 | |
Probitas
Anon
2014-Jun-4 12:49 pm
Kerry is one of the few that can claim being tough.Most politicians on the Hill flinch at the word armed service, and pull strings to make sure any kids they have can avoid actual combat - look at the Bushes.
Kerry fought, and I respect that.
However, if Kerry was a man who had decided not to fight in the Vietnam war, how quick would he be to return to the US?
Problem with the US Justice system is the government determines the trial, and this would be closed trial, government would claim state secrets and block the public entirely. | |
|
 | | |
Re: Kerry is one of the few that can claim being tough.John Kerry is a effin scumbag zionist piece of sheit!! and as far as those 29% that disagree with Snowden, they're more than likely shills for the NSA and this tyrannical government.. | |
|
| |  ·Charter
|
Re: Kerry is one of the few that can claim being tough.said by 78204168: as far as those 29% that disagree with Snowden, they're more than likely shills for the NSA and this tyrannical government.. Or they watch mainstream propaganda filled media, which has done nothing but paint snowden as a traitor. | |
|
|  n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY |
to Probitas
said by Probitas :Problem with the US Justice system... Actually it is the "Legal" system, not the "Justice" system. Justice is often very hard to find in the legal system. | |
|
| |
Pollinfo
Anon
2014-Jun-4 12:55 pm
Poll details show ambivalence toward Snowden» www.huffingtonpost.com/2 ··· 938.htmlDespite their belief that the information he released should be public, though, only 31 percent of Americans think Snowden's leaks were "the right thing to do," while 33 percent think they were "the wrong thing to do"
A 45 percent plurality of respondents said they think Snowden should be prosecuted for the leaks. Likewise, only 35 percent said they would support a hypothetical pardon of Snowden by President Barack Obama, while 43 percent said they would oppose it. While a majority didn't like being spied on, more think Snowden was wrong for leaking it. | |
|
|  cork1958Cork
Premium Member
join:2000-02-26 |
cork1958
Premium Member
2014-Jun-5 7:44 am
Re: Poll details show ambivalence toward Snowdensaid by Pollinfo :While a majority didn't like being spied on, more think Snowden was wrong for leaking it. Exactly what I think also and now I think he's a coward for hiding in Russia! I would not support him being pardoned either. | |
|
 karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Signal Mountain, TN ·EPB Fiber Optics
·Xfinity
|
Depends on the question askedI for one, always take any survey with a grain of salt. How they phrase the question has as much, or even more, bias than the survey itself. I'm sure of FOX news did the survey, the poll question is more of 'Do you approve of snowden releasing the details about the NSA, and the answer of course is more like 60% disapprove. Until I see the actual question the poll asks, I don't take them seriously. | |
|
|  tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:7
1 edit |
tshirt
Premium Member
2014-Jun-4 2:53 pm
Re: Depends on the question askedsaid by karlmarx:I'm sure of FOX news did the survey an even more specially selective group was used new poll conducted by cloud storage service Tresorit appealing to the more techie crowd. Polls to the general public are the reverse of those numbers, but I do agree that polling results can be manipulated by the voodoo of what and who you ask. So the headline might be more accurate as 29% of SOME Americans Think Edward Snowden was Wrong | |
|
| | |
to karlmarx
as a person who does these "polls", I can tell you that they are very slanted questions, worded in such a way to really achieve the answer the poll company was paid to hear. | |
|
| |
MaverickTI
Anon
2014-Jun-4 1:03 pm
Yes...butSnowden's guilt may or may not be completely clear on this. I honestly have some sympathy for him AND I think some of what he did is commendable in that he was attempting to expose government overreach and unconstitutional actions.
WHAT MY REAL PROBLEM IS is the STACKED system against him. C'mon Kerry! Don't be such a dick! If Snowden were to "man up" as you say and return to the US, he would be prosecuted in a way which would COMPLETELY embarrass this Nation as a whole and make us a laughing stock of the world. America's global image would take YET ANOTHER hit by the heinous way our government would put this man on trial!
