I'd argue that our counter-terrorism/insurgency uses of force authorizations are close enough to count, and really, they should.
All those people on the right and left who call the current conflicts "illegal wars" and demand that Congress officially declare war or stay out of it forget that there's nothing to declare war against. ISIS isn't a country.
By what definition is it not a country?
ISIS is an insurgent army in a region that's increasingly filled with insurgent armies. They aren't considered a nation for the same reason we don't consider The God's Army, The Tamil Tigers, The Golden Path, Hezbollah, The Lord's Resistance Army and any other number of insurgencies a country, despite the fact that they all held and administered territories for years.
Didn't Greenwald also promise "a lot more bombshells" to come from Snowden, but didn't actually produce any more bombshells?
The Guardian literally published on a new set of Snowden revelations last week that's causing a major political brouhaha in the Pacific. It looks like Greenwald and him are releasing sets bundled by nation and region to maximize the news cycle in those regions.
Well yeah, because that's all they have is garbage that 'LOOK AT HOW UPSET I AM' news media cares about.
It's just 'Country X spies on countries around it', which if you aren't an imbecile you knew that was happening already because it has been ongoing for all of recorded human history.
Didn't Greenwald also promise "a lot more bombshells" to come from Snowden, but didn't actually produce any more bombshells?
The Guardian literally published on a new set of Snowden revelations last week that's causing a major political brouhaha in the Pacific. It looks like Greenwald and him are releasing sets bundled by nation and region to maximize the news cycle in those regions.
Well yeah, because that's all they have is garbage that 'LOOK AT HOW UPSET I AM' news media cares about.
It's just 'Country X spies on countries around it', which if you aren't an imbecile you knew that was happening already because it has been ongoing for all of recorded human history.
Roving bands have been murdering townsfolk for years, but we still report on ISIS. That's a fundamentally odd argument.
Where should Snowden have gone? I don't know Assange is in the Ecuadoran embassy in London, so Ecuador was a pretty good bet. Instead he went to China and then to Russia, two countries history of treating civil liberties as a joke and direct rivals/enemies of the US.
I think Snowden gave them info in exchange for safe haven. And It think they use said info against their own people and the US. It fits the history of both regimes.
So now instead of the US listing in on you, its the China and Russia.
Funny how he doesn't mind the Russians and Chinese spying on US citizens, or does he think that valuable technical data is hacking and delivering itself to China's cyberwarfare division as just one of the more well known and recent parts.
He took a bold stand on government transparency and human rights by fleeing to a country well regarded as a bastion of such things.
Russia.
It seemed like he didn't have a whole lot of options. What was his safest recourse, anyway? It would have been a witch hunt if he'd turned himself in.
Not commit treason? Was that an option? Calling it a witch hunt is acting like he would have been unfairly prosecuted for doing nothing wrong, which would not have been the case. He would have been appropriately prosecuted for the very illegal and treasonous thing that he did.
If he really thought he was doing the right thing, for the country he loved he should have stayed in the US, stood trial for what he did and stick to his convictions.
Not run to a country that is the complete antithesis of the values that compelled him to do this in the first place, and then trade them information on his beloved country for safety. That's about as despicable as it gets in my opinion.
Treason requires us to be in a declared war, which we aren't (thanks MSNBC). This was espionage, a lesser crime.
I'd argue that our counter-terrorism/insurgency uses of force authorizations are close enough to count, and really, they should.
Nah. I've said it before but not even people like John Walker were charged with treason and I honestly have no desire for the term to broaden in scope.
There's plenty to charge Snowden with without jumping to treason which frankly, even though I greatly dislike him, I don't think applies anyway.
Brazil would extradict. We have a treaty, Snowden is not a Brazilian citizen.
People seem to think there's a laundry list of places Snowden could have easily gone where he'd escape extradition to the most powerful nation on Earth, with the widest-reaching international influence of any nation in human history.
