Edward Snowden

[dre]

One cannot break the law simply because they don't like it or feel it's "useless."

Sure they can. In fact civil disobedience has been an important part of the legal framework of western civilization.

People should do what they think is right.

And Snowden will never spend a minute in any US prison because the rest of the world knows what he did was right too.

As for you continued claims about "Its illegal! Its Illegal!"... We wont know that unless theres a trial.

[Guest American Woman]

As for you continued claims about "Its illegal! Its Illegal!"... We wont know that unless theres a trial.

Um, yeah. We do. One can't be charged unless what they're accused of is illegal. Again. Even his father recognizes that he broke the law. Even his father isn't making the claim that we don't know if what he did is illegal or not.

Edited July 12, 2013 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

And "legal channels" is BS; the legal channels are entirely in the control of the people who cooked up this scam in the first place.

-k

Excellent post. Very very good point.

[BubberMiley]

Since when did "taking the law in your own hands" mean breaking the law? I always thought it meant taking vigilante action.

[GostHacked]

Are you purposely missing the "legal channel first" aspect?? Or is it seriously escaping you?

Rosa Parks did an illegal action by sitting in a spot designated for whites. Not sure what legal actions she could have taken that would have made that kind of an impact to change a country's laws for the better.

And sticking around, being arrested, isn't "simply taking the law into one's own hands" as there were consequences; ie" being arrested, which confirms that one cannot "simply take the law into their own hands."

Rosa Parks took the law into her own hands and changed things for the better. Strange to turn this positive action and the positive results into something that feels wrong.

[Michael Hardner]

Rosa Parks did an illegal action by sitting in a spot designated for whites. Not sure what legal actions she could have taken that would have made that kind of an impact to change a country's laws for the better.

She was trying to change a law by breaking it, and having it overturned. It's different from what Snowden has done. He has decided to break the law to expose government behavior that he believes is wrong. I don't think conventional morality comes into play, other than the fact that he willingly brought such a storm upon himself in order to bring the behavior to light.

I understand why he felt he had to go outside the bounds of the law for this, which is why I wouldn't condemn him for escaping, but if he's caught then he knew the risks and the cycle of pseudo-martyrdom will be complete.

That's why this is just another OJ chase with me, except with a more moral crime and a nerdier perp.

[guyser]

Since when did "taking the law in your own hands" mean breaking the law? I always thought it meant taking vigilante action.

It never meant what was originally implied. A minor point so no sense dwelling on it. But yes, it means something entirely different as you point out.

[GostHacked]

She was trying to change a law by breaking it, and having it overturned. It's different from what Snowden has done.

Both Parks and Snowden violated the law in order to bring light to an injustice. Treating blacks as second rate citizens was wrong from the outset, and so is this blanket spying that the USA is doing on it's own people.

He has decided to break the law to expose government behavior that he believes is wrong. I don't think conventional morality comes into play, other than the fact that he willingly brought such a storm upon himself in order to bring the behavior to light.

Morality and common sense does not come into play whith the NSA blanket spying.

I understand why he felt he had to go outside the bounds of the law for this, which is why I wouldn't condemn him for escaping, but if he's caught then he knew the risks and the cycle of pseudo-martyrdom will be complete.

There is absolutely no way he would have been able to bring this to the forefront if he had gone through the correct legal channels.

Snowden -Hey boss, I wanna tell the world this program is widespread and violated the rights of US citizens.

Boss - AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH, you're fired.

That's why this is just another OJ chase with me, except with a more moral crime and a nerdier perp.

If you thought the Rosa Parks analogy was bad, you just trumped that with OJ.

Edited July 12, 2013 by GostHacked

[dre]

Um, yeah. We do. One can't be charged unless what they're accused of is illegal. Again. Even his father recognizes that he broke the law. Even his father isn't making the claim that we don't know if what he did is illegal or not.

Sorry... a charge is simply an allegation by the state. Youre not legally guilty of a crime unless theres a guilty verdict.

[Shady]

Sorry... a charge is simply an allegation by the state. Youre not legally guilty of a crime unless theres a guilty verdict.

