First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
Post Reply Sign petition for Edward Snowden's pardon
27273 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 9/19/16 , edited 9/19/16

Xxanthar wrote:

I stopped believing most journalists sometime back in the 80's I think. He stole classified documents, who knows what he did with them all. He could have uploaded them to all his nerdy friends. I'm not going to take his word for it, nor his lawyer's. Let him argue his case in court.


You can believe what you believe. I'll believe in evidence, and so far there is none to your accusations


PandAndy wrote:


Xxanthar wrote:

Russia and China don't require your cooperation to get what they want.


China has all the 1337 hackers, they wouldn't need cooperation to get information; I'm not so sure about Russia. Regardless, I'd agree that he should deal with the repercussions. He knew full well what he was doing. That the dissemination of classified information was in the name of the greater good does not excuse the fact that it was still stolen and opened to the public.


What exactly is open to the public? Details, please.
14763 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/19/16 , edited 9/19/16
Seriously, why?: Because he has a movie coming out, and that's going to "bring the issue to prominence"?

Face it, we stopped caring about Oliver Stone movies twenty years ago.
(Or wait, when was "Heaven & Earth"?...(checks IMDB)...Okay, twenty-three.)
27273 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 9/19/16 , edited 9/19/16

paul25454 wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:


Xxanthar wrote:

Russia and China don't require your cooperation to get what they want.


He doesn't have the documents.

I encourage you to read the FAQ


What happened to the documents Snowden provided? Who did he give them and who has them now?

The documents were given to journalists Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, and Barton Gellman. Those three journalists have in turn shared them (on a limited basis) with other journalists and news organizations. Notably, Snowden made sure not to keep any copies of the materials himself, because he wanted to ensure that they never fell into the wrong hands. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/snowdens-lawyer-slams-times-story-claiming-leaks-betrayed-british-spies/article24986059/


It doesn't matter if he has the documents or not. The fact that he is there is a problem. He knows so much about our computer security network that the Russians are going to get that information out of him.


That makes zero sense.

Any personnel that is traveling anywhere in the world is susceptible to interrogation. Do you think the Kremlin only has offices in Russia?


Ejanss wrote:

Seriously, why?: Because he has a movie coming out, and that's going to "bring the issue to prominence"?

Face it, we stopped caring about Oliver Stone movies twenty years ago.
(Or wait, when was "Heaven & Earth"?...(checks IMDB)...Okay, twenty-three.)


I'm not watching that movie. If you're talking about the timing, it's in the FAQ.
709 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Kansas, USA
Offline
Posted 9/19/16

nanikore2 wrote:


Xxanthar wrote:

I stopped believing most journalists sometime back in the 80's I think. He stole classified documents, who knows what he did with them all. He could have uploaded them to all his nerdy friends. I'm not going to take his word for it, nor his lawyer's. Let him argue his case in court.


You can believe what you believe. I'll believe in evidence, and so far there is none to your accusations


PandAndy wrote:


Xxanthar wrote:

Russia and China don't require your cooperation to get what they want.


China has all the 1337 hackers, they wouldn't need cooperation to get information; I'm not so sure about Russia. Regardless, I'd agree that he should deal with the repercussions. He knew full well what he was doing. That the dissemination of classified information was in the name of the greater good does not excuse the fact that it was still stolen and opened to the public.


What exactly is open to the public? Details, please.


Given directly to agents of a civilian sector (journalists) and subsequently disseminated through mass media... That's pretty open.
6953 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Online
Posted 9/19/16

nanikore2 wrote:


paul25454 wrote:

Why should I sign it? Did he shown what the U.S were doing? Yes. Was it wrong what the U.S was doing? Hell yes. He is in Russia for a reason and no I do not believe he is there for asylum.


Where else could he go to that has a chance of not being extradited?

I also posted the entire FAQ for a reason. I thought people would read it first if they have questions.

He doesn't have the documents by the time he left Hong Kong, and what he had for the 3 journalists were selected.


Some people say that what Snowden did was reckless and endangered innocent people. Is that true?

No. Snowden was extremely careful.

He didn't publish a single document himself. Instead, he entrusted all publication decision to the journalists with whom he worked, with instructions that they consult with government officials before publication to minimize risk of harm. In fact, after Snowden transmitted the material to journalists Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, and Barton Gellman, he destroyed his own copy so it couldn't fall into the wrong hands.

