US attempts to block Edward Snowden are 'bolstering' case for asylum - Polidicks

[QUOTE=scout1;41355839]Err, except for a few problems. Article 12 clearly states arbitrary, which this is not, given his list of criminal charges. Article 14 states "(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." That about wraps it up, I would think.[/QUOTE] I didn't mean that they were ignoring his 12th Article right. That was supposed to be applied to the populace that they were caching, not only in America, but in Germany as well. Article 14 is still valid, because I would say that this is a political crime. He may not be a political refugee, but it is a political crime due to the fact that what he has done has next to no bearing on the average citizen, yet massive implications for politics and politicians.

[QUOTE=scout1;41355815]I really can't think of a country that doesn't have an intelligence agency. Maybe Liechtenstein? Doesn't seem like they'll be abolished anytime soon, though. Being kind of necessary, and all.[/QUOTE] They aren't necessary. There is absolutely 0 tangible evidence that foreign surveillance accomplishes anything, especially surveillance on countries that you're not at war with. If governments were not spying on foreign populaces in the first place, then there's be no need for surveillance. It's extremely expensive, it's an act of aggression, and it doesn't accomplish anything that couldn't be accomplished by simply maintaining ethical foreign relations in the first place.

[QUOTE=scout1;41355866]He will because... you think he will? Please elaborate.[/QUOTE] It doesn't matter if he will or he won't. He is covered for asylum by the UN, because he fears going back to his country. Anything other than that is a moot point.

[QUOTE=valkery;41355821][URL]http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/[/URL] They ignored the 12th Article, would have ignored the 13th Article if they had found him sooner, and they are actively ignoring his 14th Article right.[/QUOTE] Article 12: 'No one shall be subjected to [B]arbitrary[/B] interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.' Not arbitrary. Only public data is used without warrant, and a warrant or court order showing justifiable intent is needed to infringe on private data. That's out. Article 13 is irrelevant to someone being prosecuted for a crime. I don't see you complaining that everyone who has to stand trial for, say, murder is having their human rights violated by being unable to leave the country so that's out. Article 14 may have some merit but fleeing a country does not and never has guaranteed carte blanche immunity to any repercussions for political crimes. If someone were to assassinate the President and then flee the country I really, [I]really[/I] doubt you'd be defending them against extradition on the basis that their crime was political in nature.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;41355889]They aren't necessary. There is absolutely 0 tangible evidence that foreign surveillance accomplishes anything, especially surveillance on countries that you're not at war with. If governments were not spying on foreign populaces in the first place, then there's be no need for surveillance. It's extremely expensive, it's an act of aggression, and it doesn't accomplish anything that couldn't be accomplished by simply maintaining ethical foreign relations in the first place.[/QUOTE] Before I go any further I'd like to ask your level of political education. I think your worldview is a little naive given that war is still a thing and that not all countries are going to work amicably with everyone, nor are all people inherently altruistic. Also I'd like to direct you to the Cold War, where the US' and Soviets' rampant spying on each other and their allies actually prevented nuclear war. Several times. [QUOTE=valkery;41355891]It doesn't matter if he will or he won't. He is covered for asylum by the UN, because he fears going back to his country. Anything other than that is a moot point.[/QUOTE] He'd likely need to prove or otherwise provide a basis for this, though. Just fear of going back to the country because he will be [I]prosecuted[/I] for the charges against him is not grounds for asylum, otherwise... yeah.

[QUOTE=catbarf;41355902]Article 12: 'No one shall be subjected to [B]arbitrary[/B] interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.' Not arbitrary. Only public data is used without warrant, and a warrant or court order showing justifiable intent is needed to infringe on private data. That's out. [/QUOTE] I'll agree that my points for article 13 was weak, but it doesn't mean that I wasn't correct on articles 12 and 14. I would like some clarification on your part before I go any further though. Please explain to me the difference between public and private data in the sense that it was used in your last post.

[QUOTE=scout1;41355946]Also I'd like to direct you to the Cold War, where the US' and Soviets' rampant spying on each other and their allies actually prevented nuclear war. Several times. [/QUOTE] Spying and baseless suspicion is what [I]started[/I] the cold war It was literally the only thing that kept it going.

[QUOTE=scout1;41355866]He will because... you think he will? Please elaborate.[/QUOTE] bradley manning

[QUOTE=scout1;41355946] He'd likely need to prove or otherwise provide a basis for this, though. Just fear of going back to the country because he will be [I]prosecuted[/I] for the charges against him is not grounds for asylum, otherwise... yeah.[/QUOTE] I feel as though he could look at Guantanamo and Gitmo, compare his crimes to those of the inmates there, and build a fairly solid case from that.

[QUOTE=scout1;41355946]Also I'd like to direct you to the Cold War, where the US' and Soviets' rampant spying on each other and their allies actually prevented nuclear war. Several times.[/quote] And also came dangerously close to causing it. Several times. [quote]He'd likely need to prove or otherwise provide a basis for this, though. Just fear of going back to the country because he will be [I]prosecuted[/I] for the charges against him is not grounds for asylum, otherwise... yeah.[/QUOTE] He just needs to point to the handling of Bradley Manning as to why he fears going back to the US.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;41355969]bradley manning[/QUOTE] [url=http://news.yahoo.com/judge-army-gi-wikileaks-illegally-punished-231717526.html]...Except that the law did not agree with how bradley manning was handled.[/url] Oops. [editline]8th July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=valkery;41355970]I feel as though he could look at Guantanamo and Gitmo, compare his crimes to those of the inmates there, and build a fairly solid case from that.[/QUOTE] Possibly, but Snowden is an American citizen. He is afforded several extra protections under the laws.

