14 ms·

If he were to come back to the USA and then subsequently be detained, I would join the hopefully overwhelming protests in favor of his release. I am hoping if s

If he were to come back to the USA and then subsequently be detained, I would join the hopefully overwhelming protests in favor of his release. I am hoping if such a time comes, that there will be a historic level of demonstration advocating for his freedom.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
mhurron 11y ago
I would expect you would be severely disappointed.
- crxgames 11y ago
  Yep. News will be full of stories about Bruce Jenner's new tit job.
  - matthewmacleod 11y ago
    That's a bit disrespectful.
    - stephengillie 11y ago
      It's sad but true. Downvote for truth.
    - coldtea 11y ago
      But still accurate.
  - sixQuarks 11y ago
    The sad thing is that most people in America know more about Bruce Jenner then they do Snowden.
    - rayiner 11y ago
      Can one reasonably believe that acceptance of transsexuals in the U.S. is a much bigger deal than NSA surveillance?
      - rosser 11y ago
        It's easier to understand, and easier to have a visceral, attention-grabbing (and, more importantly, attention-keeping) reaction to. That's what appears to matter most in American "news" reporting.
        LordKano 11y ago
        I think that it's easier to sell soap with a Jenner story than a Snowden one. People are perfectly well capable of understanding that the government is reading all of their emails, text messages and facebook posts. The problem is that advertising dollars come from big corporations that make money off of the snooping and that well will run dry if anyone suspects that reporting will have a negative effect on next quarter's revenue. Instead of "Hey look! These Fortune 500 companies are getting paid millions of dollars to tell the government everything that you do.", we get "Hey look! This guy's doing something weird!"
        rayiner 11y ago
        That's not what I asked. My question is, can a reasonable person believe that the acceptance of transexuals in mainstream American society is a more important and newsworthy concern than NSA surveillance?
        rosser 11y ago
        I know that's not exactly what you asked, but my response is relevant, if indirectly. That is to say, no, they can't. But mainstream news in the US isn't targeted at reasonable people — or, more strictly speaking, it isn't targeted at the reasonable parts of people. They're going for the visceral, emotional reaction from the audience, because that's what keeps people tuned in long enough to throw ads at their eyeballs.
hueving 11y ago
>I would join the hopefully overwhelming protests in favor of his release. All 12 of us would be fired up! More seriously, did you see the bit on John Oliver about Snowden? The majority of the US population have no idea who Snowden is. Be careful not to get caught up in our tech news bubble.
- themeek 11y ago
  Yeah I keep getting surprised that people I meet have no idea who Snowden is, haven't heard of mass surveillance or propaganda operations, aren't aware of the huge national security push being made by the United States across essentially every region of the globe, and aren't following national security legislation including the recent Freedom Act and 215 sunset.
  - derefr 11y ago
    There's a similar bubble in the PRC: if you talk to someone inside it, they know all about Tiananmen Square, Tibet, the recent Hong Kong protests, etc. Whereas if you talk to someone outside of it, they'll tell you the Chinese government is a beloved-to-neutral entity (like the Queen of England, a bit) in the eyes of the populace, and that American terrorism is responsible for most-any Chinese civil unrest. It isn't until you meet people on both sides of such a dividing line that you realize: propaganda is never aimed at "converting" people who know even the slightest thing about an issue, people who already have any stance at all. Instead, it's aimed at the mass of people who care little enough about an issue, people who are far enough away from the issue, that they'll trust the first source of "facts" about it they see, and then lose interest in finding out more.
    - themeek 11y ago
      Most people I meet seem to be under the persuasion that China is evil, corrupt and dictatorial - a unique wielder of force and propaganda. And they also do not know much about the America's support of Chinese civil unrest or the self-actualized pockets of civil unrest. Maybe there's a Venn Diagram of information bubble in there somewhere.
lamuerteflaca 11y ago
The cynic in me tells me that instead people will be calling for his head.
- stephengillie 11y ago
  Most idiots do what they're told, and with IQ rates proportional to population, the USA has the 3rd most idiots of any country in the world.
fourply 11y ago
Well, nobody seemed to care about the potential renewal of section 215, so... Burn it all and start over, I say :)
tosser-004 11y ago
Many, many more people view him as a traitor for exposing legal foreign intelligence programs. He obviously did it for what he thought were valid reasons, but that does make it right.
- aerique 11y ago
  Actually, it is right what he did. Given how much dirt has been exposed do you really think there was another way to do this? What Snowden did is a prime example of civil disobedience: sometimes a country needs to be called out on what it's doing is wrong, no matter what the laws say. That said, whistleblowers are in for a rough time and usually get acknowledged for what they did when they're either too old or dead.
  - at-fates-hands 11y ago