Unless you're Rob Ford.

[Michael Hardner]

If you thought the Rosa Parks analogy was bad, you just trumped that with OJ.

I concede that my analogy was way worse than yours.

[Shady]

I concede that my analogy was way worse than yours.

The Rosa Parks analogy is apt. She didn't run off like a coward. She stayed and stood up to injustice, and used it as a bigger platform.

[dre]

The Rosa Parks analogy is apt. She didn't run off like a coward. She stayed and stood up to injustice, and used it as a bigger platform.

I dont think those are comparable situations. Rosa Parks commited a misdemeanor, and she was never going to get into real serious trouble. Snowden faced a life time of incarceration and enhanced interrogation. I wouldnt call him a coward for trying to avoid that.

[dre]

I concede that my analogy was way worse than yours.

If you are looking for some good analogies...

Peter Buxtun

Daniel Ellsberg

Ryszard Jerzy Kukliński

W. Mark Felt

Mordechai Vanunu

[Guest American Woman]

Rosa Parks did an illegal action by sitting in a spot designated for whites. Not sure what legal actions she could have taken that would have made that kind of an impact to change a country's laws for the better.

The reality is, she was trying to change the country's laws for the better before the incident on the bus. She failed. Again. She tried the legal route first. Again. Had Snowden given the legal route a chance first, he would be in a different position. But he didn't. He simply took the law into his own hands. He chose to break the law rather than try to work within the law.

Rosa Parks took the law into her own hands and changed things for the better. Strange to turn this positive action and the positive results into something that feels wrong.

Strange that some can't seem to wrap their heads around the reality that Snowden didn't try to work within the law, and if he had, he would have more of a case. I've repeated this several times now and I've provided a link explaining just that.

Again. Snowden did not try to act within the law. He simply chose to ignore the law altogether.

Edited July 12, 2013 by American Woman

[Michael Hardner]

The Rosa Parks analogy is apt. She didn't run off like a coward. She stayed and stood up to injustice, and used it as a bigger platform.

Wouldn't that mean that the analogy is not apt ?

[Guest American Woman]

Wouldn't that mean that the analogy is not apt ?

It's not apt. She had been lobbying for equal rights for some time. Snowden simply decided to bypass the law altogether. Furthermore, her actions didn't harm anyone but her; she wasn't making a judgement call that could potentially have a damaging affect on anyone else. Edited July 12, 2013 by American Woman

[dre]

Again. Snowden did not try to act within the law. He simply chose to ignore the law altogether.

Good for him! If he didnt do that, then people wouldnt know this was going on.

Had Snowden given the legal route a chance first, he would be in a different position.

No he wouldnt. He would be the exact same position. If he wanted Americans to know their government was spying on them, then his only options was to disclose it to the press.

He did EXACTLY the right thing.

Edited July 12, 2013 by dre

[Guest American Woman]

Good for him! If he didnt do that, then people wouldnt know this was going on.

Good God. One. more. time. He could have tried the legal route first.

[dre]

Good God. One. more. time. He could have tried the legal route first.

Ah yes! He could have reported the spying... to... the people DOING the spying.

Brilliant plan AW.

BTW.... Peter Buxton could have "tried the legal route first" to hmmm?

[guyser]

Unless you're Rob Ford.

No No shady.

He was found guilty. Conflict of Interest.

Ah, gotta love how you dont let facts get in the way of argument.

[cybercoma]

I dont think those are comparable situations. Rosa Parks commited a misdemeanor, and she was never going to get into real serious trouble. Snowden faced a life time of incarceration and enhanced interrogation. I wouldnt call him a coward for trying to avoid that.

"Enhanced interrogation"? You use the euphemisms of the state now? It's torture. Period. They don't want to call it that because then they would be human rights violators. But a rose by any other name is still a rose and the United States engages in the very things it proclaims to be a champion against.

[cybercoma]

A quote from Snowden: "I believe in the principle declared at Nuremberg in 1945: "Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience. Therefore individual citizens have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring."