I don't think there is. It's a short list, and in large part it's characterized by countries who not more upstanding in this area than Russia is. By and large, Russia is probably the most cyberspace and internet-literate of those nations, or near the top. Furthermore, Russia was gamble for even being on that list--the "safe" choices were probably countries like South Sudan or Eritrea, let alone somewhere like North Korea.
He'd have to pull an Assange--and assuming he was capable of doing so (he might not have been), I don't somehow think people would somehow be more charitable to him if he was a permanent resident of, say, the Venezuelan embassy of some ostensibly "free" nation.
Didn't Greenwald also promise "a lot more bombshells" to come from Snowden, but didn't actually produce any more bombshells?
The Guardian literally published on a new set of Snowden revelations last week that's causing a major political brouhaha in the Pacific. It looks like Greenwald and him are releasing sets bundled by nation and region to maximize the news cycle in those regions.
Well yeah, because that's all they have is garbage that 'LOOK AT HOW UPSET I AM' news media cares about.
It's just 'Country X spies on countries around it', which if you aren't an imbecile you knew that was happening already because it has been ongoing for all of recorded human history.
Roving bands have been murdering townsfolk for years, but we still report on ISIS. That's a fundamentally odd argument.
If you don't think the U.S. should spy on other countries that's perfectly fine.
But justify your opinion as to why it shouldn't. Don't just throw out poorly fitting analogies.
Didn't Greenwald also promise "a lot more bombshells" to come from Snowden, but didn't actually produce any more bombshells?
The Guardian literally published on a new set of Snowden revelations last week that's causing a major political brouhaha in the Pacific. It looks like Greenwald and him are releasing sets bundled by nation and region to maximize the news cycle in those regions.
Well yeah, because that's all they have is garbage that 'LOOK AT HOW UPSET I AM' news media cares about.
It's just 'Country X spies on countries around it', which if you aren't an imbecile you knew that was happening already because it has been ongoing for all of recorded human history.
Roving bands have been murdering townsfolk for years, but we still report on ISIS. That's a fundamentally odd argument.
You are misstating the argument.
All countries have been spying on other countries at all times. The 'bombshell' is 'yep still doing it', BREAKING NEWS: According to leaked government memos, water still wet! More on our 10 o'clock broadcast.
Didn't Greenwald also promise "a lot more bombshells" to come from Snowden, but didn't actually produce any more bombshells?
The Guardian literally published on a new set of Snowden revelations last week that's causing a major political brouhaha in the Pacific. It looks like Greenwald and him are releasing sets bundled by nation and region to maximize the news cycle in those regions.
Well yeah, because that's all they have is garbage that 'LOOK AT HOW UPSET I AM' news media cares about.
It's just 'Country X spies on countries around it', which if you aren't an imbecile you knew that was happening already because it has been ongoing for all of recorded human history.
Roving bands have been murdering townsfolk for years, but we still report on ISIS. That's a fundamentally odd argument.
I am not sure how a new insurgent group in a destabilized region which is pertinent to many nations foreign policy is anywhere near comparable to standard government actions.
We don't provide news about how "OMG THE IRS IS DOING AUDITS" unless there is something new or strange or different or alarming about the audits. Otherwise its "well yes, the IRS is doing its job of collecting taxes thanks for letting me know that everything is fine and normal"
0
Options
cj iwakuraThe Rhythm RegentBears The Name FreedomRegistered Userregular
Didn't Greenwald also promise "a lot more bombshells" to come from Snowden, but didn't actually produce any more bombshells?
The Guardian literally published on a new set of Snowden revelations last week that's causing a major political brouhaha in the Pacific. It looks like Greenwald and him are releasing sets bundled by nation and region to maximize the news cycle in those regions.
Well yeah, because that's all they have is garbage that 'LOOK AT HOW UPSET I AM' news media cares about.
It's just 'Country X spies on countries around it', which if you aren't an imbecile you knew that was happening already because it has been ongoing for all of recorded human history.
