Global Implications of the Ukraine Crisis

[Walsingham]

Well, there is the argument when you rat out people doing illegal things it's a good thing. 

 

Also,  you don't think the Parliament was pressured at all into voting him out with the violence in Kiev ? While hard to show a direct cause, it's not like that decision was totally independent of that. 

 

Punishing criminals is a good thing. Revealing criminality is a good thing.

 

What Snowden did was criminal.

 

You work it out, sparky.

[obyknven]

Ukraine leader says anti-terror operation under way in Donetsk region - CNN article.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/15/world/europe/ukraine-crisis/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

god comments.

Tell me one thing - if guys in Kiev so sure that those protesters in south-east are so few then why not let them have their referendum? Who needs this civil war? From what I see now the one to benefit is Kiev new government. Don't forget that ex-president was chosen by majority from south-east.

...

Candidate to president Oleg Tsaryov is beated every day by fascists(in Nikolaev, Odessa, Kiev). It's very democratically.

Why Ukrainians don't want to live with fascists government?

Why fascists government of ukraine is supported by USA?

Why fascists deputies in Ukraine parliament beated other deputies?

Open your eyes! Here is a lot of interesting!

...

I have opened my eyes.
The provisional Ukraine Government that is now in power was not ratified in accordance with the Ukrainian Constitution, which requires a 75% vote to impeach the sitting president.
No such vote was ever held.
Olexander Turchinov has combined the job of Speaker of Parliament and President of Ukraine = another breach of Constitution.
So when the US spouts off about international condemnation and the Constitution, it is nothing but hot-air hypocrisy.

...

Very surprising fact !

1) In the West, Ukraine radicals robbed two military units and the police department . Seized weapons , including the installation of "Needle" . Robbed a bank in Kiev. On the area killed 14 police officers , three traffic officers , snipers shot at their " right sector " of the building of the hotel "Ukraine" --- it's all peaceful demonstrators !

2) In eastern Ukraine Russian-speaking Ukrainians gathered , retired miners , former military officers , the police took the side of the people ! ----- Are terrorists !

On what principle is the separation of people? ? ? Americans .... do you hear?

...

I'm feeling a strong need to fly to Ukraine, pick up a rifle and
stand ground with the rest of the people against the current Ukrainian
government, to protect my fellow eastern Ukrainians, to protect the
Russian speaking citizens (Russians as well).

I'm Ukrainian and not a freaking Neo-Nazi.

...

Americans!! What an amazing coincidence)))

1) The head of the CIA came to Kiev under a false name

2) After his visit and communicate with the current "power" in Kiev ----- Turchinov sent to residents of the East Ukrainian tanks and helicopter gunships!!

etc

Even CNN readers don't eat such governmental propaganda about "anti-terror operation".

[Malcador]

Yes, but you think he should have trusted the system and report it to his superiors and/or Congress and assume he'll be left alone to do that.   Surprising he didn't do that, guy really struck me as naive in some instances (his SF involvement, for example). 

[213374U]

 

*Reminder that there have been no shots fired in the Russian "invasion" of Ukraine.

 

Except that there has been shots fired in the Russian invasion of Ukraine and I would also point out that Germany's invasion in Czech was also quite bloodless, but it was still invasion, as are every occurrence where foreign army goes in country uninvited by its government regardless of do you think that government is legitimate or not, or do you think that country is evil or not, or etc.. 

 

And using wrong doings of others as basis of your own wrong doings is just plainly idiotic reasoning, if you want to be the "good guy"

 

 

I tried to find evidence of violent clashes between Russian and Ukrainian servicemen, and all I could find was this. So maybe you were right, but note that BBC warns that "none of the accounts could be independently confirmed". Do you have more occurrences?

 

And yes, let's go back to 1938 Czechoslovakia for the nth time. WWII is one of my favorite historical topics, not only the war itself but especially the lead-up, including the rise of the nazis and the roles that Britain and France played since the end of WWI. Hitler carved Czechoslovakia up with the acquiescence of Britain and France, but I'm not sure how this historical event or the comparison you are making are relevant or even what exactly you are suggesting, based on retrospect. That France should have immediately declared war on Germany? Remember that, back then, Czechoslovakia was a young country (much younger than Ukraine is today, if you consider it the successor of the Ukrainian SSR), existing only as the result of the border redrawing that followed the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire after their WWI defeat. The parts of the old Kingdom of Bohemia that were closer to Germany ("Sudetenland", later) were contested territory because the Czechoslovaks had marched troops to secure them after WWI, but they were populated by ethnic Germans. There was little historical or practical reason for the Allies to resist Hitler's demands on this issue, as there is little historical or practical reason for NATO to respond to the events in Crimea with force today.

