big RR]

Well Wes, I just don't trust the government; things are very different since 2001--we've had many people, even American citizens jailed without charge or trial (and have kept some jailed for more than a decade); we've had people sent off to offshore locations for the purpose of being tortured; hell, we even debated whether torture was permissible or desirable. Indeed, we've become much what we accused the USSR of during the cold war. Against that backdrop, I don't see the civil disobedience worth those consequences. Certainly fighting the system from within is a time honored tradition, but not when the system has become so corrupt as to ignore its own laws. In such a case, if you're on the target lest, by all means get out.

Such hasn't always been the case; Daniel Ellsberg was treated pretty fairly under the law and he was not hauled off to Gitmo for exposing some of the government secrets that never should have happened. People were accused in the press of giving aid and comfort to the enemy when they protested the Vietnam war, but they were not hauled off to jail for their beliefs. Speaking one's mind was encouraged, not discouraged; but that's all changed now. Sure it's not as bad as many places, but that doesn't mean it's right all the time.

I have no great love for Mr. Snowden--he generally comes across as a bit of a jerk, but I do think he exposed a program that should have been exposed, and I can't blame him for not trusting his life and rights to the US as it is currently run.

[wesw]

RR, he still went to china and Russia, not france.

even if you had been the one running, would you have run to china and Russia?

[Big RR]

wes--Number 1, I don't know if France would have accepted him (maybe they offered, but I don't recall it). Number 2, France may well might have extradited him back to the US; avoiding extradition is tricky, and if I ran, avoiding extradition would be my first concern.

Actually, I would have preferred China or Russia to Cuba or Venezuela.