Roving bands have been murdering townsfolk for years, but we still report on ISIS. That's a fundamentally odd argument.
You are misstating the argument.
All countries have been spying on other countries at all times. The 'bombshell' is 'yep still doing it', BREAKING NEWS: According to leaked government memos, water still wet! More on our 10 o'clock broadcast.
This is also 'spying on its own people if other countries are involved'.
He took a bold stand on government transparency and human rights by fleeing to a country well regarded as a bastion of such things.
Russia.
It seemed like he didn't have a whole lot of options. What was his safest recourse, anyway? It would have been a witch hunt if he'd turned himself in.
Not commit treason? Was that an option? Calling it a witch hunt is acting like he would have been unfairly prosecuted for doing nothing wrong, which would not have been the case. He would have been appropriately prosecuted for the very illegal and treasonous thing that he did.
If he really thought he was doing the right thing, for the country he loved he should have stayed in the US, stood trial for what he did and stick to his convictions.
Not run to a country that is the complete antithesis of the values that compelled him to do this in the first place, and then trade them information on his beloved country for safety. That's about as despicable as it gets in my opinion.
Do you have any proof that he's been giving secrets to Russia, or is that just more sensationalism? Maybe the man just didn't want to get put over the coals.
And you and I both know he had no chance of a fair trial. It would have been an open-and-shut case with no hope of a proper defense.
Mr. Kucherena’s role has increased his prominence in Russia. Like many defense lawyers in a country where justice is viewed as deeply politicized, he occupies an occasionally awkward space between challenging authority and being part of the system itself. At the same time, he is a political supporter of Mr. Putin’s and serves on the Public Chamber, an advisory body that critics have long derided as a Potemkin construct of actual government oversight. He also serves as a member of another board that oversees the Federal Security Service, or F.S.B.
I mean, sure its entirely possible that he somehow got asylum in Russia without revealing the data. But its also possible that I am a computer program, and you simply can't confirm that I am not a real living person.
To put it in other terms, its far far far more likely that he is working with Russia than independent of them. If he is not, then he has at the very least been debriefed, and his materials confiscated and copied (and encryption broken or tried to be broken). And well, in the absence of evidence either way, we should believe the most likely thing.
I'm gonna take a shot in the dark and wager he was under a lot of pressure not to do that.
Greenwald is living in Brazil and is more or less free of US pressure due to the fact that his partner is Brazilian (not sure whether or not this means he has citizenship but it should protect him from extradition). He has been actively publishing since then. They just haven't been bombshells. More like "spy agencies exist, news at 11"
Goumindong on
0
Options
cj iwakuraThe Rhythm RegentBears The Name FreedomRegistered Userregular
edited March 2015
You can believe all you want, but that doesn't give anyone grounds to straight-up call him a traitor.
I'm pretty sure we go by 'innocent until proven guilty'.
You can believe all you want, but that doesn't give anyone grounds to straight-up call him a traitor.
I'm pretty sure we go by 'innocent until proven guilty'.
In the court of law absolutely. In public opinion? Not so much. Especially when the facts are right there. The man self admittedly gave up stole and gave up state secrets. Many of those secrets not at all containing what he claimed. I'd consider that fairly traitorous. Doesn't mean I think he's evil or honestly even that malicious. I think he's just a very myopic person who thought he had something he didn't and went about revealing it in a terribly dumb way.
You can believe all you want, but that doesn't give anyone grounds to straight-up call him a traitor.
I'm pretty sure we go by 'innocent until proven guilty'.
He took state secrets and brought them into the hands of foreign intelligence agencies either by directly releasing them or by giving those secrets directly.
Yes that does indeed give me grounds to straight up call him a traitor. If there was a trial he would indeed be innocent until proven guilty but it would be an extremely short trial because he video-taped his own confession multiple times and gave interviews to the media about it.