[QUOTE=scout1;41355987][url=http://news.yahoo.com/judge-army-gi-wikileaks-illegally-punished-231717526.html]...Except that the law did not agree with how bradley manning was handled.[/url] Oops.[/QUOTE] yea because the law can go back in time and reverse past decisions.

[QUOTE=scout1;41355987][URL="http://news.yahoo.com/judge-army-gi-wikileaks-illegally-punished-231717526.html"]...Except that the law did not agree with how bradley manning was handled.[/URL] Oops.[/QUOTE] [B]THAT DIDN'T FUCKING STOP IT FROM HAPPENING[/B].

[QUOTE=yawmwen;41355997]yea because the law can go back in time and reverse past decisions.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=valkery;41355999][B][I][U]THAT DIDN'T FUCKING STOP IT FROM HAPPENING![/U][/I][/B][/QUOTE] The US also used to have a spoils system, then it was outlawed. Does the US govt have a spoils system? The answer is no. EDIT: What I am trying to say is that yes, it has happened, and it was wrong. Reforms and corrections have been made. We cannot permanently delay all judicial proceedings in the US on the assumption that they may be torturous or unjust.

[QUOTE=scout1;41355987][url=http://news.yahoo.com/judge-army-gi-wikileaks-illegally-punished-231717526.html]...Except that the law did not agree with how bradley manning was handled.[/url] Oops. [editline]8th July 2013[/editline] Possibly, but Snowden is an American citizen. He is afforded several extra protections under the laws.[/QUOTE] Yeah and who got shitcanned for torturing him? Nobody is mentioned getting reprimanded in the article. It still establishes that the US is capable of mishandling prisoners who leak information or hurt them politically.

[QUOTE=scout1;41356023]The US also used to have a spoils system, then it was outlawed. Does the US govt have a spoils system? The answer is no.[/QUOTE] and yet we still torture people even though it's illegal to do so.

Don't blind him with the facts!

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;41356025]Yeah and who got shitcanned for torturing him? Nobody is mentioned getting reprimanded in the article. It still establishes that the US is capable of mishandling prisoners who leak information or hurt them politically.[/QUOTE] All countries are capable of doing so. You don't punish them until they do. We did, shit flew. Lots of shit. Deservededly, shit. Then there were reforms, and we kind of realized that was a bad idea. Probably because of bad initial intentions. So we're sticking to the judiciary. Besides, this is a civilian case. The military gets significantly more latitude in its treatment of criminals when they agree to those rules voluntarily, not just being born into them. editeditedit: Although an interesting counterpoint/note might be that Snowden was a government employee who pursued a security clearance, which requires several affirmations and so on saying you will not do things like leak information. Government employees are also treated differently under the law than a strictly "civilian". Maybe he signed away some of his rights when he lied under oath, but I still would not support his torture or unjust confinement.

The NSA should stop fucking moaning and just let the guy go. Now that we know they're dickheads they should stand up and take it like men. There is no point in locking him up, whats that going to do? Nothing. He didn't plan a terrorist attack.

[QUOTE=Xenocide1990;41356048]The NSA should stop fucking moaning and just let the guy go. Now that we know they're dickheads they should stand up and take it like men. There is no point in locking him up, whats that going to do? Nothing. He didn't plan a terrorist attack.[/QUOTE] Clearly the two-party elected government that doesn't represent even a fraction of the country's political spectrum knows what's in the best interest for the entire country, and has full moral and legal standing to not only invade the privacy of it's own citizens, but that of it's allies and countries abroad. It's obviously more important to hold up a pointless charade of moral ambiguity, because if snowden is not prosecuted then everybody will come to the obvious realization that absolutely nothing bad will happen if people expose the covered up misdealings of the governments that are supposed to be serving them. [SUB]now [I]that's[/I] sarcasm[/SUB]

[QUOTE=scout1;41355763]Informative for you. I would not like to see Snowden mistreated, though. Besides the fact that it is a disservice to my country, it's not good for our image, either, and goodness knows we don't need to be [I]perceived[/I] any worse.[/QUOTE] Yes you do

[QUOTE=Stormcharger;41356175]Yes you do[/QUOTE] Why would I support that?

[QUOTE=scout1;41356194]Why would I support that?[/QUOTE] The same reason you keep trying to justify torture at Gitmo.

[QUOTE=laserguided;41356417]The same reason you keep trying to justify torture at Gitmo.[/QUOTE] I don't support torture, and especially not at the extrajudicial naval base in Guantanamo.

No government wants their stuff leaked because no government is perfectly good or moral. I mean, what would happen to someone leaking stuff about how Venezuela is corrupt? It seems to be as much self interest as pro American interest working here. They think that trying to block this person will discourage other leakers, which is not at all true.

[QUOTE=scout1;41356431]I don't support torture, and especially not at the extrajudicial naval base in Guantanamo.[/QUOTE] You only support torture if its legally defined as not torture by the U.S. government.

[QUOTE=laserguided;41356536]You only support torture if its legally defined as not torture by the U.S. government.[/QUOTE] "Enhanced interrogation techniques", perhaps.

Espionage is the act of transmitting data to an enemy. Who did he leak this information too? (everybody) So who is the enemy?

Everyone theoretically includes the enemy, yes. [editline]7th July 2013[/editline] Whoever they may be

You're 100% correct and I think there is no way to determine who is more trustworthy. Do we side with the incriminated or the incriminated. I myself prefer to know what is being done behind the curtain, I think any illumination on the subject benefits us all but I'm just just some drunk guy at my PC.