I've already stipulated it's quite possible he had good intentions. Your neighbor who believes the propaganda that the Trump won the election and believes the military should be called in has good intentions, even if they are a fucking idiot. The list of catastrophes in history caused by those who were absolutely sure about their moral righteousness is legion. That doesn't change the results. If the court wishes to consider that in sentencing that's absolutely appropriate, but it doesn't change the fact he should be extradited to face trial. And they should consider the damage that was done as well. I think there's a strong likelihood that when history is finally written by objective observers our descendants will find out Snowden's leak put weapons in the hands of the GRU and FSB that was a significant factor in the fall of the US as a major power, and while people are no doubt cheering about that, the inevitable result of that will be expansion by China and Russia, and that will be worse for the world in many tangible ways. Hell, it's already happening.
You are essentially arguing that letting people know they are being watched, should have significant negative consequences. And you don’t wonder why he is hiding out in Russia?
No, that's not at all what I said. I can both save a man's life at a restaurant by giving him a heimlich maneuver, and then after too much of a celebration get into a car drunk and run over a kid. One doesn't abrogate the other, either in the law or morality. AGAIN, Russian and China ended up with documents that Snowden had in his possession, and despite your and Ks claims there's absolutely no indication that these weren't the documents that he stole. That's what I blame him for. But that's not the charge against him. Snowden taking them in the first place was a major breach of Federal Law. (f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. If they truly wanted to punish Edward Snowden, they could have charged him with thousands of violations of this act alone. More so than any other person in world history. The only comparable event was Vasili Mitrokhin smuggling out the KGB archive when he defected. Though that was far less significant, because it didn't include active cases. Everything Snowden stole was current intelligence. Again, if he could have gotten that information to the right hands I'd be supporting him as a whistleblower. He instead sent them to foreign newspapers, and definitely conspired with someone that is now well known to be a Russian source, and possible operative. Assange was literally taking a check from Moscow through RT.com while this was going on.
So, then, what you’re saying is, the charges specific to the Patriot Act - those of spying on Americans - could be rescinded if the Patriot Act is repealed, but anything that he did that is a crime while engaging in those same acts that exposed the reaches of the Patriot Act, should be prosecuted. Is that correct?
No, I'm saying that even if he didn't provide direct intelligence to the Russians, which we don't know one way or the other, he definitely violated the espionage act simply taking that material. Considering it was the largest breach in world history, yes, it should be prosecuted. Even if he felt like Captain America doing it. Because he in no way, shape or form had to take those documents to be a whistleblower. He could have been an expert witness. He even could have taken the documents and kept them secure until he had a chance to hand them over to the legal governing oversight body, such as either the House or Senate Oversite committees. Still potentially illegal, but certainly would have been viewed differently than what he did. Instead he wilfully distributed them to non-American media sources, while conspiring to flee the country with a guy who was taking money from Russia. Assange literally paid his airfare to Moscow. And Russia ended up with the largest windfall in intelligence history. This makes the Brits breaking the Enigma code with Polish help look like small potatos.
But we’re still talking about information obtained through the Patriot Act. If that act is rescinded, then any information obtained through that act is illegal. And Snowden revealed the fact that it should be illegal and the Act rescinded. you aren’t making any sense. Your argument is circular.
Yours is based on a false premise. Snowden's docs absolutely included means and methods, revealing a dozen or so programs, the overwhelming majority of which were technologies that themselves were neutral, and could be used in legitimate methods. This is what was revealed via foreign newspapers, such as Der Spiegel and the Guardian. The papers themselves certainly censored some of the material. It's the part of any good journalist and editor to do so. We do have good reason to believe that Russia gained access to all of that information, even beyond that which was censored by the papers themselves. Because allied foreign intelligence agencies have explicitly stated so. For example, one thing that was revealed was British intelligence set up fake internet cafes and used them to hack Russian and Turkish delegates to the G20 conferences. This is absolutely within the purview of intelligence operations, there's no indication that it was illegal, but it's a method blown due to it being publicly printed in the Guardian. There were dozens of revelations of that nature, and even more on the technical capabilities of things that can be legal collection methods if they are legally authorized. Again, it is the single largest espionage coup in history. The fact that you evidently approve of it has nothing to do with the legality of stealing that classified information, nor the impact that these events have in world history. The people who are experts in this field certainly know how damaging this impact was. Cyberwarfare has made espionage even more important in modern times. I am firmly convinced we are living through the negative impacts of the actions of well-intentioned but hopelessly naive actors in the West, most prominent among them Edward Snowden. No different than Klaus Fuchs, Melita Norwood, the Rosernbergs, or the Cambridge Five in the 50s.
We don't know what he took and it can't be confirmed that any information revealed came from Snowden as you've already stated that the people who had access to the same information numbered in the millions.