Goumindong on
+4
Options
cj iwakuraThe Rhythm RegentBears The Name FreedomRegistered Userregular
You can believe all you want, but that doesn't give anyone grounds to straight-up call him a traitor.
I'm pretty sure we go by 'innocent until proven guilty'.
In the court of law absolutely. In public opinion? Not so much. Especially when the facts are right there. The man self admittedly gave up stole and gave up state secrets. Many of those secrets not at all containing what he claimed. I'd consider that fairly traitorous. Doesn't mean I think he's evil or honestly even that malicious. I think he's just a very myopic person who thought he had something he didn't and went about revealing it in a terribly dumb way.
There's a world of difference between that and conspiring with Russia and China like he's some Cold War operative, which there's no evidence to even support. Just goes to show how quick people assume the worst.
You can believe all you want, but that doesn't give anyone grounds to straight-up call him a traitor.
I'm pretty sure we go by 'innocent until proven guilty'.
He took state secrets and brought them into the hands of foreign intelligence agencies either by directly releasing them or by giving those secrets directly.
Yes that does indeed give me grounds to straight up call him a traitor. If there was a trial he would indeed be innocent until proven guilty but it would be an extremely short trial because he video-taped his own confession multiple times and gave interviews to the media about it.
Just so we're clear, "I took these secrets from the NSA because they're doing illicit acts" != "I sold secrets to Russia and China". The US is going to convict him, regardless, but one is doing a public service and the other is treason.
No one said he conspired with them. Just that he gave them the info after he had taken it. Which seems reasonable because if he didn't then Russia would tell him to get the fuck out.
You can believe all you want, but that doesn't give anyone grounds to straight-up call him a traitor.
I'm pretty sure we go by 'innocent until proven guilty'.
He took state secrets and brought them into the hands of foreign intelligence agencies either by directly releasing them or by giving those secrets directly.
Yes that does indeed give me grounds to straight up call him a traitor. If there was a trial he would indeed be innocent until proven guilty but it would be an extremely short trial because he video-taped his own confession multiple times and gave interviews to the media about it.
It would have been as short as Ellsberg's trial would have been, had G. Gordon Liddy never broken into that psychiatrist's office.
You can believe all you want, but that doesn't give anyone grounds to straight-up call him a traitor.
I'm pretty sure we go by 'innocent until proven guilty'.
In the court of law absolutely. In public opinion? Not so much. Especially when the facts are right there. The man self admittedly gave up stole and gave up state secrets. Many of those secrets not at all containing what he claimed. I'd consider that fairly traitorous. Doesn't mean I think he's evil or honestly even that malicious. I think he's just a very myopic person who thought he had something he didn't and went about revealing it in a terribly dumb way.
There's a world of difference between that and conspiring with Russia and China like he's some Cold War operative, which there's no evidence to even support. Just goes to show how quick people assume the worst.
First off, that's some goal post shifting. Secondly, who, anywhere on this forum, is saying the bolded?
I don't doubt that there are people out there who do think it's the case. But it'd be rather poor form to assume it of anyone who's posted so far. The worst I can spot is Goumindong saying he's most likely handed his materials over and debriefed the Russians in order to stay there which, yeah, he probably has. Cause they'd have zero reason otherwise to even allow him there. And even if he hadn't intentionally I guarantee they took everything he had because of course they did.
+1
Options
cj iwakuraThe Rhythm RegentBears The Name FreedomRegistered Userregular
No one said he conspired with them. Just that he gave them the info after he had taken it. Which seems reasonable because if he didn't then Russia would tell him to get the fuck out.
You don't know that. Stop laboring off assumptions and maybe you'll have more ground to stand on here. Everyone has been saying it like it's proven fact, and it's clearly not.
No one said he conspired with them. Just that he gave them the info after he had taken it. Which seems reasonable because if he didn't then Russia would tell him to get the fuck out.
You don't know that.
Yeah, we don't know that for a 100% fact.