Our Justice System (in the ideal form) is what the REAL terrorists fear. Equality and justice under the Law. A system that very few nations have ever achieved. Yes the "ideal form" is continually under assault (usually in the form of money) but it's an ideal which makes this country great.
I REALLY do not want our government to sink to the level of some "banana trial" in their zeal to make an example out of Snowden, which is precisely what Kerry and his ilk would love. If he's guilty, fine. But let's practice what we preach to the rest of the world and have a fair trial by using the Rule of Law. Not revenge. | |
|
| cramer
Premium Member
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9 |
cramer
Premium Member
2014-Jun-4 2:22 pm
Re: Yes...butHow can it possibly be less clear. He's an admin who abused his privilege to access restricted documents. (possessing and reading classified documents are crimes all by themselves) And then proceeded to steal mountains of restricted documents, and release them to the public. His guilt (his treason) is not in question.
I applaud his conviction to exposing nefarious government actions, but that doesn't excuse the crimes paving his way. | |
|
| | | |
MaverickTI
Anon
2014-Jun-4 2:48 pm
Re: Yes...butI agree cramer but even though he stole US secrets, the US government is in NO position to properly prosecute this man. They're SO fanatical about prosecuting him his trial would be a horrendous sham. I don't honestly know what Court could properly judge his actions. | |
|
| | tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:7 ·Xfinity
|
to cramer
said by cramer:He's an admin who abused his privilege to access restricted documents. As important he is a intelligent person, and (according to him) trained as a spy, so he should be especially aware how releasing ANYTHING may jeopardize operations you know nothing about. To take, publicize, and turn over such large volumes to third parties was irresponsible, illegal, and treasonous... Were their extenuating circumstances? Maybe but vetting and using a small amount of the data to prove veracity of his claims would have opened doors many official channels or even alerted the press. His statements that Julian Assange was his hero, points to a belief that he was seeking the same sort of fame before the fact and may have put his own desires/needs above those he was( I'm assuming here) sworn (and contractually obligated) to protect. Either way there is a process to be judged as a whistleblower, actor of civil obedience, or traitor that is never easy for the persons involved and something those person choosing to act MUST be willing to bear the effects. Being a fan of Assange, Manning et'al, he certainly should have known the reaction of the gov't , and the extent of the effort to persue him, bring him to justice, and investigate all facets. | |
|
| | | clone
join:2000-12-11
Portage, IN  ·T-Mobile US
|
clone
Member
2014-Jun-4 5:33 pm
Re: Yes...butAh, don't I love to read some statist propaganda garbage from the resident statist propagandists here on the ole' DSLReports.
Boo fucking hoo, I'm so sorry he "jeopardized operations" of the secret police's war against the American people. Those spook pricks have no business collecting my data, or anyone else in these great United States' data without a fucking warrant signed by a real, sitting judge (not your kangaroo court FISA bullshit, either). What they are doing is treasonous against the American people, but you establishment-worshipping bootlickers try to to play the role of the moderates who are just "looking out for the safety of the country".
Bullshit. You are all statist apologists who know deep down how morally wrong all of this is, yet will defend it until your last breath because you are cowards and think that sucking up to and defending this garbage will somehow protect you from it. Pro tip: IT WON'T! | |
|
| | | | tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:7 ·Xfinity
|
tshirt
Premium Member
2014-Jun-4 6:18 pm
Re: Yes...butsaid by clone:Those spook pricks have no business collecting my data, or anyone else in these great United States' data without a fucking warrant signed by a real, sitting judge (not your kangaroo court FISA bullshit, either). you may not like it, but passed and regularly reaffirmed by congress, signed by then sitting president and review by the current one and the supreme court having refused all known challenges does in fact make it the LAW. | |
|
| | | | | clone
join:2000-12-11
Portage, IN |
clone
Member
2014-Jun-4 9:37 pm
Re: Yes...butThis is true, that doesn't make it a moral thing to do. There are plenty of unjust laws. Perhaps I'm in the minority of popular opinion, but the wholesale spying of a free population definitely has a chilling effect on free speech. | |
|
| | | | | | tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:7 ·Xfinity
|
tshirt
Premium Member
2014-Jun-4 9:54 pm
Re: Yes...butGood!
