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

[QUOTE=person11;41356482]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] i'm cynical about the motivations of bolivia, venezuela, etc., but at least in their own greed they are trying to help someone who needs help. i don't really care too much for all this international diplomacy and espionage bullshit, but i do care about a dude who went out of his way to leak very secret info on shady government institutions.

Blanked.

[QUOTE=scout1;41358292]I don't support that, either. No matter how much you want to smear me. Maybe I should accuse you of supporting genocide, or something stupid?[/QUOTE] You've been blindly arguing with a "my government, right or wrong" standpoint, while everybody else has been arguing by a moral standpoint. And morally, they're right.

Blanked.

[QUOTE=scout1;41358323]Please put more words in my mouth. I've laid out a logical line of thought. Now you are laying out an emotional one and saying I'm just blabbering. [editline]8th July 2013[/editline] Do I need to cite all the instances in which I've disagreed with the US government, really?[/QUOTE] You tend to only go "no wait guys i don't really like the government after all" [I]after[/I] you've made your arguments. Please put more words in my mouth. All I said was that the people against you were arguing from a moral standpoint and on this type of issue the balance between a governmental and moral standpoint is swayed heavily to the moral and emotional side.

Blanked.

Scout1, I think you need to calm down and stop posting for a while. [t]http://i.imgur.com/g7jtSDj.png[/t]

[QUOTE=lifehole;41355501]Diplomatic control? The US has too much influence over the world, that much I think people can agree on.[/QUOTE] The US has military bases in nearly every country in Europe, if this is anything to go by. Even I'm kinda' sickened by not only what my country is doing, but by how much they're spending on this bullshit. Our military's budget is larger than most entire countries GDP.

[QUOTE=scout1;41358323]Blanked.[/QUOTE] You've previously established you are selfish and only care about your own interests/the interests of the USA (and are an Iran coup apologist) so I don't see what was unfair about his initial judgment of you being rather pro-US government.

-AUTOMERGEEEEEEEE-

[QUOTE=laserguided;41355403]They're just more pro-american than they are pro-human rights.[/QUOTE] Countries don't have a legal obligation to accept every case of amnesty that appears before them. Not accepting Snowden's doesn't make them not pro-human rights. [QUOTE=valkery;41355457]Diplomatic cooperation that goes against the will of the people that put the diplomats in power isn't true diplomatic cooperation, now is it?[/QUOTE] That is an issue I would take up with your representatives. From the standpoint of other countries, you elected these people to speak for you on the international stage. If you don't agree with their viewpoint, go vote next year. [QUOTE=laserguided;41355556]Yes it does, the U.S. wants to lock up a whistleblower for embarrassing the U.S. regime, unless I misunderstood something here?[/QUOTE] They don't want to "lock up" anyone without a trial, and not on the charges of "embarrasing the US regime". The charges against him are actually rather reasonable. Theft, unauthorized communication of national defense information and willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person. The first one is a no-brainer, he obviously stole documents from the US government and loaded them on laptops before bouncing around the world. The last two have been on the books since 1917 as part of the Espionage Act, a set of laws that have met legal precedent in federal court numerous times and have been amended but otherwise remain entirely constitutional. Daniel Ellsberg, the guy who leaked the Pentagon Papers, won his case facing the exact same charges Snowden did. [QUOTE=The golden;41355779]The gross invasion of privacy which people are supposed to be protected from by the fourth amendment?[/QUOTE] The programs in place have not been found to be unconstitutional. Until they are, saying they are against the fourth amendment is legally 100% incorrect. Per definition, nothing is unconstitutional until the Supreme Court (or 2/3rds of states) decides it is. [QUOTE=valkery;41355601]Letting Snowden have asylum in another country should be one of his basic rights, and the fact that they are basically threatening their allies into not allowing him to stay in their countries is disgusting.[/QUOTE] Is there any source that the US is actively threatening countries if they don't play ball? What if the countries, as soveriegn nations with their own best interests at heart, simply don't want Snowden in their country? What about the ones that have on-the-books laws about amnesty laws, like requiring applicants to be in said country or at a border checkpoint?