What we do know is the likelihood of Russia ignoring his hard drives filled with state secrets and letting him keep them without at least getting copies is essentially nil because that would be utterly nonsensical.
+5
Options
cj iwakuraThe Rhythm RegentBears The Name FreedomRegistered Userregular
No one said he conspired with them. Just that he gave them the info after he had taken it. Which seems reasonable because if he didn't then Russia would tell him to get the fuck out.
You don't know that.
Yeah, we don't know that for a 100% fact.
What we do know is the likelihood of Russia ignoring his hard drives filled with state secrets and letting him keep them without at least getting copies is essentially nil because that would be utterly nonsensical.
Yeah, because Russia must want something in return. They'd never help someone out just because it's being civil.
No one said he conspired with them. Just that he gave them the info after he had taken it. Which seems reasonable because if he didn't then Russia would tell him to get the fuck out.
You don't know that.
Yeah, we don't know that for a 100% fact.
What we do know is the likelihood of Russia ignoring his hard drives filled with state secrets and letting him keep them without at least getting copies is essentially nil because that would be utterly nonsensical.
Yeah, because Russia must want something in return. They'd never help someone out just because it's being civil.
Yeah, because Russia has a historically aggressive intelligence program, and it would literally be their job to take what's on those hard drives.
No offense but the world view you're putting forward is extremely naive. It requires ignoring massive portions of historical precedent.
+10
Options
cj iwakuraThe Rhythm RegentBears The Name FreedomRegistered Userregular
No one said he conspired with them. Just that he gave them the info after he had taken it. Which seems reasonable because if he didn't then Russia would tell him to get the fuck out.
You don't know that.
Yeah, we don't know that for a 100% fact.
What we do know is the likelihood of Russia ignoring his hard drives filled with state secrets and letting him keep them without at least getting copies is essentially nil because that would be utterly nonsensical.
Yeah, because Russia must want something in return. They'd never help someone out just because it's being civil.
Yeah, because Russia has a historically aggressive intelligence program, and it would literally be their job to take what's on those hard drives.
No offense but the world view you're putting forward is extremely naive. It requires ignoring massive portions of historical precedent.
cj iwakuraThe Rhythm RegentBears The Name FreedomRegistered Userregular
It's judgmental at best to assume just because it's Russia they have to be expecting state secrets in return for helping a guy out. But hey, it's Russia, so pay the piper.
Either way, I'm not sure how much it matters if he gave the information to China and/or Russia given that he also gave it all to a journalist who has vowed to publish all of it.
Like, I guess those countries maybe got a few months' sneak preview?
It's judgmental at best to assume just because it's Russia they have to be expecting state secrets in return for helping a guy out. But hey, it's Russia, so pay the piper.
Yeah no that isn't racism. That's realizing that's what Russian intelligence does. That's what any decent intelligence program does.
At the moment you are proposing something supremely unlikely. Given you're wrongfully calling people racist, maybe take a bit to collect your thoughts and think through why you think that situation is in fact likely.
It's judgmental at best to assume just because it's Russia they have to be expecting state secrets in return for helping a guy out. But hey, it's Russia, so pay the piper.
Nation-states generally act out of self-interest, not lofty ideals. The Kremlin in particular does not seem especially motivated by lofty ideals. Its policy toward Snowden is probably more of a political jab at the US than a principled stand in favor of state transparency or free speech or what have you.
Quid was probably not trying to say "Russians are selfish bastards."
edit- more on topic, I look forward to watching this tonight, any opinions so far?
No one said he conspired with them. Just that he gave them the info after he had taken it. Which seems reasonable because if he didn't then Russia would tell him to get the fuck out.
You don't know that.
Yeah, we don't know that for a 100% fact.
What we do know is the likelihood of Russia ignoring his hard drives filled with state secrets and letting him keep them without at least getting copies is essentially nil because that would be utterly nonsensical.