You are awake!
find someone you can vote for with similar goals, help support their campaign for XXX while the work their way up...at the same time pushing your current Best Choice to question and report.
rather then blaming or attack those with differnet opinion Explain, provide proof, reasoning, possible alternetives.
Your post above came across as some swamp wacko NOBODY want to be associated with, politician like to be "massaged" and be think they should sooth you...ask them to REPRESENT YOU or go home. (in polite language) | |
|
| | | | | | | clone
join:2000-12-11
Portage, IN ·T-Mobile US
|
clone
Member
2014-Jun-4 10:18 pm
Re: Yes...butI do those things, to the best of my ability. However, I do grow "keyboard muscles" from time to time when I see what I perceive to be the rationalization of something that I feel to be so immoral as to be unfathomable in a free society.
I just don't think basic freedoms should be handed away without any real public discourse, and that happens every day in this country...it kinda fires me up! | |
|
| | | | | Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT |
to tshirt
said by tshirt:you may not like it, but passed and regularly reaffirmed by congress, signed by then sitting president and review by the current one and the supreme court having refused all known challenges does in fact make it the LAW. And the law is always right? There's a few million black people who would disagree with that opinion. As for the 'supreme' court; They used to represent a guiding light as to what was fair and constitutional. Now they're nothing but yes-man for the government and the corporations. | |
|
| | | | | | tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:7 ·Xfinity
|
tshirt
Premium Member
2014-Jun-5 12:30 pm
Re: Yes...butsaid by Rekrul:And the law is always right? Nope! that's WHY we still have trials, appeals, and judicial review. BTW this isn't a case of prejudice- a bias based on skin color, class or other grouping. it's a more basic does a low level employee get to disclose secret information based on his limited knowledge of the big picture. Beyond the national security issues, would there be consequences from YOUR employer if YOU broke all company policies to reveal confidential company info because you disagreed with them? even if you believed it was wrong the info in this case wasn't going to kill/maim/ injure anyone if it went on a few more days/months so there was time for less radical methods of disclosure. It appears (partly due to his own statements) that he was determined to make a mass release, planned and collected info (spied) to make HIS point contacted 2 press organizations to prepare his "Golden Parachute" and then ... It would seem with all the time, effort and planning had he attempted to make a less public, but maybe more effective disclosures within the gov't instead of seeking the big splash/fame and fortune method? You say want a sitting judge but don't accept FISA or SCOTUS are qualified. so your idea of a independent judge is one who rules YOUR WAY without regard to the law? | |
|
| | | | | | | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2 |
Re: Yes...butsaid by tshirt :It would seem with all the time, effort and planning had he attempted to make a less public, but maybe more effective disclosures within the gov't instead of seeking the big splash/fame and fortune method? Considering that there were other attempts within the government that went absolutely no where, I think a public release was the proper next step. said by tshirt :You say want a sitting judge but don't accept FISA or SCOTUS are qualified. so your idea of a independent judge is one who rules YOUR WAY without regard to the law? But isn't that just what the government is doing when they go to the FISA rubber stamp court? | |
|
| | | | | | | | tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:7 ·Xfinity
|
tshirt
Premium Member
2014-Jun-5 1:02 pm
Re: Yes...but If you have NO faith in the existing courts, congress, or executive branch, and believe you as a citizen have no civil method of changing it. you have three choices live with it, leave it, or revolution. Few really want #3, and hopefully most won't resign themselves to #1 or #2.