 

This is from the purely utilitarian perspective of "let's try and avoid another industrial war in mainland Europe because the last one was a ****ing nightmare to clean up", which is, unfortunately, at odds with the sadly extended view that every historical leading figure that tried to avoid war with the best of intentions and to the best of their ability was a weak-minded Hitler appeaser, and hardliners calling for war were prescient heroes. Remember that those people had, unlike modern armchair historians, lived through WWI, and the hell of Ypres and Verdun was still very much alive in everyone's minds.

 

"But... but, Hitler!" Yeah. What about it?

 

Finally, I'm not using wrongdoings for anything, and that you suggest this shows that you missed the point. You either respect the rule of law, or you don't. Both the referendum in Crimea and the dismissal of Yanukovych were unconstitutional, according to the current version of the Ukrainian Constitution. But you cannot claim that the actions of those you like are lawful and the rest aren't—this is a long-running inconsistency throughout the different iterations of this thread, and it's this inconsistency based on the manichaean "us=good/others=bad" rule of thumb is what I used as a basis to bring up the Iraq war and the Libyan no-fly zone. Indeed, it could be said that BruceVC et al are only consistent at maintaining this inconsistency.

 

But let me be perfectly clear: there are no good guys here because this is power politics. Except in the case of the EU. That is more like fumbling about in the dark while you try to follow a hundred different and conflicting directions.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, yes it does. The President is the elective representative of the people. If he bails on the people and betrays the very country he was entrusted with, he ceases to be one and, by extension, loses constitutional legitimacy. Constitutional provisions aren't of equal power and in case of unforeseen incidents (such as presidential high treason), you refer to higher level provisions to break the deadlock.

 

 

Please, please, point out to us uneducated peons the general legal principle that allows for the dismissal of the HoS outside of the legal procedures outlined to that end in the Constitution or ancillary legislation. "Bailing on the people" is not a reason or motive that you will find anywhere in the Ukrainian Constitution, among other things, because it makes no sense. The ****ing Head of State doesn't "bail" on the people unless the "people" (read: fascist militias) are out for his blood, which is exactly what happened. This is the very definition of a coup. The President does not "lose constitutional legitimacy" at your leisure, he is removed from office after he has been impeached, declared medically incompetent, or dies only. So what are these "higher provisions" you speak of?

 

This is a really, really tired debate, especially because the point was already discussed to death in the other thread(s):

 

 

 

 

No offense 2133 but that's not how I remember the debate you and Tagaziel had. I remember you guys discussed various interesting points for several days and despite the fact Tagaziel proved conclusively that he was right around the fact that Yanukovych wasn't removed from power illegally you refused to acknowledge this

 

But you are right, this has been discussed to death. I would like us to focus on the current destabilization of eastern Ukraine by Russia. Is there any justification for it and what is the realistic outcome to the situation? Do you accept that Russia is playing a major part in the protests and occupation of Ukrainian government buildings?

 

 

None taken. I couldn't possibly take offense at your creative remembering of how things went down, to wit, both Tagaziel and kgambit bailing on the discussion after failing to bring up any piece of legislation, legal principle, doctrine or papal bull that fit within Ukraine's present legal framework with regards to the procedure used to dismiss Yanukovych. You'd know this if you had actually been following the thread back then or had even bothered to look up the rest of the exchange I posted.

 

Do I accept that Russia is playing a major part? Ah, but regardless of what I answer, you will be quick to change your definition of what a "major part" actually means so you can continue to feel vindicated in your anti-Russian stance. How about you dig up the facts instead of playing the loaded questions game?

 

 

 

 

 

2133 is right and Tagaziel is wrong. Its not a matter of creative interpretation but the letter of the law. There is no lawful way for armed men to overthrow the president or pressure the parliament into impeaching him. Its irregular, outside of the law and therefore illegitimate.

