4 ms·

That is one BS argument right there. Even with all the problems with the US justice system, I'm pretty sure most citizens actually prefer for it to work the wa

That is one BS argument right there. Even with all the problems with the US justice system, I'm pretty sure most citizens actually prefer for it to work the way it does currently, rather than not at all. And I'd rather see Snowden face the music than defect to the Russian intelligence services. There is no way he can refuse cooperation with them. I'm not even entirely convinced that Russia had no role in his actions prior to his defection, or that he really intended to go some place else.

whimsicalism 5y ago
> most citizens actually prefer for it to work the way it does currently, rather than not at all. This is a terrible defense for forcing down the planes of people taking political asylum. The choice is not between disrespecting asylum or not having any justice system whatsoever, and it is ridiculous to suggest so. > And I'd rather see Snowden face the music than defect to the Russian intelligence services Ah yes, the classic strategy of defecting to Russian intelligence services by leaving Russia to go to Bolivia.
- bayesian_horse 5y ago
  I have not defended forcing down planes in the case of Belarus. More so in the case of the US persuing claims that other nations agree too. Snowden said he wanted to go to Bolivia... There is no proof he actually intended to go there or that the Russians wouldn't be waiting to work with him there. Regardless of Snowden's original intentions, he has no power to refuse cooperation with Russian intelligence services. At the very least, he has been trotted out for propaganda reasons like a trained pony. So in essence, yes, he ultimately defected by not standing trial.
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    > More so in the case of the US persuing claims that other nations agree too. And other nations disagree with. Is this not the same as in the Belarusian situation? > he has no power to refuse cooperation with Russian intelligence services I don't think it is true that Snowden has no leverage whatsoever. Moreover, what is the evidence? What is the evidence that he is being trotted out for propaganda reasons? What is the evidence he has leaked all this information to the FSB?
    - bayesian_horse 5y ago
      It's naive to believe the FSB (or others) wouldn't use him however they wanted. Snowden has absolutely zero leverage. He can be deported to the US at any time, and Putin has proven he isn't above killing virtually anyone, no matter the public profile. And I remember that fake Q&A session with Putin were Snowden asked a question about surveillance of their own people and Putin basically said that the Russian state would never ever do such a horrible thing. It's almost funny.
Arech 5y ago
Just wanted to note that the phrase "most citizens actually prefer for it to work the way it does currently, rather than not at all" is a classical example of false dichotomy. Nobody proposed to destroy justice system in this thread, isn't it? Then why do you employ a false dichotomy? > There is no way he can refuse cooperation with them. There's always a way. They were already in great position just having him there. And regarding the latter, there must be very serious investigation following Snowden's actions and if what you say is true, it's extremely hard to believe the investigation has found nothing about it. But it seems so.
- bayesian_horse 5y ago
  If you don't propose to destroy the US justice system, you seem to have an enormous confidence in your ability to determine when exactly it should be just ignored. Maybe there are courts and legislative bodies in a democratic system, who are supposed to rule on such things? Oh yes, sure Snowden could refuse. And the Russian intelligence services will, out of the goodness of their hearts, just stop asking. Any connections between Russia and Snowden may have been investigated, but the results would not have been made public. That can wait until a trial, at the very least. But again, Snowden didn't stand trial, he defected to Russia...
FpUser 5y ago
>"That is one BS argument... most citizens actually prefer for it to work the way it does currently, rather than not at all." That is one BS answer. Where did you see that the choice is between what the US have and "not at all". >"And I'd rather see Snowden face the music than defect to the Russian intelligence services." Nobody cares what you'd rather see. He did something that he believes was a right thing to do (many other people believe the same). He does not owe it to anyone to give himself up to rot the rest of his life in prison.
- bayesian_horse 5y ago
  For some people it's indeed a better choice to "rot the rest of their life in prison" rather than defect to an enemy country, help them with their propaganda and intelligence gathering, and be at their mercy for the rest of their - probably not that long - life... And no, for me it is no legitimate choice to selectively ignore laws if they don't suit someone. In a democracy there are well defined systems, which are of course imperfect, to adjudicate and modify those laws. Manning went through that system, and despite all the outrage at her treatment, she got out quite well. Much better than what Snowden might face if he irks Putin...
  - FpUser 5y ago
    >"For some people it's indeed a better choice..." And that's the choices they make ( assuming they are in position to make it at all). I am not going to judge either. >"she got out quite well..." You do not know what she would do given a choice. Also she's been sentenced to 35 years. The only reason she's out is that Obama had commuted her sentence. Otherwise the life for her will be over.
    - bayesian_horse 5y ago
      So in other words, "the system" worked for Manning to some degree, right? She wouldn't have gotten the pardon if she didn't have some legitimate claim to being a whistleblower. Of course, a sentence of 35 years sounded ridiculous in her case, but there are legitimate ways to change those laws or ameliorate the consequences. And there is also an argument why disclosure of secrets should carry hefty prison terms, as it can result in casualties. Probably even did, in her case. I'm not saying she is a terrible person or even that she deserved to be in prison for seven years. I'm just stating that her actions were clearly illegal and had a lot of unambigiously negative consequences. Same thing for Snowden, though he lost a lot of my sympathy by defecting to an enemy state...

