Only if his motivation is being deeply concerned about government spying in general. I, for example, don’t really care about Russian government spying on Russian citizens. I do care about US government spying on US citizens. Maybe Snowden feels the same.
Well, it’s good to know that your concern for human rights and privacy stops at our borders.
Snowden may or may not feel the same way. We won’t know until after the Russian government decides that paying his room and board isn’t worth the propaganda value of sticking it to the US anymore.
This is absolutely ridiculous. Snowden is not in a position to do anything about human rights abuses in Russia. He can do something about civil rights abuses in the US. The fact that Russia, of all places, was the only place willing to offer him haven isn’t an indictment of Snowden, it’s an indictment of western democracies.
You think Snowden isn’t aware that his meal ticket has a very short duration in Russia? The man’s utterly destroyed his life over this, and he knows it - has known it, since before he got on to that plane to Hong Kong.
The fact that he sought a “haven” is an indictment of Snowden.
The man’s made himself an international superstar and cause celebre for anti-government types worldwide. Which again, judging from his behavior, was his goal all along.
He gets to spend the rest of his life in Moscow. If he’s lucky.
God forbid you should ever have to make that kind of sacrifice.
Where he gets to lounge around rent-free, without having to work, his family can come visit him any time, and he can sit back and send out self-righteous press releases about how he was right all along.
which is why you’re a guy on the Internet and Snowden is changing ther rules of intelligence gathering and, through that, prettymuch the world we live in.
You forgot the hot Russian babes Putin sends over every Friday.
Our options, ladies and gentlemen, are:
- Torture prisoners through sleep deprivation and stress positions while they’re in solitary confinement; or
- Hoping they commit suicide in prison.
If I ever need to explain to someone what an excluded middle is, this will be the example I choose.
The idea that this was a cowardly act is absurd; the idea that somehow his seeking asylum negates what he did is unfounded; the idea that only going through the legal channels to solve the problem is not in keeping with our nation’s history, a history rife with people that have broken unjust laws even before our nation existed.
Reality Says: BZZZZZTTTT!!
First, let’s ask how many casualties you’re willing to accept as a result of the government sweeping up so much noise that it ignores clear signals. We’ll start with the Boston Marathon casualty list and add to it as people chime in with other examples…
Lying under oath isn’t breaking the law? Good to know before I have to start working on my 2013 tax return…
Which of the words “I”, “cannot”, “answer”, “this”, “question”, “for”, “reasons”, “of”, “national”, or “security” is on the FCC’s Naughty List?
In other words, he has a rational and realistic attitude
[QUOTE=John Quincy Adams]
[America] is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
[/QUOTE]
All of them, since any answer other than “No” is an admission that the answer is not “no”, and thus an illegal exposure of classified information.
Sleep deprivation and stress positions aren’t torture. It’s called “being in the Army”.
The Espionage Act is an “unjust law” now?
Nonsense. That’s why it’s SOP to give “no comment” answers for such questions even if the actual answer would be innocuous. Language like “I can neither affirm nor deny” is commonly used in these situations.
“I can neither affirm nor deny” is, of course, commonly understood as a euphemism for “Yes, but you didn’t hear it from me”.
What does this have to do with anything? It doesn’t even pretend to rebut the demonstration that your “perjury trap” argument is nonsense.
It’s quite simple. The director was asked a question where his only options were to say “No”, or to say something other than “no” which would thereby indicate that “no” was not the correct answer. He was therefore being forced to either lie, or expose classified information to the public.
Once again “I can neither confirm nor deny” means that the speaker cannot confirm nor deny, and exposes no information whatsoever. Your claim that something else is “indicated” is as baseless as a cad’s claim that “no” actually meant “yes” because the lady was wearing a low-cut blouse and short skirt.