If people can't be bothered to expend the effort democracy REQUIRES (sorry, there is no app for that.), do they deserve it? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2 |
Re: Yes...butThat's a fair question but I would ask it a little differently... if some people in the country don't care about privacy/freedom/democracy does that make it right to take it away from everyone?
I have always been of the mindset of 'majority rules' and if you don't like what the majority has decided, you are free to move. Complaining about it is perfectly fine too but revolution should be reserved for when the government ignores the majority. | |
|
| | | | | | | Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT |
to tshirt
said by tshirt:Nope! that's WHY we still have trials, appeals, and judicial review. BTW this isn't a case of prejudice- a bias based on skin color, class or other grouping.
it's a more basic does a low level employee get to disclose secret information based on his limited knowledge of the big picture. Except that under the laws he's charged with breaking, he wouldn't be allowed to use his reasons for breaking the law as a defense. In other words, he would be prohibited from using "I was trying to do the right thing" as a defense. I don't consider it a fair trial when a defendant isn't allowed to explain why he broke the law. Of course if you're going to argue that his reason for breaking the law doesn't matter, then you probably also think someone who breaks the speed limit while driving a critically injured person to the hospital should be arrested. said by tshirt:Beyond the national security issues, would there be consequences from YOUR employer if YOU broke all company policies to reveal confidential company info because you disagreed with them? So if I go to work for a food packaging company, sign an agreement not to talk about anything I see at the company and then I witness cockroaches and rats crawling all over the food and rat droppings in the food, I should just keep my mouth shut because to say anything would violate company policy? said by tshirt:It would seem with all the time, effort and planning had he attempted to make a less public, but maybe more effective disclosures within the gov't instead of seeking the big splash/fame and fortune method? Nobody in the government wanted to hear anything he had to say. The only reason that anyone is even talking about this today is because he made it public. Exactly who do you think he could have talked to that would have done anything about this? His bosses? Congress? The president? They've all demonstrated that they're not interested in actually doing anything about the illegal surveillance. Yes, I called it illegal. The guy who authored the Patriot Act, which is used as the basis for all the spying, has said that the intelligence agencies went further than he ever intended. The FISA court has said that the intelligence agencies went further than they thought. The senate intelligence oversight committee has said that the intelligence community has gone further than they thought. The supreme court has made decisions based on faulty testimony (not that they probably would have ruled any differently). Not to mention that the government is fighting tooth and nail to keep all of this secret. Those aren't the actions of a agency that's operating within the law. said by tshirt:You say want a sitting judge but don't accept FISA or SCOTUS are qualified. so your idea of a independent judge is one who rules YOUR WAY without regard to the law? I want a judge who will apply some common sense. The FISA judges haven't refused a single application submitted to them. They might as well not even exist if they're just going to approve everything. Even so, they have said that they weren't aware of everything the intelligence community was up to, yet they keep authorizing every order placed in front of them. As for the 'supreme' court; They showed that they don't care about the law when they ruled that corporations are people and that money is speech. If money is speech, why isn't speech money? Why can't I pay for a meal by reciting a poem? | |
|
| | | | | | |
to tshirt
Just because "it's the law" doesn't make it right. After all, slavery was once "the law" too. | |
|
| | | Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT |
to tshirt
said by tshirt:Were their extenuating circumstances? Maybe but vetting and using a small amount of the data to prove veracity of his claims would have opened doors many official channels or even alerted the press. Your opinion is that even though dumping several gallons of water on the fire didn't even make a dent in it, dumping shot glasses of water would have been the way to go? He's dumped huge bombshells into the press and exposed wholesale violations of the Constitution and what's happened because of it? A weak bill that was so watered down as it went through congress that it became completely useless. A lot of talk about how the mass surveillance of Americans must end, and then congress re-authorized the spying. FISC saying that even they didn't know how far the spying had gone and then continuing to approve all new requests. James Clapper lying to congress, admitting that he lied to congress and absolutely nothing happens to him. Yeah, I'm sure that releasing just a few select facts would have inspired real change. Now if you'll excuse me, I hear there's a tornado coming and I'm going to try and hold it back by blowing in the opposite direction... | |