Yanukovych was neither overthrown nor was the Parliament pressured into impeaching him. Yanukovych committed high treason and while a case can be made that charges should be pressed before the impeachment procedure was pressed, Ukraine was facing a constitutional crisis. It was an emergency measure implemented to ensure that the nation can continue to function.

 

Wow. For someone with a law background, you sure are quick to discard due process and presumption of innocence. Impeachment processes are designed to provide stability and prevent political persecution—even more so in the case of the President, who is supposed to be the ultimate guarantor of constitutional order (i.e. the rule of law). Abrogating these principles opens the door to whatever abuses anyone with a sufficient majority wishes to impose, and that is usually considered a bad thing, regardless of the symbol of the majority.

 

I'm not arguing that it was wrong to kick Yanukovych out, I'm arguing that it was unlawful under the then- and current legal frameworks. The constitutional crisis was triggered very much because the President was ousted illegally, after the Feb 21 agreement was signed. You cannot both rebel against the corrupt, oppressive establishment and be perfectly lawful about it. So let's call a spade a spade?

[Hassat Hunter]

Punishing criminals is a good thing. Revealing criminality is a good thing.

 

What Snowden did was criminal.

Seriously?

 

Everyone agrees/knows what the NSA did what outside the law, even the very broad laws of the US in regards to terror (which should tell you something).

[Walsingham]

 

Punishing criminals is a good thing. Revealing criminality is a good thing.

 

What Snowden did was criminal.

Seriously?

 

Everyone agrees/knows what the NSA did what outside the law

 

Really? Is that a professional goddamn opinion?

 

Or are you retrospectively deciding that it ought to have been illegal?

 

What Snowden did was violate the actual law in order to hand information directly to the Russian and Chinese security services, those paragon defenders of the little guy. Rather than do what he would have been told to do on day one: tell Congress.

 

In the grown up world we don't just do whatever we happen to decide suits our personal need to feel awesome. We vote on laws then we obey the laws.

[Hassat Hunter]

Someone's getting touchy.

No, it's definitely illegal. Also by US law.

 

In the grownup world, the government likes to keep it's illegal activities covered up. You really think Congress would just out it in public?

If everything was so perfect as you say it is, we wouldn't even need things like wikileaks.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Lol @ go to congress with it

[213374U]

 

Well, there is the argument when you rat out people doing illegal things it's a good thing. 

 

Also,  you don't think the Parliament was pressured at all into voting him out with the violence in Kiev ? While hard to show a direct cause, it's not like that decision was totally independent of that. 

 

Punishing criminals is a good thing. Revealing criminality is a good thing.

 

What Snowden did was criminal.

 

You work it out, sparky.

 

 

AFAIK, there is very little room to argue that Snowden couldn't be tried for treason and espionage under US law. Whether he's a criminal or not would depend on the verdict. I have no idea how extenuating or aggravating circumstances (if any) would apply to the case, and maybe Enoch or Gromnir could share their expertise.

 

Now, what happens if exposing criminality is also a criminal offense? I remember reading that, in the intelligence community, analysts and operators often cannot discuss certain matters with their immediate superiors because of how the mindboggling clearances game is set up. This madness reaches the highest levels of the hierarchy, with four-star officers not being allowed to know about the tools their subordinates use. So if you can't discuss stuff with someone whose job is to supervise and coordinate your work... is there any hope of revealing wrongdoing by a state actor without breaking the law? When was the last time Congress uncovered and acted against secret illegal government initiatives? Honest question, btw.

 

They don't have Snowden so they can't try him. But they do have the NSA ringleaders, and nothing has been done about it. What is up with that?

Edited April 15, 2014 by 213374U

[JadedWolf]

 

 

Punishing criminals is a good thing. Revealing criminality is a good thing.

 

What Snowden did was criminal.

Seriously?

 

Everyone agrees/knows what the NSA did what outside the law

 

Really? Is that a professional goddamn opinion?

 

Or are you retrospectively deciding that it ought to have been illegal?

 

What Snowden did was violate the actual law in order to hand information directly to the Russian and Chinese security services, those paragon defenders of the little guy. Rather than do what he would have been told to do on day one: tell Congress.

