5 ms·

That seems like a pretty sane comment. Is there something factual in it with which you disagree, or are you simply surprised at the existence of opinions other

That seems like a pretty sane comment. Is there something factual in it with which you disagree, or are you simply surprised at the existence of opinions other than your own?

pavs 13y ago
There is absolutely no way for anyone to report the illegal activity of the NSA without committing any crime or breaking any laws. The law of the land is so severely in favor of NSA protecting its ass, is that the only way to reveal it is to absolutely destroy your life from a legal point of view. So to concentrate on the legality of the whistleblower's activity, instead of concentrating on the NSA's activity seems a little suspect.
cannabis_sam 13y ago
Comments like that are scary because it's seems to be the opinion of a majority of Americans, and it betrays a morality that's stuck on stage 4 of Kohlbergs stages of moral development[0]. When you derive your ethics from whatever the government says is the law, you can end up excusing a lot of bad shit. In contrast Snowden seems to be at stage 6, and his actions seem way saner than that comment. [0]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development#Stages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_m...
nikcub 13y ago
I don't buy into the shill argument, I actually think it is dangerous to write off an opinion that seems to be shared with around half the US population. Instead of dismissing the argument I think supporters of his actions need to argue and reason the case clearly. That said the problem with the comments are: * Violation of an employment agreement are not federal crimes * Theft of classified documents is not a violation of the Espionage Act. The reason why the espionage act is from 1917 is because government lawyers love the broad language in it. They haven't needed to update it because it can be applied so broadly, but the language of the law states that there needs to be an intent to aid the enemy or to prevent the US Military from carrying out operations. The other red flag that indicated that Snowden hasn't violated 'basic laws' is that the USA is resorting to diplomatic pressure rather than an INTERPOL notice. You can't use INTERPOL for political charges but you can use it for more classic charges like theft. There is a good reason why the 4th amendment was written, it was a lesson learned form British colonialism where independence oriented towns and villages were surrounded and houses were searched indiscriminately to shake out sympathizers opposed to the crown.

That seems like a pretty sane comment. Is there something factual in it with which you disagree, or are you simply surprised at the existence of opinions other than your own?

pavs 13y ago

There is absolutely no way for anyone to report the illegal activity of the NSA without committing any crime or breaking any laws. The law of the land is so severely in favor of NSA protecting its ass, is that the only way to reveal it is to absolutely destroy your life from a legal point of view. So to concentrate on the legality of the whistleblower's activity, instead of concentrating on the NSA's activity seems a little suspect.

cannabis_sam 13y ago

Comments like that are scary because it's seems to be the opinion of a majority of Americans, and it betrays a morality that's stuck on stage 4 of Kohlbergs stages of moral development[0]. When you derive your ethics from whatever the government says is the law, you can end up excusing a lot of bad shit. In contrast Snowden seems to be at stage 6, and his actions seem way saner than that comment. [0]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development#Stages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_m...

nikcub 13y ago

I don't buy into the shill argument, I actually think it is dangerous to write off an opinion that seems to be shared with around half the US population. Instead of dismissing the argument I think supporters of his actions need to argue and reason the case clearly. That said the problem with the comments are: * Violation of an employment agreement are not federal crimes * Theft of classified documents is not a violation of the Espionage Act. The reason why the espionage act is from 1917 is because government lawyers love the broad language in it. They haven't needed to update it because it can be applied so broadly, but the language of the law states that there needs to be an intent to aid the enemy or to prevent the US Military from carrying out operations. The other red flag that indicated that Snowden hasn't violated 'basic laws' is that the USA is resorting to diplomatic pressure rather than an INTERPOL notice. You can't use INTERPOL for political charges but you can use it for more classic charges like theft. There is a good reason why the 4th amendment was written, it was a lesson learned form British colonialism where independence oriented towns and villages were surrounded and houses were searched indiscriminately to shake out sympathizers opposed to the crown.