• Julian Assange: An espionage indictment from the US DoJ is the new Nobel Peace Prize
    50 replies, posted
[QUOTE=catbarf;41148801]If a man breaks into my house in the middle of the night and comes at me with an axe and I shoot him in self-defense, I'm probably going to court. The fact is, I killed someone and will be charged with murder. If I am forced at gunpoint to rob a bank, I'm probably going to court, because the fact is that I robbed a bank and will be charged with theft. If I leak a bunch of classified documents showing gross government breaches of basic rights, I'm probably going to court, because the fact is that I leaked documents and will be charged with espionage. Mitigating circumstances and justifications only come into play once the defendant is actually in court. He still gets charged with a crime, but the court is the place where he can argue his case. If a man shoots someone else and there are doubts as to whether it was self-defense, I don't think how bad the jail is should be a factor in deciding whether or not he gets tried. Manning was mistreated but that's a whole separate issue. Not to mention Manning was mistreated by the military, not a civilian agency, and his actions were much less justifiable than Snowden's.[/QUOTE] Right.... except in your example the question is: Did you willingly commit that crime? The answer in your example would be "No". The answer in my example, as well as the case of Snowden, is "Yes". The problem is that the truth, that 'Yes', is what will bring about unjust/unethical punishment. Not to mention the abuse he would likely receive among the US's thug handlers before trial.
I still have no idea how this is Obama's fault.
[QUOTE=sYnced;41148859]I still have no idea how this is Obama's fault.[/QUOTE] It's not like he is this impotent figurehead akin to the Queen of England. Obama has signed more Executive Orders than any of his predecessors, and he has tried more whistle-blowers as well. Why suddenly is he this Limp-dicked person that cannot be held responsible for what's going on in HIS damn country.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;41148882]It's not like he is this impotent figurehead akin to the Queen of England. Obama has signed more Executive Orders than any of his predecessors, and he has tried more whistle-blowers as well. Why suddenly is he this Limp-dicked person that cannot be held responsible for what's going on in HIS damn country.[/QUOTE] Obama owns the USA? That couldn't be farther from the truth. Yes, he is a figurehead.
[QUOTE=sYnced;41149227]Obama owns the USA? That couldn't be farther from the truth. Yes, he is a figurehead.[/QUOTE] Did I say he owns it? No. What I said, or at least tried to communicate to you, is that Obama is the Commander in Chief. Not only does he have massive politcal/social influence, but he also has the ability to provide over-riding commands to address issues which concern the public he is supposed to represent. Obama is as much at fault for standing by and supporting this as a bystander is responsible for not stopping a raping in progress. Inaction does not mean freedom from responsibility, and by all accounts Obama is responsible for the country that elected him. You cannot pretend that Obama has no power at all to affect this country.
sometimes I wish I had the power and money to get out of this country before it all goes to hell and move somewhere with a better future, japan or england?
[QUOTE=darkedone02;41149341]sometimes I wish I had the power and money to get out of this country before it all goes to hell and move somewhere with a better future, japan or england?[/QUOTE] You kidding me? Iceland man, it's the place to be.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;41148882]It's not like he is this impotent figurehead akin to the Queen of England. [B]Obama has signed more Executive Orders than any of his predecessors[/B], and he has tried more whistle-blowers as well. Why suddenly is he this Limp-dicked person that cannot be held responsible for what's going on in HIS damn country.[/QUOTE] This is actually incorrect. Although the whistle-blower part is true. I'm just pointing it out so that we don't keep spreading false 'facts'.
