4 ms·

It's flattering that you have no recourse but to retroactively reject/ignore all my statements based on identity politics. You have not yet clarified regarding

It's flattering that you have no recourse but to retroactively reject/ignore all my statements based on identity politics. You have not yet clarified regarding "sharing classified information with Chinese or Russians", either. I'm also uncertain of how exactly I have forcefully instructed anyone, unless you consider speech to be aggression. That said, though I am not of U.S. nationality neither by jus soli nor jus sanguinis, I do reside in the United States at present. Stay classy with your throwaway account.

throwaway1150 11y ago
>You have not yet clarified regarding "sharing classified information with Chinese or Russians", either. You keep drawing some distinction without a difference between "the leaks" and Snowden "directly handing over" the documents; either way, he is the author of their release and ultimately responsible for the consequences, and Americans are right to be angry with him for it. > That said, though I am not of U.S. nationality neither by jus soli nor jus sanguinis, I do reside in the United States at present. Stay classy with your throwaway account. You're a guest in this country; perhaps you could try acting like one?
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  The difference is one is a private transaction that directly insinuates an act of treason and further a clear allegiance (or at least sympathy) to the state one is dealing with. A leak is public, and by definition accessible to everyone. It is thus a misnomer to frame it in terms of benefiting any particular nation states, as it's now public information. It's spoilt, a sunk cost. Moreover, the intent of the aggregate leak (which is important in making a final decision) is that of raising awareness of government misconduct, and not of directly enriching an adversary's intelligence. The consequences then differ, as we could make a case of the positives outweighing the drawbacks and collateral. Moreover, I personally disagree that any party in the Huawei incident is a "good guy" (where you seem to consider the NSA to be unequivocally in the right). Of course you have a right to be angry with Snowden if you deem the consequences of the actions to have had sufficient negative blowback. You're a guest in this country; perhaps you could try acting like one? Free speech until it hurts my feelings. What an American sentiment to advocate, throwaway. I salute you.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  As a citizen of the USA, I ask you kindly to put a sock in it. This kind of hateful, authoritarian, unamerican attitude that values law over freedom goes against the very ideals this country - ruled by we the people - was founded upon. Snowden easily the most honorable person in this whole situation, for one reason alone: he kept is oath to defend the constitution. All those laws you want to see Snowden sacrificed upon are inferior to the oath everybody in the intelligence community had to take. That oath was to the constitution, and not a particular law, government, or politician. You claim to want to see people face the consequences of the law, but you're deliberately ignoring the content of Snowden's message, which confirmed unconstitutional actions of many people in government. It is a shame that it took one person risking their life and possibly living forever in exile to reveal the corruption of our govenment. It is a terrible cost that the espionage act has been abused so badly with Binney and Drake, making it necessary for Snowden to bring evidence with him. In case you're forgetting, people tried going through "proper channels", and it lead nowhere. If you had any intention of having a useful discussion about Snowden, you would know that he wouldn't get a fair trial, as the espionage act doesn't allow a a "public good" defense. You are calling for a start chamber style show trial, not justice.

throwaway1150 11y ago

>You have not yet clarified regarding "sharing classified information with Chinese or Russians", either. You keep drawing some distinction without a difference between "the leaks" and Snowden "directly handing over" the documents; either way, he is the author of their release and ultimately responsible for the consequences, and Americans are right to be angry with him for it. > That said, though I am not of U.S. nationality neither by jus soli nor jus sanguinis, I do reside in the United States at present. Stay classy with your throwaway account. You're a guest in this country; perhaps you could try acting like one?

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
The difference is one is a private transaction that directly insinuates an act of treason and further a clear allegiance (or at least sympathy) to the state one is dealing with. A leak is public, and by definition accessible to everyone. It is thus a misnomer to frame it in terms of benefiting any particular nation states, as it's now public information. It's spoilt, a sunk cost. Moreover, the intent of the aggregate leak (which is important in making a final decision) is that of raising awareness of government misconduct, and not of directly enriching an adversary's intelligence. The consequences then differ, as we could make a case of the positives outweighing the drawbacks and collateral. Moreover, I personally disagree that any party in the Huawei incident is a "good guy" (where you seem to consider the NSA to be unequivocally in the right). Of course you have a right to be angry with Snowden if you deem the consequences of the actions to have had sufficient negative blowback. You're a guest in this country; perhaps you could try acting like one? Free speech until it hurts my feelings. What an American sentiment to advocate, throwaway. I salute you.
pdkl95 11y ago
As a citizen of the USA, I ask you kindly to put a sock in it. This kind of hateful, authoritarian, unamerican attitude that values law over freedom goes against the very ideals this country - ruled by we the people - was founded upon. Snowden easily the most honorable person in this whole situation, for one reason alone: he kept is oath to defend the constitution. All those laws you want to see Snowden sacrificed upon are inferior to the oath everybody in the intelligence community had to take. That oath was to the constitution, and not a particular law, government, or politician. You claim to want to see people face the consequences of the law, but you're deliberately ignoring the content of Snowden's message, which confirmed unconstitutional actions of many people in government. It is a shame that it took one person risking their life and possibly living forever in exile to reveal the corruption of our govenment. It is a terrible cost that the espionage act has been abused so badly with Binney and Drake, making it necessary for Snowden to bring evidence with him. In case you're forgetting, people tried going through "proper channels", and it lead nowhere. If you had any intention of having a useful discussion about Snowden, you would know that he wouldn't get a fair trial, as the espionage act doesn't allow a a "public good" defense. You are calling for a start chamber style show trial, not justice.