Yeah, because Russia must want something in return. They'd never help someone out just because it's being civil.
Yeah, because Russia has a historically aggressive intelligence program, and it would literally be their job to take what's on those hard drives.
No offense but the world view you're putting forward is extremely naive. It requires ignoring massive portions of historical precedent.
No offense, but I'd rather be naive than racist.
No offense, but Russia isn't a race, it's a state, and the FSB didn't debrief him because they're cartoon villains but because it's their job to provide intelligence that is beneficial to their state and Snowden had such information.
Just like the US isn't spying on Germany because the US spies are literally snidely whiplash but because it's the job of the U.S. spy agencies to gather information beneficial to the U.S. and Germany's leaders private communications on trade and other negotiations allow the U.S. an edge in such dealings.
Edit: I mean if this happened to Russia the absolute first thing that would happen, once the guy got to the U.S. is that the CIA would confiscate all his materials and debrief him. And no one would make a peep because it's not the CIAs job to protect non-citizens and because the information would be valuable.
I am definitely not saying Russians are selfish bastards.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited March 2015
Are you fucking insane? If a Russian operative were in the US in the exact same situation, if we didn't get their shit, I'd want several someones fucking fired for incompetence.
The only reason he didn't stay in China is almost certainly because they got ghosts of what he had, and decided they didn't want the political fallout of keeping him, and so sent him on. Possibly scrubbing anything about China first.
Fencingsax on
+8
Options
cj iwakuraThe Rhythm RegentBears The Name FreedomRegistered Userregular
Maybe I used the wrong word, but it seems like there's a negative stigma being painted on Russia here, and it doesn't sit well with me.
0
Options
cj iwakuraThe Rhythm RegentBears The Name FreedomRegistered Userregular
It's judgmental at best to assume just because it's Russia they have to be expecting state secrets in return for helping a guy out. But hey, it's Russia, so pay the piper.
Nation-states generally act out of self-interest, not lofty ideals. The Kremlin in particular does not seem especially motivated by lofty ideals. Its policy toward Snowden is probably more of a political jab at the US than a principled stand in favor of state transparency or free speech or what have you.
Quid was probably not trying to say "Russians are selfish bastards."
edit- more on topic, I look forward to watching this tonight, any opinions so far?
Take my clearly biased opinion with a grain of salt, but I thought it was very gripping. I hope more people can put their personal feelings aside and take the film on its own merits, and maybe see things a little differently.
Maybe I used the wrong word, but it seems like there's a negative stigma being painted on Russia here, and it doesn't sit well with me.
The stigma in general around Russian Intelligence has always been one of respect. I mean yeah they are brutal and violent and torturers(pot meet kettle). But the only reason the CIA et all stayed within shouting distance of the KGB-and its arguable if they even did that- is the massive tech and budget edge the west held.
+1
Options
cj iwakuraThe Rhythm RegentBears The Name FreedomRegistered Userregular
Maybe I used the wrong word, but it seems like there's a negative stigma being painted on Russia here, and it doesn't sit well with me.
There is plenty of reason to dislike the Russian government.
But taking state secrets from what's probably their largest rival as they're literally handed to them isn't one. It'd be ludicrous for them not to.
There's a reason everyone is pissed at Snowden for what's happened and not China or Russia.
But it's just assumptions. It doesn't matter how likely it is, we don't know, so stop adding to the fire by substantiating the claims. I'm done beating that horse.
Posts
ISIS is an insurgent army in a region that's increasingly filled with insurgent armies. They aren't considered a nation for the same reason we don't consider The God's Army, The Tamil Tigers, The Golden Path, Hezbollah, The Lord's Resistance Army and any other number of insurgencies a country, despite the fact that they all held and administered territories for years.
Well yeah, because that's all they have is garbage that 'LOOK AT HOW UPSET I AM' news media cares about.
It's just 'Country X spies on countries around it', which if you aren't an imbecile you knew that was happening already because it has been ongoing for all of recorded human history.