|
| | andre2
join:2005-08-24
Brookline, MA |
to cramer
How do you feel about the Founding Fathers? Traitors, the lot of them. | |
|
| | | cramer
Premium Member
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9 |
cramer
Premium Member
2014-Jun-4 3:53 pm
Re: Yes...butIndeed they were: traitors to the crown. Luckily, the Crown never got ahold of them, and their war was successful. | |
|
| | | | |
to andre2
You are of course right! Our founding fathers commited treason against the established government, Great Britain, and would have hanged for it had they lost the war. Snowden, too, has commited treason against the US government. And he is a great hero for risking his life to bring the truth to the American people. | |
|
| | | | |
| | | |
to cramer
said by cramer:I applaud his conviction to exposing nefarious government actions, but that doesn't excuse the crimes paving his way. Actually that is EXACTLY what i supposed to excuse a crime. It should *NEVER* be a crime to expose another crime. Whistleblowing is extremely important to a healthy democracy. As long as he can prove the documents he released where released in good faith on the believe they were exposing illegal actions (and they were) Then he should be open and shut free to go case. In times of more honor congress people with backbone and a semblance of representing people, would read the documents out loud in sessions and absolve him. That won;t happen today they are all the happy to toss the book at him and destroy him in any way possible, because that is what they get paid to do instead of their actual jobs. | |
|
| | |
••• |
| |  MPScan
Premium Member
join:2001-08-24
Boston, MA
kudos:1 |
to cramer
Hindsight and playing armchair quarterback sucks. But let me post a question, if you'll let me:
What if you got your first Gov Clearance in the late 1930's in Germany, and you learned about the plan for your government to exterminate millions of people in order to cleanse society.
Would have you broken your word in that scenario?
... or in true hindsight fashion, would you have condoned someone who broke their word in that case and pulled a Snowden?
Please, nobody say "well this is different" ... no, it isn't. Simply separate the content of the classified information from the actual act of hurting your own country and violating your word.
My point is that there is a line there, somewhere. My line is different from yours. Your line is different from the next guy. Sadly, I don't know the answer to my own question. | |
|
| | | cramer
Premium Member
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9 |
cramer
Premium Member
2014-Jun-5 12:57 am
Re: Yes...butActually, there is a slight difference to your (attempt at avoiding Godwin's Law) example: Snowden didn't have clearance, he exceeded his authority and stole government documents. However, in both cases, I assume you'd choose to violate your clearance knowing full well the consequences for doing so. (In your example... firing squad. For Snowden, an eternity in prisons and court rooms.) | |
|
| | | | |
DarkMushroom to MPScan
Anon
2014-Jun-6 5:50 am
to MPScan
It's actually a bit more complicated than that. Compare Mildenstein and Eichmann. While mass exile was bad, mass execution was way worse. AFAIK, Mildenstein was drummed out for political reasons related to the shift towards the 'final solution'. But the point is made. Hypothetically, if you knew that every politician was being blackmailed and a huge database of blackmail information was being collected on the majority of citizens/residents to always have a 'hook' into the population, wouldn't you want to somehow stop it? | |
|
| | |
to MaverickTI
But... having worked for the govt and having access to highly classified doctrine, Snowden did us all a favor by slowing down the train that the NSA and it's intelligence buddies were ridding while hiding behind the patriot act to pizz on the rights those in uniform are sworn to defend and protect. No, he violated any disclosure agreement(s) he signed and of the dozens I've signed, I wouldn't both the wipe my azz on the paper they are printed on. Snowden expose violations of our constitution while violating some rule(s) that came after. So which one would you rather see go bye bye? | |
|
 David
VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:102 |
David
VIP
2014-Jun-4 1:12 pm
I would be one of the 55%sorry to say. | |
|
|
••• |
 King PDon't blame me. I voted for Ron Paul
Premium Member
join:2004-11-17
Murfreesboro, TN |
King P
Premium Member
2014-Jun-4 1:16 pm
Snowden DID do the right thing, period.He exposed our government doing corrupt and illegal surveillance on not just our enemies, but on our allies as well.
