5 ms·

May be. But once you get to know something dirty about those in power and your conscience doesn't agree to be silent, your preference doesn't matter at all, you

by Arech 5y ago

May be. But once you get to know something dirty about those in power and your conscience doesn't agree to be silent, your preference doesn't matter at all, you are in trouble. Ask Snowden or Manning for details.

bayesian_horse 5y ago
Both broke the law, with quite serious consequences for their country and individual soldiers. This can't just be ignored. Even if their decision may be morally justified (to some people they weren't), breaking the rules has to come with consequences. There are issues with the US justice system, but it is a far cry from anything in Belarus or Russia. And if there is to be any secrecy around national security - most believe there should be - then there must also be consequences for breaking this secrecy, regardless of the justification.
- Arech 5y ago
  We're in the loop here, b/c from lukashenko's (as well as putin's, btw) point of view, *exactly the same* rules applies to journalists. Which means that either you have to review you thoughts and change them, or you are fine with killing journalists and any other dissidents (who obviously "broke the law, with quite serious consequences for their country and individual soldiers"). You just can't bet on two sides of a coin.
  - bayesian_horse 5y ago
    Still with the BS arguments. There is a world of difference between a justice system like in the US and the one in Belarus. If you can't see that, how can you ever defend democracy? But you probably don't ever need to, because the US system is already quite trustworthy (despite a lot of faults) and on average does quite well.
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  "And if there is to be any secrecy around national security - most believe there should be - then there must also be consequences for breaking this secrecy, regardless of the justification. " I believe in the necessary secrecy of some state organisations - but only if they are trustworthy and play by the rules set by the democratic institutions. And Snowden showed that they don't do this and cannot really be trusted. And he tried the proper way to report and it did not worked. So he became: a whistleblower And a hunted man by the law breaking agencies whose cimes he unveiled. So why is your conclusion, there should be only consequences for him?
  - bayesian_horse 5y ago
    That is indeed some black and white thinking! The US executive is a whole lot more trustworthy than most others. In fact, your very prosperity and freedom depends on this truth to a larger degree than you might want to admit. And it is not clear that Snowden tried "the proper way". He says so, but he doesn't want to prove that in court. Instead he defects to an enemy state and cooperates with their intelligence services. And yes, he did defect and cooperate, the only question is what exactly he did (and still does) and how much of all of this was his intention. The crimes Snowden committed, if any (it's not clear he could even be convicted), are absolutely legitimate. Publishing secrets you were sworn to keep secret has to be punishable. If someone decides to break those laws, out of ethical considerations, they must also face the consequences.
    - emn13 5y ago
      On the other hand, protecting whistleblowers is essential for honest, transparent government, no matter their crimes. And the US simply does not do that, not even close. Unfortunately, the crimes Snowden revealed may well not have seen the light of day without him, which suggests we don't have enough whistleblowers. And beyond that - even the bits of PRISM, XKeyscore and whatnot that were legal are simply not authorized by a democratically elected government; you cannot claim electoral legitimacy while keeping essential parts of your program not only secret, but even publicly paying lipservice to principles in opposition to your very own secret programs. To the extent various US administrations participated in creating these programs they thus necessarily acted without a democratic mandate; after all, they lied about it in public. That's not democracy; that's conspiracy. Had the programs been discussed at least in general terms, or the quandaries of trading which freedoms exactly for security been acknowledged by the US government, you could make the argument that the technical details must remain secret, but the principal was supported by the electorate. But as is; the whole thing - up to and including the participating judiciary - is no more legitimate than any other stolen election won by lies, propaganda, and misdirection - the kind of principles the US clearly rejects (e.g. https://www.usaid.gov/democracy/supporting-free-and-fair-elections https://www.usaid.gov/democracy/supporting-free-and-fair-ele...). I mean: I completely agree that likely snowden is a criminal. There's little reason to assume otherwise. However, that's kind of besides the point, isn't it? Much, much more important than any one criminal is the responsibility a government, especially one that claims to uphold the ideals of democracy to actually protect its subjects as it claims to. For a sense of scale - consider the fact that governments routinely accept the legality of war, despite the fact that it's essentially akin to accepting mass murder. And I'm not trying to make the case that extreme pacificm is the way to go; but rather the opposite - if we acknowledge that even some of the most serious of crimes are potentially acceptable in the defense of proper governance, then clearly, clearly mere whistleblowing should be a no-brainer, even if that means overriding normal laws. So the question isn't whether Snowden is criminal, it's why is he criminal? I'd say the party at fault here is the democratically elected US government, not Snowden. The law on this matter is wrong, and should be fixed.

by Arech 5y ago

bayesian_horse 5y ago

Both broke the law, with quite serious consequences for their country and individual soldiers. This can't just be ignored. Even if their decision may be morally justified (to some people they weren't), breaking the rules has to come with consequences. There are issues with the US justice system, but it is a far cry from anything in Belarus or Russia. And if there is to be any secrecy around national security - most believe there should be - then there must also be consequences for breaking this secrecy, regardless of the justification.