Roving bands have been murdering townsfolk for years, but we still report on ISIS. That's a fundamentally odd argument.
Nah. I've said it before but not even people like John Walker were charged with treason and I honestly have no desire for the term to broaden in scope.
There's plenty to charge Snowden with without jumping to treason which frankly, even though I greatly dislike him, I don't think applies anyway.
People seem to think there's a laundry list of places Snowden could have easily gone where he'd escape extradition to the most powerful nation on Earth, with the widest-reaching international influence of any nation in human history.
I don't think there is. It's a short list, and in large part it's characterized by countries who not more upstanding in this area than Russia is. By and large, Russia is probably the most cyberspace and internet-literate of those nations, or near the top. Furthermore, Russia was gamble for even being on that list--the "safe" choices were probably countries like South Sudan or Eritrea, let alone somewhere like North Korea.
He'd have to pull an Assange--and assuming he was capable of doing so (he might not have been), I don't somehow think people would somehow be more charitable to him if he was a permanent resident of, say, the Venezuelan embassy of some ostensibly "free" nation.
If you don't think the U.S. should spy on other countries that's perfectly fine.
But justify your opinion as to why it shouldn't. Don't just throw out poorly fitting analogies.
You are misstating the argument.
All countries have been spying on other countries at all times. The 'bombshell' is 'yep still doing it', BREAKING NEWS: According to leaked government memos, water still wet! More on our 10 o'clock broadcast.
I am not sure how a new insurgent group in a destabilized region which is pertinent to many nations foreign policy is anywhere near comparable to standard government actions.
We don't provide news about how "OMG THE IRS IS DOING AUDITS" unless there is something new or strange or different or alarming about the audits. Otherwise its "well yes, the IRS is doing its job of collecting taxes thanks for letting me know that everything is fine and normal"
I'm gonna take a shot in the dark and wager he was under a lot of pressure not to do that.
This is also 'spying on its own people if other countries are involved'.
Do you have any proof that he's been giving secrets to Russia, or is that just more sensationalism? Maybe the man just didn't want to get put over the coals.
And you and I both know he had no chance of a fair trial. It would have been an open-and-shut case with no hope of a proper defense.
I mean, sure its entirely possible that he somehow got asylum in Russia without revealing the data. But its also possible that I am a computer program, and you simply can't confirm that I am not a real living person.
To put it in other terms, its far far far more likely that he is working with Russia than independent of them. If he is not, then he has at the very least been debriefed, and his materials confiscated and copied (and encryption broken or tried to be broken). And well, in the absence of evidence either way, we should believe the most likely thing.
Greenwald is living in Brazil and is more or less free of US pressure due to the fact that his partner is Brazilian (not sure whether or not this means he has citizenship but it should protect him from extradition). He has been actively publishing since then. They just haven't been bombshells. More like "spy agencies exist, news at 11"
I'm pretty sure we go by 'innocent until proven guilty'.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
In the court of law absolutely. In public opinion? Not so much. Especially when the facts are right there. The man self admittedly gave up stole and gave up state secrets. Many of those secrets not at all containing what he claimed. I'd consider that fairly traitorous. Doesn't mean I think he's evil or honestly even that malicious. I think he's just a very myopic person who thought he had something he didn't and went about revealing it in a terribly dumb way.
He took state secrets and brought them into the hands of foreign intelligence agencies either by directly releasing them or by giving those secrets directly.
Yes that does indeed give me grounds to straight up call him a traitor. If there was a trial he would indeed be innocent until proven guilty but it would be an extremely short trial because he video-taped his own confession multiple times and gave interviews to the media about it.
There's a world of difference between that and conspiring with Russia and China like he's some Cold War operative, which there's no evidence to even support. Just goes to show how quick people assume the worst.
