4 ms·

I hope that Sanders becoming president will help at least as a first step.

• wyager 11y ago
  What is the purpose of this comment? It's a political platitude with no substance.
  • yuhong 11y ago
    The president can veto bills for example. I know it might only be the first step.
• Laaw 11y ago
  It won't be, because he'd get the same intel briefs as Obama, the same advisors would tell him the same things, and they'd be generally right.
  • yuhong 11y ago
    Can you be more specific?
    • flycaliguy 11y ago
      He's deploying the argument against privacy that there is a great danger which is not being revealed to the public. It always makes me roll my eyes. Sure there is no doubt an intelligence situation that has a completely different perspective of the web, but that doesn't prevent a leader from implementing some basic protection for the public, making an effort to better secure (aka not covertly cripple) American tech or at least create an improved whistle blower system.
      • Laaw 11y ago
        This has little to do with privacy, and every potential security advisor, to any president, knows this and would explain as much. It's not that there's a great threat, it's that the public is just particularly stupid about this issue.
  • jMyles 11y ago
    If this information is so compelling and worthy of such drastic action, then, in a fair and transparent society, it's also necessary to disclose it and let the public decide. The Occam's razor explanation is that this is just politicians acting in their interests, not that there is some blockbuster intel that, if only we knew...
  • Zigurd 11y ago
    > and they'd be generally right They might be persuasive. But there is little evidence from outcomes in Iraq, Syria, etc. that they are right in any way that matters.
  • dragonwriter 11y ago
    > It won't be, because he'd get the same intel briefs as Obama, the same advisors would tell him the same things, and they'd be generally right. Well, first, they wouldn't be the same advisors -- even same-party administrations don't tend to carry over very many of of the President's direct advisors. Second, even with the same advisors, Sanders, while he might agree with Obama on some things, is likely to have different priorities and values, which will shape actual policy, even if he had the same advisors presenting the same facts and similar interpretations of the facts.
• em3rgent0rdr 11y ago
  Sanders says Snowden should be punished. Not on the side of internet freedom. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-greer/bernie-sanders-would-make_b_8297414.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-greer/bernie-sanders-woul...
  • flycaliguy 11y ago
    I think it's possible that somebody can be for "internet freedom" while also believing that as the bossman they have to enforce the law. Snowden would probably agree and just ask that the trail be fair and the punishment not designed to silence future whistleblowers.
    • wasteoftime 11y ago
      So what about torure, is ol' Bernie gonna do anything, or do laws only apply to those the state says they apply to? We all know the answer to that, just ask Hillary.
  • logn 11y ago
    His stance is more nuanced. > "I think Snowden played a very important role in educating the American public ... he did break the law, and I think there should be a penalty to that," Sanders said. He went on to say that the role Snowden played in educating the public about violations of their civil liberties should be considered before he is sentenced, and that as president he would "absolutely" end the NSA spying programs in question. Basically it seems to me he wants Snowden to get a fair trial, which would require some new legislation first or for him to be charged with a different crime. And aside from Rand Paul, I don't think any other candidate is as strong on Internet freedom as Sanders.