As Glenn Greenwald's describes in No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State:

Snowden left it up to Laura and me to decide which stories should be reported, in what sequence, and how they would be presented. But on the first day, Snowden—as he did on many occasions both before and since—stressed how urgent it was that we vet all the material carefully. “I selected these documents based on what’s in the public interest,” he told us, “but I’m relying on you to use your journalistic judgment to only publish those documents that the public should see and that can be revealed without harm to any innocent people.” If for no other reason, Snowden knew that our ability to generate a real public debate depended on not allowing the US government any valid claims that we had endangered lives through publishing the documents.

He also stressed that it was vital to publish the documents journalistically — meaning working with the media and writing articles that provided the context for the materials, rather than just publishing them in bulk. That approach, he believed, would provide more legal protection, and, more important, would allow the public to process the revelations in a more orderly and rational way. “If I wanted the documents just put on the Internet en masse, I could have done that myself,” he said. “I want you to make sure these stories are done, one by one, so that people can understand what they should know.” We all agreed that this framework would govern how we reported.


Brazil, Ecuador for example. There is also Japan but Japan is more likely to turn him in. I agreed of what he did and he knew he couldn't get the information out. He made the right decision. My problem is he went to Russia. A country known to treat it citizens like crap. A non ally of the U.S.
97972 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
68 / M / Columbia, MO
Offline
Posted 9/19/16
I would seldom ask any POTUS to do anything but this cause is a worthy one. Signed.

There are good articles re Snowden over in Real Clear Politics, the Guardian, Drudge Report (yeah, you have to know where to look on this site).
27273 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 9/19/16 , edited 9/19/16

PandAndy wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:


Xxanthar wrote:

I stopped believing most journalists sometime back in the 80's I think. He stole classified documents, who knows what he did with them all. He could have uploaded them to all his nerdy friends. I'm not going to take his word for it, nor his lawyer's. Let him argue his case in court.


You can believe what you believe. I'll believe in evidence, and so far there is none to your accusations


PandAndy wrote:


Xxanthar wrote:

Russia and China don't require your cooperation to get what they want.


China has all the 1337 hackers, they wouldn't need cooperation to get information; I'm not so sure about Russia. Regardless, I'd agree that he should deal with the repercussions. He knew full well what he was doing. That the dissemination of classified information was in the name of the greater good does not excuse the fact that it was still stolen and opened to the public.


What exactly is open to the public? Details, please.


Given directly to agents of a civilian sector (journalists) and subsequently disseminated through mass media... That's pretty open.


I'm not asking about the openness of the details, but the details themselves.


paul25454 wrote:

Brazil, Ecuador for example. There is also Japan but Japan is more likely to turn him in. I agreed of what he did and he knew he couldn't get the information out. He made the right decision. My problem is he went to Russia. A country known to treat it citizens like crap. A non ally of the U.S.


What about Brazil and Ecuador that shields them from American political pressure?
6953 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Online
Posted 9/19/16

nanikore2 wrote:


PandAndy wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:


Xxanthar wrote:

I stopped believing most journalists sometime back in the 80's I think. He stole classified documents, who knows what he did with them all. He could have uploaded them to all his nerdy friends. I'm not going to take his word for it, nor his lawyer's. Let him argue his case in court.


You can believe what you believe. I'll believe in evidence, and so far there is none to your accusations


PandAndy wrote:


Xxanthar wrote:

Russia and China don't require your cooperation to get what they want.


China has all the 1337 hackers, they wouldn't need cooperation to get information; I'm not so sure about Russia. Regardless, I'd agree that he should deal with the repercussions. He knew full well what he was doing. That the dissemination of classified information was in the name of the greater good does not excuse the fact that it was still stolen and opened to the public.


What exactly is open to the public? Details, please.


Given directly to agents of a civilian sector (journalists) and subsequently disseminated through mass media... That's pretty open.


I'm not asking about the openness of the details, but the details themselves.


paul25454 wrote:

Brazil, Ecuador for example. There is also Japan but Japan is more likely to turn him in. I agreed of what he did and he knew he couldn't get the information out. He made the right decision. My problem is he went to Russia. A country known to treat it citizens like crap. A non ally of the U.S.