    He painted himself into a corner, and that's on him. There are a myriad of other ways he could have done this, but his intent was clear to damage the government more so than expose government surveillance. Most of what he leaked has nothing to do with the government spying on its citizens. Most of the documents relate to how the US deals with its own international interests and how it protects those interests - right or wrong. For this reason, he's not a patriot or a whistle blower. He's just another government employee who stole and released a ton of classified documents that did more damage to his own country than what he's been telling people about the NSA spying programs. And let's be honest, it was something most people already knew about anyways. His documents only confirmed a lot of what people already suspected. The only difference was his documents showed how deep the rabbit hole went. In a few more years, nobody will care - let him rot in Siberia for all I care. All he did was weaken a country by his actions.
    - mingmecca 11y ago
      I disagree. What Snowden did was hugely important not just domestically but internationally. Without him we wouldn't have the current push to reform the surveillance state, so it would have grown unfettered into a cancer that really would affect all of us. I don't want to live in a fishbowl. Many officials from the CIA and NSA (and FBI) have distorted the truth or outright lied to public. Snowden's actions have pushed back on that somewhat, rekindling a strong interest in what the watchers are doing. Stingrays, parallel construction, surveillance airplanes over urban areas, etc. You've got to keep that kind of power under strict control and keep the watchers accountable.
mVChr 11y ago
More likely a few years after his return, when public attention has waned, he would die due to an unfortunate accident of some sort, perhaps a hit and run or the like. While this may sound like conspirilogic, I can site many similar instances of deaths of journalists and other instigators under mysterious circumstances in this country if necessary.
- mapmap 11y ago
  Michael Hastings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hastings_(journalist)#Allegations_of_foul_play.2C_and_assertions_to_the_contrary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hastings_(journalist)#...
  - mVChr 11y ago
    Yes, I was trying to remember his name, thank you. EDIT: and since I can no longer edit my original comment: *cite
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > More likely a few years after his return, when public attention has waned, he would die due to an unfortunate accident of some sort, perhaps a hit and run or the like. Why wouldn't that be just as likely to happen to him while in exile once public attention has waned?
  - socceroos 11y ago
    Because he's in exile in Russia - they'll use him to damage USA's international standing even if it's 50 years down the road.
- rtpg 11y ago
  considering that there are 30000 vehicle fatalities in the US a year, you have a 1 in 10k chance every year of dying in a car accident. People dying in car accidents are a thing that happen with a much higher probability than winning the lottery, so maybe this is nature imitating art more than anything else.
herah 11y ago
That's what so many said about Manning and look where he is now. Though I'm with you that if this happens, it would be great.
- MBlume 11y ago
  She.
3327 11y ago
I would not. I am American and despite the fact that what I think he did was right, the manner he did it was wrong. Domestic Spying is NOT OK. International Spying IS OK. He released dozens of files regarding international spying. Setting US efforts back dozens of years, endangering lives of US assets. Sorry to say but that is treason. Treason has a price.
- x5n1 11y ago
  Yes you just need an agreement with one of the five eyes and international spying becomes domestic spying.
- gamerdonkey 11y ago
  Sadly, things are not often so cut and dry. What are you feelings about spying that is ostensibly international but nonetheless collects a potentially large, though unknowable, amount of intimate domestic communication? I ask because that is exactly the kind of thing that happens with the "Foreign Intelligence" programs Snowden leaked. > [...] Section 702 of FISA Amendments Act of 2008, is labeled "Procedures For Targeting Certain Persons Outside The United States Other Than United States Persons." Going on name alone, that sounds like the opposite of a license for the NSA to collect private messages between Americans. > Not necessarily. > [...] > Through those spying programs, it is possible that American-to-American email could hit an overseas server and be pulled into NSA databases even though those emails are not the target of NSA searches. The law does not prohibit this kind of "incidental" collection of Americans’ communications, as long as it was part of an otherwise valid collection of non-Americans’ information, said Stephen Vladeck, American University national security law professor. > Government reports, leaks and a scathing 2011 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court opinion offer more proof that the NSA cannot separate out communications between Americans from the emails involving a foreigner. "NSA’s knowing acquisition of tens of thousands of wholly domestic communications through its Upstream collection is a cause of concern for the court," wrote FISC Judge John D. Bates in the declassified opinion. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/09/edward-snowden/fact-checking-john-olivers-interview-edward-snowde/ http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/09/...
- themeek 11y ago
x5n1 11y ago
yes because that actually works in the US. /s