Arech 5y ago
We're in the loop here, b/c from lukashenko's (as well as putin's, btw) point of view, *exactly the same* rules applies to journalists. Which means that either you have to review you thoughts and change them, or you are fine with killing journalists and any other dissidents (who obviously "broke the law, with quite serious consequences for their country and individual soldiers"). You just can't bet on two sides of a coin.
- bayesian_horse 5y ago
  Still with the BS arguments. There is a world of difference between a justice system like in the US and the one in Belarus. If you can't see that, how can you ever defend democracy? But you probably don't ever need to, because the US system is already quite trustworthy (despite a lot of faults) and on average does quite well.
hutzlibu 5y ago
"And if there is to be any secrecy around national security - most believe there should be - then there must also be consequences for breaking this secrecy, regardless of the justification. " I believe in the necessary secrecy of some state organisations - but only if they are trustworthy and play by the rules set by the democratic institutions. And Snowden showed that they don't do this and cannot really be trusted. And he tried the proper way to report and it did not worked. So he became: a whistleblower And a hunted man by the law breaking agencies whose cimes he unveiled. So why is your conclusion, there should be only consequences for him?
- bayesian_horse 5y ago
  That is indeed some black and white thinking! The US executive is a whole lot more trustworthy than most others. In fact, your very prosperity and freedom depends on this truth to a larger degree than you might want to admit. And it is not clear that Snowden tried "the proper way". He says so, but he doesn't want to prove that in court. Instead he defects to an enemy state and cooperates with their intelligence services. And yes, he did defect and cooperate, the only question is what exactly he did (and still does) and how much of all of this was his intention. The crimes Snowden committed, if any (it's not clear he could even be convicted), are absolutely legitimate. Publishing secrets you were sworn to keep secret has to be punishable. If someone decides to break those laws, out of ethical considerations, they must also face the consequences.
  - emn13 5y ago
    On the other hand, protecting whistleblowers is essential for honest, transparent government, no matter their crimes. And the US simply does not do that, not even close. Unfortunately, the crimes Snowden revealed may well not have seen the light of day without him, which suggests we don't have enough whistleblowers. And beyond that - even the bits of PRISM, XKeyscore and whatnot that were legal are simply not authorized by a democratically elected government; you cannot claim electoral legitimacy while keeping essential parts of your program not only secret, but even publicly paying lipservice to principles in opposition to your very own secret programs. To the extent various US administrations participated in creating these programs they thus necessarily acted without a democratic mandate; after all, they lied about it in public. That's not democracy; that's conspiracy. Had the programs been discussed at least in general terms, or the quandaries of trading which freedoms exactly for security been acknowledged by the US government, you could make the argument that the technical details must remain secret, but the principal was supported by the electorate. But as is; the whole thing - up to and including the participating judiciary - is no more legitimate than any other stolen election won by lies, propaganda, and misdirection - the kind of principles the US clearly rejects (e.g. https://www.usaid.gov/democracy/supporting-free-and-fair-elections https://www.usaid.gov/democracy/supporting-free-and-fair-ele...). I mean: I completely agree that likely snowden is a criminal. There's little reason to assume otherwise. However, that's kind of besides the point, isn't it? Much, much more important than any one criminal is the responsibility a government, especially one that claims to uphold the ideals of democracy to actually protect its subjects as it claims to. For a sense of scale - consider the fact that governments routinely accept the legality of war, despite the fact that it's essentially akin to accepting mass murder. And I'm not trying to make the case that extreme pacificm is the way to go; but rather the opposite - if we acknowledge that even some of the most serious of crimes are potentially acceptable in the defense of proper governance, then clearly, clearly mere whistleblowing should be a no-brainer, even if that means overriding normal laws. So the question isn't whether Snowden is criminal, it's why is he criminal? I'd say the party at fault here is the democratically elected US government, not Snowden. The law on this matter is wrong, and should be fixed.