What about Brazil and Ecuador that shields them from American political pressure?


Honestly I don't have a good answer. The only one I can think of is both countries don't give a shit what our government say.
27273 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 9/19/16 , edited 9/19/16

paul25454 wrote:

Honestly I don't have a good answer. The only one I can think of is both countries don't give a shit what our government say.


They ultimately have to, epecially since Ecuador's primary export partner is the US, at a whopping 45% of their total.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/06/27/ecuador-us-trade-relations-snowden/2462687/

Edit: Brazil would be $27B
24267 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Online
Posted 9/19/16 , edited 9/19/16
Not sure where I stand. On the one hand I love seeing the U.S. government being salty as fuck because they are so use to controlling every aspect of everything, but on the other hand he did break the law.
27273 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 9/19/16

MysticGon wrote:

Not sure where I stand. On the one hand I love seeing the U.S. government being salty as fuck because they are so use to controlling every aspect of everything, but on the other hand he did break the law.


If he's subject to trial then I wouldn't lift a finger. Problem is that he isn't.


Why do you believe Snowden couldn't get a fair trial?

He faces felony charges under the Espionage Act, a World War I-era law that prohibits him from making his case in court. If he went to trial today, he would not be allowed to explain to a jury why he felt compelled to share the NSA documents with the public, nor would he be allowed to cite the historic legal and technological reforms that have occurred as a result. The government would not have to establish that the disclosures caused any harm; they would need to show only that Snowden gave the documents to people who weren't authorized to see them – that is, the journalists. The law does not distinguish between selling secrets to a foreign enemy for profit and giving information to journalists in the public interest. His conviction and severe punishment would be a foregone conclusion.
6953 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Online
Posted 9/19/16

nanikore2 wrote:


paul25454 wrote:

Honestly I don't have a good answer. The only one I can think of is both countries don't give a shit what our government say.


They ultimately have to, epecially since Ecuador's primary export partner is the US, at a whopping 45% of their total.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/06/27/ecuador-us-trade-relations-snowden/2462687/

As for Brazil, it's about $191 Billion


Well Snowden is f..k either way. Seems like Russia and China-mainly Hong Kong-are his only options right now. In all honestly this petition is not going to help. No self respecting President is going to pardon him. That is mainly politics.
709 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Kansas, USA
Offline
Posted 9/19/16 , edited 9/19/16

nanikore2 wrote:


PandAndy wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:


Xxanthar wrote:

I stopped believing most journalists sometime back in the 80's I think. He stole classified documents, who knows what he did with them all. He could have uploaded them to all his nerdy friends. I'm not going to take his word for it, nor his lawyer's. Let him argue his case in court.


You can believe what you believe. I'll believe in evidence, and so far there is none to your accusations


PandAndy wrote:


Xxanthar wrote:

Russia and China don't require your cooperation to get what they want.


China has all the 1337 hackers, they wouldn't need cooperation to get information; I'm not so sure about Russia. Regardless, I'd agree that he should deal with the repercussions. He knew full well what he was doing. That the dissemination of classified information was in the name of the greater good does not excuse the fact that it was still stolen and opened to the public.


What exactly is open to the public? Details, please.


Given directly to agents of a civilian sector (journalists) and subsequently disseminated through mass media... That's pretty open.


I'm not asking about the openness of the details, but the details themselves.


http://www.cjfe.org/snowden
If you want to read through the hundreds of published documents out of hundreds of thousands of documents stolen, be my guest, but the details are a moot concern. That the documents were leaked at all is the point.

27273 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 9/19/16

PandAndy wrote:

http://www.cjfe.org/snowden
If you want to read through the hundreds of published documents out of hundreds of thousands of documents stolen, be my guest, but the details are a moot concern. That the documents were leaked at all is the point.



Incorrect- It's all about the details.

Why was he selective, think about it. You don't even have to read the FAQ to know that if he wanted to leak in an indiscriminate way he could have done it all by himself and with minimal effort.
19555 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / NYC Metro Area
Offline
Posted 9/19/16
Well considering the government was breaking the law and nobody was listening to his complaints maybe we should rather be thinking about who should be taking his place in prison. General search warrants are unconstitutional. Want to search someone get a specific warrant or don't do it, it's part of the reason we declared independence.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.