And let's get another thing straight. The United States is acting in contravention of international treaties and law by interfering with Snowden's bids for asylum.

Edited July 12, 2013 by cybercoma

[Hudson Jones]

It's important that Snowden's statement is posted in this thread:

Snowden's statement - released by WikiLeaks:

Hello. My name is Ed Snowden. A little over one month ago, I had family, a home in paradise, and I lived in great comfort. I also had the capability without any warrant to search for, seize, and read your communications. Anyone’s communications at any time. That is the power to change people’s fates.

It is also a serious violation of the law. The 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution of my country, Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and numerous statutes and treaties forbid such systems of massive, pervasive surveillance. While the US Constitution marks these programs as illegal, my government argues that secret court rulings, which the world is not permitted to see, somehow legitimize an illegal affair. These rulings simply corrupt the most basic notion of justice – that it must be seen to be done. The immoral cannot be made moral through the use of secret law.

I believe in the principle declared at Nuremberg in 1945: "Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience. Therefore individual citizens have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring."

Accordingly, I did what I believed right and began a campaign to correct this wrongdoing. I did not seek to enrich myself. I did not seek to sell US secrets. I did not partner with any foreign government to guarantee my safety. Instead, I took what I knew to the public, so what affects all of us can be discussed by all of us in the light of day, and I asked the world for justice.

That moral decision to tell the public about spying that affects all of us has been costly, but it was the right thing to do and I have no regrets.

Since that time, the government and intelligence services of the United States of America have attempted to make an example of me, a warning to all others who might speak out as I have. I have been made stateless and hounded for my act of political expression. The United States Government has placed me on no-fly lists. It demanded Hong Kong return me outside of the framework of its laws, in direct violation of the principle of non-refoulement – the Law of Nations. It has threatened with sanctions countries who would stand up for my human rights and the UN asylum system. It has even taken the unprecedented step of ordering military allies to ground a Latin American president’s plane in search for a political refugee. These dangerous escalations represent a threat not just to the dignity of Latin America, but to the basic rights shared by every person, every nation, to live free from persecution, and to seek and enjoy asylum.

Yet even in the face of this historically disproportionate aggression, countries around the world have offered support and asylum. These nations, including Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador have my gratitude and respect for being the first to stand against human rights violations carried out by the powerful rather than the powerless. By refusing to compromise their principles in the face of intimidation, they have earned the respect of the world. It is my intention to travel to each of these countries to extend my personal thanks to their people and leaders.

I announce today my formal acceptance of all offers of support or asylum I have been extended and all others that may be offered in the future. With, for example, the grant of asylum provided by Venezuela’s President Maduro, my asylee status is now formal, and no state has a basis by which to limit or interfere with my right to enjoy that asylum. As we have seen, however, some governments in Western European and North American states have demonstrated a willingness to act outside the law, and this behavior persists today. This unlawful threat makes it impossible for me to travel to Latin America and enjoy the asylum granted there in accordance with our shared rights.

This willingness by powerful states to act extra-legally represents a threat to all of us, and must not be allowed to succeed. Accordingly, I ask for your assistance in requesting guarantees of safe passage from the relevant nations in securing my travel to Latin America, as well as requesting asylum in Russia until such time as these states accede to law and my legal travel is permitted. I will be submitting my request to Russia today, and hope it will be accepted favorably.

If you have any questions, I will answer what I can.

Thank you.

Wikileaks

How come some of the so-called protectors of the constitution prefer to focus on Snowden being a 'traitor', when he is exposing the government for violating the constitution?

[cybercoma]

How come some of the so-called protectors of the constitution prefer to focus on Snowden being a 'traitor', when he is exposing the government for violating the constitution?

Because it seems some people fail to realize that the US constitution is bigger than the US government and any secondary legislation that they pass. They fail to realize that the Constitution is the primary law, upon which all other law is bound. Any talk of him breaking the law, that is secondary laws, to reveal a violation of the Constitution is moot. Of course the government is going to gun for him. They don't want to be held accountable. They create the law, so they feel they're above the law, obviously ignoring the very reason a constitution exists.