whimsicalism 5y ago

> most citizens actually prefer for it to work the way it does currently, rather than not at all. This is a terrible defense for forcing down the planes of people taking political asylum. The choice is not between disrespecting asylum or not having any justice system whatsoever, and it is ridiculous to suggest so. > And I'd rather see Snowden face the music than defect to the Russian intelligence services Ah yes, the classic strategy of defecting to Russian intelligence services by leaving Russia to go to Bolivia.

bayesian_horse 5y ago
I have not defended forcing down planes in the case of Belarus. More so in the case of the US persuing claims that other nations agree too. Snowden said he wanted to go to Bolivia... There is no proof he actually intended to go there or that the Russians wouldn't be waiting to work with him there. Regardless of Snowden's original intentions, he has no power to refuse cooperation with Russian intelligence services. At the very least, he has been trotted out for propaganda reasons like a trained pony. So in essence, yes, he ultimately defected by not standing trial.
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  > More so in the case of the US persuing claims that other nations agree too. And other nations disagree with. Is this not the same as in the Belarusian situation? > he has no power to refuse cooperation with Russian intelligence services I don't think it is true that Snowden has no leverage whatsoever. Moreover, what is the evidence? What is the evidence that he is being trotted out for propaganda reasons? What is the evidence he has leaked all this information to the FSB?
  - bayesian_horse 5y ago
    It's naive to believe the FSB (or others) wouldn't use him however they wanted. Snowden has absolutely zero leverage. He can be deported to the US at any time, and Putin has proven he isn't above killing virtually anyone, no matter the public profile. And I remember that fake Q&A session with Putin were Snowden asked a question about surveillance of their own people and Putin basically said that the Russian state would never ever do such a horrible thing. It's almost funny.

Arech 5y ago

Just wanted to note that the phrase "most citizens actually prefer for it to work the way it does currently, rather than not at all" is a classical example of false dichotomy. Nobody proposed to destroy justice system in this thread, isn't it? Then why do you employ a false dichotomy? > There is no way he can refuse cooperation with them. There's always a way. They were already in great position just having him there. And regarding the latter, there must be very serious investigation following Snowden's actions and if what you say is true, it's extremely hard to believe the investigation has found nothing about it. But it seems so.

bayesian_horse 5y ago
If you don't propose to destroy the US justice system, you seem to have an enormous confidence in your ability to determine when exactly it should be just ignored. Maybe there are courts and legislative bodies in a democratic system, who are supposed to rule on such things? Oh yes, sure Snowden could refuse. And the Russian intelligence services will, out of the goodness of their hearts, just stop asking. Any connections between Russia and Snowden may have been investigated, but the results would not have been made public. That can wait until a trial, at the very least. But again, Snowden didn't stand trial, he defected to Russia...

FpUser 5y ago

>"That is one BS argument... most citizens actually prefer for it to work the way it does currently, rather than not at all." That is one BS answer. Where did you see that the choice is between what the US have and "not at all". >"And I'd rather see Snowden face the music than defect to the Russian intelligence services." Nobody cares what you'd rather see. He did something that he believes was a right thing to do (many other people believe the same). He does not owe it to anyone to give himself up to rot the rest of his life in prison.

bayesian_horse 5y ago
For some people it's indeed a better choice to "rot the rest of their life in prison" rather than defect to an enemy country, help them with their propaganda and intelligence gathering, and be at their mercy for the rest of their - probably not that long - life... And no, for me it is no legitimate choice to selectively ignore laws if they don't suit someone. In a democracy there are well defined systems, which are of course imperfect, to adjudicate and modify those laws. Manning went through that system, and despite all the outrage at her treatment, she got out quite well. Much better than what Snowden might face if he irks Putin...
- FpUser 5y ago
  >"For some people it's indeed a better choice..." And that's the choices they make ( assuming they are in position to make it at all). I am not going to judge either. >"she got out quite well..." You do not know what she would do given a choice. Also she's been sentenced to 35 years. The only reason she's out is that Obama had commuted her sentence. Otherwise the life for her will be over.
  - bayesian_horse 5y ago
    So in other words, "the system" worked for Manning to some degree, right? She wouldn't have gotten the pardon if she didn't have some legitimate claim to being a whistleblower. Of course, a sentence of 35 years sounded ridiculous in her case, but there are legitimate ways to change those laws or ameliorate the consequences. And there is also an argument why disclosure of secrets should carry hefty prison terms, as it can result in casualties. Probably even did, in her case. I'm not saying she is a terrible person or even that she deserved to be in prison for seven years. I'm just stating that her actions were clearly illegal and had a lot of unambigiously negative consequences. Same thing for Snowden, though he lost a lot of my sympathy by defecting to an enemy state...