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

mhurron 11y ago

I would expect you would be severely disappointed.

crxgames 11y ago
Yep. News will be full of stories about Bruce Jenner's new tit job.
- matthewmacleod 11y ago
  That's a bit disrespectful.
  - stephengillie 11y ago
    It's sad but true. Downvote for truth.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    But still accurate.
- sixQuarks 11y ago
  The sad thing is that most people in America know more about Bruce Jenner then they do Snowden.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    Can one reasonably believe that acceptance of transsexuals in the U.S. is a much bigger deal than NSA surveillance?
    - rosser 11y ago
      It's easier to understand, and easier to have a visceral, attention-grabbing (and, more importantly, attention-keeping) reaction to. That's what appears to matter most in American "news" reporting.
      - LordKano 11y ago
        I think that it's easier to sell soap with a Jenner story than a Snowden one. People are perfectly well capable of understanding that the government is reading all of their emails, text messages and facebook posts. The problem is that advertising dollars come from big corporations that make money off of the snooping and that well will run dry if anyone suspects that reporting will have a negative effect on next quarter's revenue. Instead of "Hey look! These Fortune 500 companies are getting paid millions of dollars to tell the government everything that you do.", we get "Hey look! This guy's doing something weird!"
      - rayiner 11y ago
        That's not what I asked. My question is, can a reasonable person believe that the acceptance of transexuals in mainstream American society is a more important and newsworthy concern than NSA surveillance?
        rosser 11y ago
        I know that's not exactly what you asked, but my response is relevant, if indirectly. That is to say, no, they can't. But mainstream news in the US isn't targeted at reasonable people — or, more strictly speaking, it isn't targeted at the reasonable parts of people. They're going for the visceral, emotional reaction from the audience, because that's what keeps people tuned in long enough to throw ads at their eyeballs.

hueving 11y ago

>I would join the hopefully overwhelming protests in favor of his release. All 12 of us would be fired up! More seriously, did you see the bit on John Oliver about Snowden? The majority of the US population have no idea who Snowden is. Be careful not to get caught up in our tech news bubble.

themeek 11y ago
Yeah I keep getting surprised that people I meet have no idea who Snowden is, haven't heard of mass surveillance or propaganda operations, aren't aware of the huge national security push being made by the United States across essentially every region of the globe, and aren't following national security legislation including the recent Freedom Act and 215 sunset.
- derefr 11y ago
  There's a similar bubble in the PRC: if you talk to someone inside it, they know all about Tiananmen Square, Tibet, the recent Hong Kong protests, etc. Whereas if you talk to someone outside of it, they'll tell you the Chinese government is a beloved-to-neutral entity (like the Queen of England, a bit) in the eyes of the populace, and that American terrorism is responsible for most-any Chinese civil unrest. It isn't until you meet people on both sides of such a dividing line that you realize: propaganda is never aimed at "converting" people who know even the slightest thing about an issue, people who already have any stance at all. Instead, it's aimed at the mass of people who care little enough about an issue, people who are far enough away from the issue, that they'll trust the first source of "facts" about it they see, and then lose interest in finding out more.
  - themeek 11y ago
    Most people I meet seem to be under the persuasion that China is evil, corrupt and dictatorial - a unique wielder of force and propaganda. And they also do not know much about the America's support of Chinese civil unrest or the self-actualized pockets of civil unrest. Maybe there's a Venn Diagram of information bubble in there somewhere.

lamuerteflaca 11y ago

The cynic in me tells me that instead people will be calling for his head.

stephengillie 11y ago
Most idiots do what they're told, and with IQ rates proportional to population, the USA has the 3rd most idiots of any country in the world.

fourply 11y ago

Well, nobody seemed to care about the potential renewal of section 215, so... Burn it all and start over, I say :)

tosser-004 11y ago

Many, many more people view him as a traitor for exposing legal foreign intelligence programs. He obviously did it for what he thought were valid reasons, but that does make it right.