We know he took at least hundreds of thousands of documents, per his own admission and that of the journalists he worked with. Government audits showed he ran programs that touched 1.5 million documents across several agencies, including over 900,000 from the DoD. The UK claims he stole 58,000 documents, Australia 15,000. It might be less than the full number there, but even what he admits to still makes it the most massive breach in history. As to the rest, you are conflating two things. One is the number of people that are involved in any level of IT work for intelligence agencies, which is why I think it's funny K. is so disjointed about several people here having ties in that world. It's like saying it's odd that someone who lives in Orlando knows people who work at Disney World, or worked there themself at some time. The other is the number of people that have actual high-level security clearances that Snowden had. I have no idea how many that is, but it's certainly an order of magnitude less than all the people that work and support those groups. And clearly, the number should be at least one less than it was. If there is any other breach of this nature, then it hasn't been made public. And it would be very odd for the intelligence community to even now view Snowden as a traitor if all these files were out there anyway. There's no indication that's true.
Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. My statement "If you include tertiary groups that provide support, and commercial groups that were legally compelled to work for them, which I and virtually all my friends were in, the number easily rises into the millions" meant people who are involved in some way in the intelligence world. That's what I meant by tertiary, people who support the operations, not the ones doing the actual intelligence work. For example, in one role I worked with federal lawyers that had such access, but I myself did not. They directed some of my work on what it was legal and illegal to do. This was a system administration job. I wasn't intending to suggest millions of people have top-secret level status. My apologies if that wasn't clear.
In which case, your clarifying statement, in no way, provides the reason for making in the first place. You were attempting to show @K that "millions of people" have the same access to the information that supports Snowden leaked the information. That, that in and of itself does not mean you are part of "the illuminati". So, did you or did you not have access to know what kind of information Snowden leaked?
I did not say that. I made no other claim than I worked with people in that community and that I had access to surprising levels of information working in a commercial corporation that ran a large IT network, one that was coopted by that community. And yes, millions of people were involved in that. Again, that does not mean millions of people have top-secret level access. I know many who do, but I am not one, and never claimed to be. Hell, I had dinner at one of the base commanders at Guantanamo Bay a couple of years back before they moved after being reassinged. A next door neighbor was a political figure that appeared on Fox and CNN. These people live where I live. It should come as no surprise that there are people with these jobs that make headlines every day actually living and breathing in the world. A major Russian spy was just charged who lived two miles from me, and evidently went to the same gym. You get used to it living in the Metro-DC area. When I say people in the community have X feelings toward Snowden and what he did, it comes directly from people I know well. Most of the rest of it is public knowledge that is out there due to the nature of the leaks. Granted, most people haven't spent time looking into it. You could have, but clearly chose not to. So I have been patiently explaining those things to you. Anything else?
Yea, anyone else? Because, to me, you intimated that you had access to information that proved Snowden's guilt. As for public information, I disagree with your assessment of the situation.
Thank you for making the effort, but we all know people whose attitude is "I've got my mind made up; don't confuse me with the facts!" Bernie told her Snowden should be pardoned. That's all she needs to know.
Didn't you just tell oldfella not to do that? Shut the fuck up and quit trying to drag me into your pointless existence.
I'm in no way responsible for your 'intimations.' I've been clear - the one time I thought I might not have been, I bent over backwards to try to explain. And yes, I get the fact that you are both very uninformed, and have a clear judgment on this issue.
Sanders didn't even go that far. My understanding is that he says that Snowden should be allowed to come home, and that there were mitigating cases in his actions, but he still committed a crime and needs to face judgment on that issue. I loved Bernie and think he has a lot correct, but his area of expertise has never been international relations, and as far as I know he's never served on any intelligence committee.
So, like OF, you consider yourself the entirety of liberals? I didn't mention you by name, but you were quick to self-identify, and your grasp of the facts seems to be limited to having seen the movie. No amount of data from someone who actually works in a related field seems to make a dent in your confirmation bias. May as well give me the finger again. It seems to be your most consistent rebuttal.
your thinking is so fucked up, I wonder how you even manage to put coherent thoughts in a book format.
That was my take on Bernie's comments as well and, while I'll always love the Alte Kocker, I'm aware of his shortcomings. Yes, bring Snowden home, let him face judgment. Ellsberg initially faced 115 years, but we know how that worked out. I still haven't watched all of the BBC interview with le Carre that @MikeH92467 linked to. I'd trust Cornwell's insights more than the current
She could always use the finger to push the "ignore" button. But then she'd get lonesome, and be forced to admit fighting you is the most interesting thing she does all day.
You keep referencing me, then when I respond, you say I'm being quick to self identify. Your obsession with me is making me uncomfortable. Please stop.
I'm just fascinated with how you keep glossing over the plethora of information @Demiurge has been providing you (which he has no obligation to do, BTW - he could just as easily treat you the way Lanz and 14th Doctor do, but he's inordinately patient), then accuse other people of your own shortcomings. (I love the "you obviously have reading comprehension problems" one!) It's entertaining. Almost as entertaining as when you tell people to stop responding to you. Maybe if you stopped posting...
Now call her a ka-ka-doody face, and throw a rock at her, and miss, and hit and kill the class pet, and make the class hate you.