Just so we're clear, "I took these secrets from the NSA because they're doing illicit acts" != "I sold secrets to Russia and China". The US is going to convict him, regardless, but one is doing a public service and the other is treason.
It would have been as short as Ellsberg's trial would have been, had G. Gordon Liddy never broken into that psychiatrist's office.
First off, that's some goal post shifting. Secondly, who, anywhere on this forum, is saying the bolded?
I don't doubt that there are people out there who do think it's the case. But it'd be rather poor form to assume it of anyone who's posted so far. The worst I can spot is Goumindong saying he's most likely handed his materials over and debriefed the Russians in order to stay there which, yeah, he probably has. Cause they'd have zero reason otherwise to even allow him there. And even if he hadn't intentionally I guarantee they took everything he had because of course they did.
You don't know that. Stop laboring off assumptions and maybe you'll have more ground to stand on here. Everyone has been saying it like it's proven fact, and it's clearly not.
Yeah, we don't know that for a 100% fact.
What we do know is the likelihood of Russia ignoring his hard drives filled with state secrets and letting him keep them without at least getting copies is essentially nil because that would be utterly nonsensical.
Yeah, because Russia must want something in return. They'd never help someone out just because it's being civil.
Yeah, because Russia has a historically aggressive intelligence program, and it would literally be their job to take what's on those hard drives.
No offense but the world view you're putting forward is extremely naive. It requires ignoring massive portions of historical precedent.
No offense, but I'd rather be naive than racist.
Okay...
Gonna have to say I honestly don't follow here.
What
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
Like, I guess those countries maybe got a few months' sneak preview?
Yeah no that isn't racism. That's realizing that's what Russian intelligence does. That's what any decent intelligence program does.
At the moment you are proposing something supremely unlikely. Given you're wrongfully calling people racist, maybe take a bit to collect your thoughts and think through why you think that situation is in fact likely.
Quid was probably not trying to say "Russians are selfish bastards."
edit- more on topic, I look forward to watching this tonight, any opinions so far?
No offense, but Russia isn't a race, it's a state, and the FSB didn't debrief him because they're cartoon villains but because it's their job to provide intelligence that is beneficial to their state and Snowden had such information.
Just like the US isn't spying on Germany because the US spies are literally snidely whiplash but because it's the job of the U.S. spy agencies to gather information beneficial to the U.S. and Germany's leaders private communications on trade and other negotiations allow the U.S. an edge in such dealings.
Edit: I mean if this happened to Russia the absolute first thing that would happen, once the guy got to the U.S. is that the CIA would confiscate all his materials and debrief him. And no one would make a peep because it's not the CIAs job to protect non-citizens and because the information would be valuable.
The only reason he didn't stay in China is almost certainly because they got ghosts of what he had, and decided they didn't want the political fallout of keeping him, and so sent him on. Possibly scrubbing anything about China first.
Take my clearly biased opinion with a grain of salt, but I thought it was very gripping. I hope more people can put their personal feelings aside and take the film on its own merits, and maybe see things a little differently.
There is plenty of reason to dislike the Russian government.
But taking state secrets from what's probably their largest rival as they're literally handed to them isn't one. It'd be ludicrous for them not to.
There's a reason everyone is pissed at Snowden for what's happened and not China or Russia.
1) Russia well deserves that negative stigma. I mean, at least we had pretenses when we invaded another country.
2) there is no stigma necessary to assume that the Russian intelligence services would do the job they were created and paid to do.
Edit: Putin is no Gorbachev or Khrushchev or Brezhnev.
Why you guys gotta shatter my hopes like that?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The stigma in general around Russian Intelligence has always been one of respect. I mean yeah they are brutal and violent and torturers(pot meet kettle). But the only reason the CIA et all stayed within shouting distance of the KGB-and its arguable if they even did that- is the massive tech and budget edge the west held.
But it's just assumptions. It doesn't matter how likely it is, we don't know, so stop adding to the fire by substantiating the claims. I'm done beating that horse.