 

In the grown up world we don't just do whatever we happen to decide suits our personal need to feel awesome. We vote on laws then we obey the laws.

 

 

Interesting take on things. I'm curious, how should he have gone about telling Congress, without being stopped and gagged in the name of national security in the process?

[Meshugger]

 

Well, there is the argument when you rat out people doing illegal things it's a good thing. 

 

Also,  you don't think the Parliament was pressured at all into voting him out with the violence in Kiev ? While hard to show a direct cause, it's not like that decision was totally independent of that. 

 

Punishing criminals is a good thing. Revealing criminality is a good thing.

 

What Snowden did was criminal.

 

You work it out, sparky.

 

 

The Washington Post and the Guardian just got the Pulitzer price for their work with Snowden and the leaks.

 

Heroic nerds: 1, old farts: 0.

[Valsuelm]

Hold hard there, buddy (Valsuelm). It's not 'Ze West' who have behaved in a polarised fashion. It's quite plain that 'Ze West' hadn't made any plans to act in teh event of a dramatic move West or East by the Ukraine.

 

Conversely Putin has laid claim to 'his' ethnic Russians. Whatever the **** that actually means. It's Russian troops motoring around the Crimea right now, not NATO.

 

You want 'not polarised' how about Ukrainians who - and I'm only guessing - don't want the future their country decided by a handful of armed yahoos?

 

I hope you're joking. Bad joke if you are. If you're not, add your name, along with Tagaziel's and JadedWolf's in bold next to BruceVC's in my post, as what I said went way over your head.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Well, there is the argument when you rat out people doing illegal things it's a good thing. 

 

Also,  you don't think the Parliament was pressured at all into voting him out with the violence in Kiev ? While hard to show a direct cause, it's not like that decision was totally independent of that. 

 

Punishing criminals is a good thing. Revealing criminality is a good thing.

 

What Snowden did was criminal.

 

You work it out, sparky.

 

 

AFAIK, there is very little room to argue that Snowden couldn't be tried for treason and espionage under US law. Whether he's a criminal or not would depend on the verdict. I have no idea how extenuating or aggravating circumstances (if any) would apply to the case, and maybe Enoch or Gromnir could share their expertise.

 

Now, what happens if exposing criminality is also a criminal offense? I remember reading that, in the intelligence community, analysts and operators often cannot discuss certain matters with their immediate superiors because of how the mindboggling clearances game is set up. This madness reaches the highest levels of the hierarchy, with four-star officers not being allowed to know about the tools their subordinates use. So if you can't discuss stuff with someone whose job is to supervise and coordinate your work... is there any hope of revealing wrongdoing by a state actor without breaking the law? When was the last time Congress uncovered and acted against secret illegal government initiatives? Honest question, btw.

 

They don't have Snowden so they can't try him. But they do have the NSA ringleaders, and nothing has been done about it. What is up with that?

 

 

Snowden should be tried for treason, I'm not sure why this is even a debatable point?

 

But I don't understand how you can possibly find some kind of similarity between the generals\ringleaders who implemented Prism for example and Snowden...it stupefies  me

 

The former did it to protect there country in a very strange period of time where the USA is at war with a nebulous and amorphous enemy, Islamic fundamentalism. This is not a conventional war and groups like Al-Qaeda have tactics and strategies that require using technology that can intercept what they are doing and then prevent them from doing it. Hence Prism, it was not designed to target Americans and if you dispute this please produce some links to show me how the evidence from Prism was used to prosecute American citizens. Prism is an important tool in the this modern age

 

Snowden took as much confidential information about the security mechanisms that protect the USA and basically gave it to the Chinese and Russians. What he did could  ,and probably has, have harmed the entire USA. His deed was reprehensible, cowardly and treacherous.

 

You can't possible think the generals\ringleaders need to charged with anything.....they were protecting there country

[Elerond]

Snowden should be tried but I am not sure that he should be convicted, but court should determine that did he act as whistleblower that exposed governmental misconduct or did he act out malice with purpose to hurt USA. Because without such trial(s) there is little to nothing chance that any governmental misconduct will be rectified.  