aerique 11y ago
Actually, it is right what he did. Given how much dirt has been exposed do you really think there was another way to do this? What Snowden did is a prime example of civil disobedience: sometimes a country needs to be called out on what it's doing is wrong, no matter what the laws say. That said, whistleblowers are in for a rough time and usually get acknowledged for what they did when they're either too old or dead.
- at-fates-hands 11y ago
  He painted himself into a corner, and that's on him. There are a myriad of other ways he could have done this, but his intent was clear to damage the government more so than expose government surveillance. Most of what he leaked has nothing to do with the government spying on its citizens. Most of the documents relate to how the US deals with its own international interests and how it protects those interests - right or wrong. For this reason, he's not a patriot or a whistle blower. He's just another government employee who stole and released a ton of classified documents that did more damage to his own country than what he's been telling people about the NSA spying programs. And let's be honest, it was something most people already knew about anyways. His documents only confirmed a lot of what people already suspected. The only difference was his documents showed how deep the rabbit hole went. In a few more years, nobody will care - let him rot in Siberia for all I care. All he did was weaken a country by his actions.
  - mingmecca 11y ago
    I disagree. What Snowden did was hugely important not just domestically but internationally. Without him we wouldn't have the current push to reform the surveillance state, so it would have grown unfettered into a cancer that really would affect all of us. I don't want to live in a fishbowl. Many officials from the CIA and NSA (and FBI) have distorted the truth or outright lied to public. Snowden's actions have pushed back on that somewhat, rekindling a strong interest in what the watchers are doing. Stingrays, parallel construction, surveillance airplanes over urban areas, etc. You've got to keep that kind of power under strict control and keep the watchers accountable.

mVChr 11y ago

More likely a few years after his return, when public attention has waned, he would die due to an unfortunate accident of some sort, perhaps a hit and run or the like. While this may sound like conspirilogic, I can site many similar instances of deaths of journalists and other instigators under mysterious circumstances in this country if necessary.

mapmap 11y ago
Michael Hastings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hastings_(journalist)#Allegations_of_foul_play.2C_and_assertions_to_the_contrary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hastings_(journalist)#...
- mVChr 11y ago
  Yes, I was trying to remember his name, thank you. EDIT: and since I can no longer edit my original comment: *cite
dragonwriter 11y ago
> More likely a few years after his return, when public attention has waned, he would die due to an unfortunate accident of some sort, perhaps a hit and run or the like. Why wouldn't that be just as likely to happen to him while in exile once public attention has waned?
- socceroos 11y ago
  Because he's in exile in Russia - they'll use him to damage USA's international standing even if it's 50 years down the road.
rtpg 11y ago
considering that there are 30000 vehicle fatalities in the US a year, you have a 1 in 10k chance every year of dying in a car accident. People dying in car accidents are a thing that happen with a much higher probability than winning the lottery, so maybe this is nature imitating art more than anything else.

herah 11y ago

That's what so many said about Manning and look where he is now. Though I'm with you that if this happens, it would be great.

MBlume 11y ago
She.

3327 11y ago

I would not. I am American and despite the fact that what I think he did was right, the manner he did it was wrong. Domestic Spying is NOT OK. International Spying IS OK. He released dozens of files regarding international spying. Setting US efforts back dozens of years, endangering lives of US assets. Sorry to say but that is treason. Treason has a price.

x5n1 11y ago
Yes you just need an agreement with one of the five eyes and international spying becomes domestic spying.
gamerdonkey 11y ago
Sadly, things are not often so cut and dry. What are you feelings about spying that is ostensibly international but nonetheless collects a potentially large, though unknowable, amount of intimate domestic communication? I ask because that is exactly the kind of thing that happens with the "Foreign Intelligence" programs Snowden leaked. > [...] Section 702 of FISA Amendments Act of 2008, is labeled "Procedures For Targeting Certain Persons Outside The United States Other Than United States Persons." Going on name alone, that sounds like the opposite of a license for the NSA to collect private messages between Americans. > Not necessarily. > [...] > Through those spying programs, it is possible that American-to-American email could hit an overseas server and be pulled into NSA databases even though those emails are not the target of NSA searches. The law does not prohibit this kind of "incidental" collection of Americans’ communications, as long as it was part of an otherwise valid collection of non-Americans’ information, said Stephen Vladeck, American University national security law professor. > Government reports, leaks and a scathing 2011 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court opinion offer more proof that the NSA cannot separate out communications between Americans from the emails involving a foreigner. "NSA’s knowing acquisition of tens of thousands of wholly domestic communications through its Upstream collection is a cause of concern for the court," wrote FISC Judge John D. Bates in the declassified opinion. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/09/edward-snowden/fact-checking-john-olivers-interview-edward-snowde/ http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/09/...
themeek 11y ago

x5n1 11y ago

yes because that actually works in the US. /s