4 ms·

Technicality? This guy ferried gigabytes of secrets out of a secure installation, fled to a foreign country and was likely protected by one or two hostile fore

by Nrsolis 10y ago

Technicality? This guy ferried gigabytes of secrets out of a secure installation, fled to a foreign country and was likely protected by one or two hostile foreign intelligence services, and then made a movie where he admitted the whole thing. IANAL, but it seems like the facts of the case make this a pretty open-and-shut case. You don't get much more solid evidence than the accused admitting to the crime. I'll note that you don't get to violate the law for "a good cause" especially when you, in your sole judgement, decided that the government you screwed over, deserved that screwing. I'd argue that with the ACLU behind him, he's gonna get a much fairer trial than any one of the hundreds of other folks that get railroaded in our justice system because they are too poor to afford competent counsel. So let's stop with the hyperbole. Nobody is gonna kill that guy. They are gonna keep him alive at a SuperMax prison in Colorado, right next to Hansen and Ames. A long life behind bars makes a good example for the next traitor who gets an itch to help out our adversaries.

mindcrime 10y ago
So let's stop with the hyperbole. A long life behind bars makes a good example for the next traitor who gets an itch to help out our adversaries. LOL, way to contradict yourself. Whatever, believe what you want, but Snowden is a hero and we all owe him a tremendous debt of gratitude.
- Nrsolis 10y ago
  What contradiction? The guy is guilty. He knows he doesn't stand a chance in court. This guy is looking at several life sentences for his crimes. So this guy can get the fairest trial of all time and STILL go to prison forever. A trial isn't unfair because you don't agree with the result. He broke the law. DO you think he deserves to go free after what he's done? Seriously. I can't walk down the street and shoot someone because he was a "bad guy" in only my judgement. I'm going to go to jail for murder. Whether or not the guy was actually a "bad guy" or not is irrelevant. As an individual in our society, you don't get to unilaterally take an action against the law and then expect to escape the consequences. If this guy was a TRUE whistleblower, he'd have taken an important document, one implicating the NSA in wrongdoing, to a respected new outlet like "60 Minutes" or the NY Times or the WSJ, unmasked himself, and expected the government to prosecute him. THAT is how you martyr yourself for the common good. This guy did everything that you'd expect an rogue, formerly-controlled asset of a foreign intelligence service to do. He took a radical action to force the hand of his FSB or SVR handlers and then fled to their open arms expecting them to keep him safe. I think he stopped off in Hong Kong to see if the Chinese would be willing to take him in so he could escape his fate in the USA. When they declined, he beat feet to the Soviets. Don't believe the hype. That guy was a recruited asset who decided he had enough. All of the rest was for show.
  - mindcrime 10y ago
    What contradiction? Really? You can't see the contradiction in imploring that we "stop the hyperbole", followed by labeling Snowden a "traitor"? DO you think he deserves to go free after what he's done? Absolutely. He should be given a medal and a tickertape parade. He's one of the few real heroes of our age. I can't walk down the street and shoot someone because he was a "bad guy" in only my judgement. No, but that metaphor is totally unrelated to what Snowden did. That guy was a recruited asset who decided he had enough. All of the rest was for show. Great, I'll be eagerly awaiting the mounds of evidence you must have for this seemingly slanderous accusation...
zzzcpan 10y ago
> for the next traitor who gets an itch to help out our adversaries Here's the thing about adversaries, they are not your adversaries to begin with. They are the adversaries of the state and calling them "our adversaries" is just repeating state propaganda. For most people state itself is the adversary and probably the evilest thing they have in their lives.
chrisbennet 10y ago
Snowden wasn't the first to try to expose unconstitutional behavior. Many have tried to "go through proper channels" and they all were ruined and nothing changed. Snowden spoke the truth with nothing to gain. I watched NSA director James Clapper lie to congress. It was said that he didn't review the questions he was sent in advance of his hearing before congress. He didn't have to answer. Do you think it likely he didn't look at the questions before appearing before congress? Really? He refused to answer other question hearing, he could have refused that one. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/mar/11/james-clappers-testimony-one-year-later/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/mar/11/... As for fleeing to Russia; he was transiting through Russia when US revoked his passport, stranding him there. Rosa Parks broke the law AND did the right thing.

by Nrsolis 10y ago

mindcrime 10y ago

So let's stop with the hyperbole. A long life behind bars makes a good example for the next traitor who gets an itch to help out our adversaries. LOL, way to contradict yourself. Whatever, believe what you want, but Snowden is a hero and we all owe him a tremendous debt of gratitude.

Nrsolis 10y ago
What contradiction? The guy is guilty. He knows he doesn't stand a chance in court. This guy is looking at several life sentences for his crimes. So this guy can get the fairest trial of all time and STILL go to prison forever. A trial isn't unfair because you don't agree with the result. He broke the law. DO you think he deserves to go free after what he's done? Seriously. I can't walk down the street and shoot someone because he was a "bad guy" in only my judgement. I'm going to go to jail for murder. Whether or not the guy was actually a "bad guy" or not is irrelevant. As an individual in our society, you don't get to unilaterally take an action against the law and then expect to escape the consequences. If this guy was a TRUE whistleblower, he'd have taken an important document, one implicating the NSA in wrongdoing, to a respected new outlet like "60 Minutes" or the NY Times or the WSJ, unmasked himself, and expected the government to prosecute him. THAT is how you martyr yourself for the common good. This guy did everything that you'd expect an rogue, formerly-controlled asset of a foreign intelligence service to do. He took a radical action to force the hand of his FSB or SVR handlers and then fled to their open arms expecting them to keep him safe. I think he stopped off in Hong Kong to see if the Chinese would be willing to take him in so he could escape his fate in the USA. When they declined, he beat feet to the Soviets. Don't believe the hype. That guy was a recruited asset who decided he had enough. All of the rest was for show.
- mindcrime 10y ago
  What contradiction? Really? You can't see the contradiction in imploring that we "stop the hyperbole", followed by labeling Snowden a "traitor"? DO you think he deserves to go free after what he's done? Absolutely. He should be given a medal and a tickertape parade. He's one of the few real heroes of our age. I can't walk down the street and shoot someone because he was a "bad guy" in only my judgement. No, but that metaphor is totally unrelated to what Snowden did. That guy was a recruited asset who decided he had enough. All of the rest was for show. Great, I'll be eagerly awaiting the mounds of evidence you must have for this seemingly slanderous accusation...

zzzcpan 10y ago

> for the next traitor who gets an itch to help out our adversaries Here's the thing about adversaries, they are not your adversaries to begin with. They are the adversaries of the state and calling them "our adversaries" is just repeating state propaganda. For most people state itself is the adversary and probably the evilest thing they have in their lives.

chrisbennet 10y ago

Snowden wasn't the first to try to expose unconstitutional behavior. Many have tried to "go through proper channels" and they all were ruined and nothing changed. Snowden spoke the truth with nothing to gain. I watched NSA director James Clapper lie to congress. It was said that he didn't review the questions he was sent in advance of his hearing before congress. He didn't have to answer. Do you think it likely he didn't look at the questions before appearing before congress? Really? He refused to answer other question hearing, he could have refused that one. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/mar/11/james-clappers-testimony-one-year-later/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/mar/11/... As for fleeing to Russia; he was transiting through Russia when US revoked his passport, stranding him there. Rosa Parks broke the law AND did the right thing.