[IndiraLightfoot]

From Wikipedia:

Timeline

Main article: Timeline of global surveillance disclosures (2013–present)

The Mira hotel in Hong Kong, where Edward Snowden hosted his first meeting with Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, and journalist Ewen MacAskill of The Guardian^[87]

In April 2012, NSA contractor Edward Snowden began downloading documents.^[88] That year, Snowden had made his first contact with journalist Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian and he contacted documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras in January 2013.^[89][90]

2013

In May 2013, Snowden went on temporary leave from his position at the NSA, citing the pretext of receiving treatment for his epilepsy. He traveled to Hong Kong.^[91] Towards the end of May, Snowden flew to Hong Kong.^[92] Greenwald, Poitras and the Guardian's defence and intelligence correspondent Ewen MacAskill flew to Hong Kong to meet Snowden.

June

After the U.S.-based editor of The Guardian held several meetings in New York City, it was decided that Greenwald, Poitras and the Guardian's defence and intelligence correspondent Ewen MacAskill would fly to Hong Kong to meet Snowden. On June 5, in the first media report based on the leaked material,^[93]The Guardian exposed a top secret court order showing that the NSA had collected phone records from over 120 million Verizon subscribers.^[94] Under the order, the numbers of both parties on a call, as well as the location data, unique identifiers, time of call, and duration of call were handed over to the FBI, which turned over the records to the NSA.^[94]

 

^{Snowden perhaps may be a traitor and a whistle blower, but one thing escapes me:}

^{Why aren't those journalists in jail for treason as well? Just because they are journalists, working in newspapers, is that making them immune to any such charges? Anybody here knows something more about those issues? Freedom of speech is obviously a corner stone.}

Edited April 15, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[Valsuelm]

 

 

Well, there is the argument when you rat out people doing illegal things it's a good thing. 

 

Also,  you don't think the Parliament was pressured at all into voting him out with the violence in Kiev ? While hard to show a direct cause, it's not like that decision was totally independent of that. 

 

Punishing criminals is a good thing. Revealing criminality is a good thing.

 

What Snowden did was criminal.

 

You work it out, sparky.

 

 

AFAIK, there is very little room to argue that Snowden couldn't be tried for treason and espionage under US law. Whether he's a criminal or not would depend on the verdict. I have no idea how extenuating or aggravating circumstances (if any) would apply to the case, and maybe Enoch or Gromnir could share their expertise.

 

Now, what happens if exposing criminality is also a criminal offense? I remember reading that, in the intelligence community, analysts and operators often cannot discuss certain matters with their immediate superiors because of how the mindboggling clearances game is set up. This madness reaches the highest levels of the hierarchy, with four-star officers not being allowed to know about the tools their subordinates use. So if you can't discuss stuff with someone whose job is to supervise and coordinate your work... is there any hope of revealing wrongdoing by a state actor without breaking the law? When was the last time Congress uncovered and acted against secret illegal government initiatives? Honest question, btw.

 

They don't have Snowden so they can't try him. But they do have the NSA ringleaders, and nothing has been done about it. What is up with that?

 

 

It really would depend on what court of law he was in and how corrupt the judge was. In the U.S. there are probably more corrupt federal judges than not these days. It's a major problem most aren't aware of, as most think of the executive and legislative when they think corruption in U.S. politics, but the judicial branch, especially at the federal level is really really bad. It's one of the major reasons the Federal government has gotten away with so much that it has. Time and time again it finds a corrupt judge to rubberstamp something as legal that in absolute no way is, why? because so many laymen think the legal system here is infallible. It most certainly isn't. Not at the local level and certainly not at the federal level.

 

Snowden's case is a simple one on most levels. The complications come in when one considers that he actually fled to and where to.

 

For the purposes of the legal argument let's accept that what Snowden is to alleged to have done at face value. I personally have suspected that there's a little more than meets the eye with the Snowden case but we'll ignore that as there is no proof of this I know of in the public domain.

