Yeah, that’s the same thing.
That’s because it’s the state that’s found in violation of the law, not the prosecutor. And you can’t arrest a state.
In that case, it’s Congress that broke the law, not the NSA, and Snowden is barking up the wrong tree.
Then you agree that Snowden is a felon?
Yes, I’m a terrible person. How shall I ever go on…?
No, it doesn’t. He only became a felon when he released the info to the public.
How can you people not comprehend the idea that there is more than one felon in the world?
How did that judge find out about the NSA’s abuses? Certainly not from a secret organization with a secret rubber stamp court applying secret laws. Even US senators and congressmen don’t have clearance to know the information Snowden exposed. How do you suggest he should have “gone through legal channels first” and how do you know he didn’t try?
Well, this guy says that Snowden didn’t try to go through legal channels;
[QUOTE=Edward Snowden]
My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked. That is why I accepted that position about three months ago.
[/QUOTE]
He took the job specifically so he could steal documents and give them to the press - in fact, he’d been in contact with the Guardian to that end several months before his employment even started. This is not a man of principle who went to the press only after discovering he couldn’t do anything through lawful channels - these are the acts of an opportunist out to make a name for himself.
So, if you were subjected to the same treatment, you would not describe it as "cruel’? Interesting …
I wouldn’t engage in behavior liable to land me in circumstances where I’d be subject to that kind of discipline.
He worked for the CIA before his job with BAH, which is where he learned of the wholesale spying on US citizens. It’s not like he was some random civilian who just decided one day to covertly expose NSA abuses. He worked for a US intelligence agency, and once he understood the monumental scale of government wrongdoing, decided to do something about it.
According to Snowden, he did try to report a computer bug up his chain of command in the CIA and was reprimanded for it. So if you can’t fix software glitches, I find it hard to believe he could fix institutional wrongdoing through legal channels.
Clarification in brackets is mine. So basically he knew from experience and the experience of other would-be whistle blowers, that there was no way anything would get fixed through “legal channels”. But we now know, thanks to Snowden, what the government is doing to us in our name, and there’s been a six month long public debate about it. Now, courts are starting to consider ruling against it. None of that would have happened without Snowden.
I’ve said it in all the other threads. He should have approached his Congressman or Senator. If he tired that and failed, I might have more sympathy for him. But he took the easy route; the coward’s route.
There’s no way he could possibly know that “there was no way anything would get fixed through “legal channels””, because, as we’ve established, he never tried - he simply went straight to stealing classified documents and giving them to the press.
Whether “courts are starting to consider ruling against it” is irrelevant to the fact that he did it the wrong way.
Do you give carte blanche as to any punishment so long as it’s a crime you have no intention of committing?
He wasn’t being punished. He was being protected from himself and from his fellow inmates, who probably wouldn’t react to kindly to having a traitorous transgender sharing their space.
And if you ask me, Manning got off easy - he deserves an appointment with a firing squad.
How does stripping her naked, preventing her from sleeping, and forcing her to stand in stress positions for hours on end protect her from anything?
Can you provide the definition of coward you’re using, and explain how it applies to Snowden?
He was suicidal. He needed to be protected from himself. As he pointed out through his lawyer, he could have hanged himself with his underwear if he so desired.
The kind of coward who runs away from his responsibilities and hides in a country that commits far worse human rights violations than he accuses this country of, because living rent-free as a guest of the Russian government is easier than trying to argue that you did the right thing.
How does forcing someone to stand in stress positions and preventing them from sleeping help prevent them from killing themselves?
Why does Russia’s history of human rights abuses matter in a discussion of American civil rights abuses? Do you really think living rent free in Moscow is better than living on a six-figure salary in Hawaii? If not, why do you think Snowden threw his life away to do it? Also, you didn’t actually provide a definition of the word “coward.” Well, that, or you’ve got an amazingly specific definition of the word.
By keeping his mind stimulated while he’s otherwise in solitary confinement for his own protection.
Because you lose all credibility complaining about America’s government when you take refuge in Russia.
Fame.
A coward is someone who runs from their obligations. Snowden had a duty to his country, and rather than fulfill it, he ran.
You have got to be fucking kidding me.
That doesn’t answer the question. Why does it matter that he’s in Russia when he makes allegations of US law breaking? Why does his moral standing matter at all when he’s making allegations of fact? How is this anything, but the purest, most adulterated ad hominem?
:rolleyes:
I can understand thinking that he acted foolishly. But I’m genuinely baffled by this psychological need to see him in the worst possible light. The guy made immense personal sacrifices to do what he thought was the right thing. I can very much see an argument that he was wrong about what the right thing was. But the idea that it didn’t take a huge amount of personal courage to do it? That simply flies in the face of the facts of what he did.
You’d prefer that Manning had killed himself in prison, then?
Because the claim that he’s deeply morally concerned about government spying falls flat on its face when he’s accepting charity from a country that does much worse things openly than anything he accuses the US of doing in secret. It’s clear that his motivations aren’t what he claims they are.
A man with a huge amount of personal courage would be willing to spend the rest of his life in prison for that belief. Snowden lacks that kind of courage.