We all know that our gov't is not set up in a way that allows us to govern ourselves, not any longer. They are now our appointed masters, and we are the servants. Period. | |
|
IanR
join:2001-03-22
Fort Mill, SC |
IanR
Member
2014-Jun-4 3:20 pm
Here is the Problem.If you are on one side of the government you can "break or bend the law" and the DoJ will not even institute an enquiry, let alone go for an indictment and a trial. Mr. Clapper (NSA) and President Obama have admitted to "breaking laws".
On the other side citizen Joe would get charged, indicted and go to trial and in Snowden's case go to a closed secret trial. In Snowden's case he admits "breaking the law" but says it was necessary, as also says President Obama said re not putting the prisoner exchange through Congress and as also says Mr. Clapper re admitting to lying to Congress re surveillance.
So secretary Kerry's words telling Snowden to "man up....and return for a trial" shows a justice and legal system which is not equally applied to everyone. Remember Animal Farm? "All pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others".
I am not passing comment, or judgment, on the circumstances of these three individuals "breaking the law" I am though saying the justice system is not being applied uniformly and that's scary. | |
|
| |
I wonder how eager for a trial he'd be ifEveryone guilty of criminal acts were to be put to a fair trial. Bush, Obama, Clapper, Alexander and hundreds if not thousands of others belong in the deepest, darkest, dankest prison we could build. They are traitors, to the Nation and its' people. | |
|
|  w0go.O
join:2001-08-30
Springfield, OR |
w0g
Member
2014-Jun-4 3:45 pm
Re: I wonder how eager for a trial he'd be ifEven the British abandoned letting the king commit crimes back in the 1600s. We built the American constitution around the idea that our government would not be able to commit crimes against the people and that government agents would be equally prosecuted.
Today they've adopted rules secretly amongst themselves that allow them to commit crimes, and they aren't being prosecuted for any of it. Mean while all the laws on the books are being used to prosecute the public exclusively as if the criminal justice system has become some kind of weapon only to be used against the public.
It's time our Presidents and Intelligence community legions start going to prison for their crimes in society.. | |
|
 rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY |
rit56
Member
2014-Jun-4 3:55 pm
29% Makes SenceThat's the entire GOP base. Why is anyone surprised? | |
|
| | |
Re: 29% Makes Sencesaid by rit56:That's the entire GOP base. Why is anyone surprised? Really? Plenty of Democrats, voters and politicians alike, have condemned Snowden. Do you remember what party John Kerry belongs to?  | |
|
| | |
nonpartisan to rit56
Anon
2014-Jun-5 7:30 am
to rit56
Oh right, because only Democrats are against big government intrusions? | |
|
 EdrickI aspire to tell the story of a lifetime
Premium Member
join:2004-09-11
Woburn, MA |
Edrick
Premium Member
2014-Jun-4 5:59 pm
Frontline Anyone?Did none of you watch the three hour show about how this all came about? | |
|
| |
He is wrong.To me, what he did was wrong even if it got the information out there. I say bring him back and prosecute him. | |
|
scooper
join:2000-07-11
Youngsville, NC
kudos:2 |
Comments -1 - Did Snowden break some laws ? I'd would say about 95%+ probablity that he did.
2 - Did this need to happen ? No doubt - YES
3 - Any chance of a "fair trial" ? NO! Would he get a trial in accordance with rules of law - yes. But they are so slanted that it could only end in one way - him in prison, and no one outside the government in that court room would ever know the actual truth.
Based on the above - if I was Snowden - I sure would not be looking to come back to the USA within my lifetime. | |
|
| |
29% welcome their own enslavementAnd will happily pay for the costs!
Wake up. | |
|
|
|
·
·
·