 

If we ignore his flight to another nation, Snowden is indeed a hero of sorts, or at least not a traitor. He exposed and offered proof of government agents violating the Constitutional rights of every American. In legal terms the Constitution trumps any and all laws about espionage or anything else. So Snowden was very much in the right for what he did, when one doesn't consider the fact that he fled to another nation. His lawyers could argue as some have done that Snowden fled to avoid Bradley Manning's fate, which would be a very good defense if he was tried outside of military jurisdiction. The modern federal government would no doubt want to try him in mostly secret though and claim 'classified' and 'national defense issues' on the majority of evidence submitted. I'm not sure they'd get away with it though if Snowden was here in the U.S. as the number of people here who think what Snowden did was not only not wrong but a morale imperative is not small, and if they saw Snowden get anything but a fair trial there would be political hell to pay if not more, which is something the more reasonable folks who want to burn Snowden at the stake would want to avoid, as they'd realize that Snowden's supporters would then want to burn them at the stake even more than they already want to.

 

Snowden not getting a fair trial or having some dubious meeting with death would serve to push a large number of U.S. citizens closer to the idea that their government is out of control, and push those already convinced it is out of control closer to the point they will take action.

 

There are of course many people thinking Snowden is a traitor, and because he fled the U.S. there is a possible argument for that, but so long as the judge in his case allowed his defense team to actually defend him there are a number of good defenses his legal team could offer a jury as to why he fled. Most of those saying Snowden is a traitor though are completely ignorant of our Constitutional Law here though, and I haven't seen many reasonable arguments out there as to why Snowden is a traitor. I certainly haven't seen one on this forum.

[Elerond]

From Wikipedia:

Timeline

Main article: Timeline of global surveillance disclosures (2013–present)

The Mira hotel in Hong Kong, where Edward Snowden hosted his first meeting with Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, and journalist Ewen MacAskill of The Guardian^[87]

In April 2012, NSA contractor Edward Snowden began downloading documents.^[88] That year, Snowden had made his first contact with journalist Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian and he contacted documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras in January 2013.^[89][90]

2013

In May 2013, Snowden went on temporary leave from his position at the NSA, citing the pretext of receiving treatment for his epilepsy. He traveled to Hong Kong.^[91] Towards the end of May, Snowden flew to Hong Kong.^[92] Greenwald, Poitras and the Guardian's defence and intelligence correspondent Ewen MacAskill flew to Hong Kong to meet Snowden.

June

After the U.S.-based editor of The Guardian held several meetings in New York City, it was decided that Greenwald, Poitras and the Guardian's defence and intelligence correspondent Ewen MacAskill would fly to Hong Kong to meet Snowden. On June 5, in the first media report based on the leaked material,^[93]The Guardian exposed a top secret court order showing that the NSA had collected phone records from over 120 million Verizon subscribers.^[94] Under the order, the numbers of both parties on a call, as well as the location data, unique identifiers, time of call, and duration of call were handed over to the FBI, which turned over the records to the NSA.^[94]

 

^{Snowden perhaps may be a traitor and a whistle blower, but one thing escapes me:}

^{Why is not those journalists in jail for treason as well? Just because they are journalists, working in newspapers, is that making them immune to any such charges? Anybody here knows something more about those issues? Freedom of speech is obviously a corner stone.}

 

They have not agreed to keep information in secret, they don't have position of responsibility that gives them access to governmental secrets, they have not break in government's data storage where they don't have right to access, nor they have paid anyone (at least as public knowledge goes about case) to do these things. Which is why they are free to write any information that Snowden has given them. In USA freedom of press principality that gives them this right comes from idea that press should work as tool to help people keep their government in line and this is because founders of USA had deep trust issues towards any government even though they admit that country don't work without one.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Elerond: Thanks for your reply! That makes a lot of sense, but for one thing: I mean, as journalists they must have been aware that the stuff they were spreading on was highly classified info. How about that issue?

[213374U]

You can't possible think the generals\ringleaders need to charged with anything.....they were protecting there country

 

LOL

 

I have very little doubt after this that you are an alt/caricature of someone else. Seriously, good job.

[BruceVC]

 

You can't possible think the generals\ringleaders need to charged with anything.....they were protecting there country

 

LOL

 

I have very little doubt after this that you are an alt/caricature of someone else. Seriously, good job.

 

 

Yet if you try to understand what I'm saying you'll realize I'm right...it just doesn't sound right but it is

 

The generals\ringleaders didn't implement Prism to enrich themselves, they aren't using it for industrial espionage. Prism was design to capture large amounts of data and then enable the NSA to analyse that data in order to look for certain patterns and similarities in order to prevent attacks against the USA and its allies. What part of this don't you agree with?

[213374U]

The modern federal government would no doubt want to try him in mostly secret though and claim 'classified' and 'national defense issues' on the majority of evidence submitted. I'm not sure they'd get away with it though if Snowden was here in the U.S. as the number of people here who think what Snowden did was not only not wrong but a morale imperative is not small, and if they saw Snowden get anything but a fair trial there would be political hell to pay if not more, which is something the more reasonable folks who want to burn Snowden at the stake would want to avoid, as they'd realize that Snowden's supporters would then want to burn them at the stake even more than they already want to.

 

Snowden not getting a fair trial or having some dubious meeting with death would serve to push a large number of U.S. citizens closer to the idea that their government is out of control, and push those already convinced it is out of control closer to the point they will take action.

 

Thanks. So are you saying that Snowden being tried, fairly or not, would actually be healthy for the US as a whole? That's an interesting (and hopeful!) idea, but I'm not sure I believe it. I haven't really followed the Manning case—did his conviction have much impact with the average Joe?

 

Also, I'm curious that you say that charges of treason against Snowden wouldn't really hold in a fair trial. Do you have any precedent you are basing this opinion on? I was under the impression that there is no whistleblower protection under US law. Is there something in the Constitution that could be used to leave him in the clear?

Edited April 15, 2014 by 213374U

[BruceVC]

Elerond: Thanks for your reply! That makes a lot of sense, but for one thing: I mean, as journalists they must have been aware that the stuff they were spreading on was highly classified info. How about that issue?

Once Snowden had leaked the story in Hong Kong the information went global. If the NSA had arrested American journalists it just would have made them look worse. Also they have no jurisdiction over the international newspapers who would have printed everything anyway

[IndiraLightfoot]

But in a weird way, Snowden is the instigator, and those journalists carried out the crime of spreading it. And as for making them look bad, I think the government/FBI/whatever flashed teeth almost immediately, so I'm more interested in how people could keep up a relation with Snowden for a few months and then get away with it. Freedom of speech, surely, but it seems they played a pretty active role.

Edited April 15, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[Malcador]

The former did it to protect there country in a very strange period of time where the USA is at war with a nebulous and amorphous enemy, Islamic fundamentalism. This is not a conventional war and groups like Al-Qaeda have tactics and strategies that require using technology that can intercept what they are doing and then prevent them from doing it. Hence Prism, it was not designed to target Americans and if you dispute this please produce some links to show me how the evidence from Prism was used to prosecute American citizens. Prism is an important tool in the this modern age

Come on, really now ? I'd rather you prove that Prism is actually effective. Else, why do you trust the NSA in that them grabbing US citizen's data was a totally innocent accident and not by design to just catch everything ?

[Walsingham]

 

Hold hard there, buddy (Valsuelm). It's not 'Ze West' who have behaved in a polarised fashion. It's quite plain that 'Ze West' hadn't made any plans to act in teh event of a dramatic move West or East by the Ukraine.

 

Conversely Putin has laid claim to 'his' ethnic Russians. Whatever the **** that actually means. It's Russian troops motoring around the Crimea right now, not NATO.

 

You want 'not polarised' how about Ukrainians who - and I'm only guessing - don't want the future their country decided by a handful of armed yahoos?

 

I hope you're joking. Bad joke if you are. If you're not, add your name, along with Tagaziel's and JadedWolf's in bold next to BruceVC's in my post, as what I said went way over your head.

 

 

Add my name in bold?

 

Look, what you 'nerds' don't seem to realise is that you do not want a world in which your official servants make up their own minds unilaterally about what can and cannot be shared with everyone else.

 

The key thing is that I'm not anti-democratic. Democracy means no witch-burnings. It's rule of law. Not rule by the gun or the mob.

 

What you fools seem  to be in favour of is what I like to call the 'upskirt' version of democracy. It's the lazy, self-hating weirdo's idea of how government should work. democracy is hard work. You have to pay attention, not rely on white knights cantering around governmentg agencies feeding you what you need to know in the nick of time like a bloody fairy tale.