[QUOTE=bull04;41149495]This is actually incorrect. Although the whistle-blower part is true. I'm just pointing it out so that we don't keep spreading false 'facts'.[/QUOTE] I was looking it up to see if he was like, close for recent presidents or anything like that, but Clinton got him beat by far. Also, daaang, FDR. Daaaaang. I mean, I know it was a world war, but your writing hand must be [I]sore![/I]
[QUOTE=bull04;41149495]This is actually incorrect. Although the whistle-blower part is true. I'm just pointing it out so that we don't keep spreading false 'facts'.[/QUOTE] You're right. I was wrong. I relied too much on my faulty memory.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;41148311]What if we put him in a helicopter with a bunch of innocent diplomats? What are they gonna do? Shoot it down?[/QUOTE] Knowing how London flips shit and shoots down model aircraft that wander too close to the downtown core, most likely. That or block it from landing at the only place they COULD land the helicopter and not immediately get their ass handled which is on a boat in the Atlantic's international waters.
[QUOTE=pentium;41149758]Knowing how London flips shit and shoots down model aircraft that wander too close to the downtown core, most likely. That or block it from landing at the only place they COULD land the helicopter and not immediately get their ass handled which is on a boat in the Atlantic's international waters.[/QUOTE] Guess they'll need a large yet maneuverable helicopter with a massive fuel tank then. Could even just make the boat a "pit-stop" (IE, refueling & piss break for the passengers & pilots)
[QUOTE=pentium;41149758]Knowing how London flips shit and shoots down model aircraft that wander too close to the downtown core, most likely. That or block it from landing at the only place they COULD land the helicopter and not immediately get their ass handled which is on a boat in the Atlantic's international waters.[/QUOTE] A massive fleet could be parked outside british water and a helicopter could get him to it. Unless the US and UK decide to try and intervene since it's 'international waters'.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;41148841]Right.... except in your example the question is: Did you willingly commit that crime? The answer in your example would be "No". The answer in my example, as well as the case of Snowden, is "Yes". The problem is that the truth, that 'Yes', is what will bring about unjust/unethical punishment. Not to mention the abuse he would likely receive among the US's thug handlers before trial.[/QUOTE] What? If a man comes into my house and attacks me and I shoot him I have willingly and deliberately committed the crime of murder. The extenuating circumstances that justify it as an act of self-defense only come into play at trial. Snowden's case is absolutely no different. It's clear that he committed a crime, what remains to be seen is whether it was justified, but either way he needs to go to trial so that it can be determined. Right now he's a fugitive from justice and that makes it very hard for me to see him in a positive light.
[QUOTE=catbarf;41153037]What? If a man comes into my house and attacks me and I shoot him I have willingly and deliberately committed the crime of murder. The extenuating circumstances that justify it as an act of self-defense only come into play at trial. Snowden's case is absolutely no different. It's clear that he committed a crime, what remains to be seen is whether it was justified, but either way he needs to go to trial so that it can be determined. Right now he's a fugitive from justice and that makes it very hard for me to see him in a positive light.[/QUOTE] The point is that he didn't do it with ill intent towards humanity, but towards the government. But of course, he did do it intentionally, and as such, there's going to be a harsh punishment, even though the people might disagree with the sentence. On another subject matter: Don't you think it's a little peculiar that they're denouncing his actions as "aiding the enemy", even though the US is not at war with any country at the moment? And because the subject matter directly concerns the privacy of the people - doesn't that make the US call its OWN people "The Enemy"? Very, very strange indeed.
[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;41154219]The point is that he didn't do it with ill intent towards humanity, but towards the government. But of course, he did do it intentionally, and as such, there's going to be a harsh punishment, even though the people might disagree with the sentence.[/QUOTE] I don't see how that's relevant. If he goes to court, and it is demonstrated that the NSA's actions were illegal, then he'll be exonerated as a whistleblower. If, as so many people here keep saying, he's a legitimate whistleblower and the NSA was wrong and clearly illegal et cetera et cetera then he'll win in court. [QUOTE=Doom64hunter;41154219]On another subject matter: Don't you think it's a little peculiar that they're denouncing his actions as "aiding the enemy", even though the US is not at war with any country at the moment? And because the subject matter directly concerns the privacy of the people - doesn't that make the US call its OWN people "The Enemy"? Very, very strange indeed.[/QUOTE] Terrorist groups are the enemy. These groups operate within the US. The documents he leaked detailed a surveillance method for catching these groups. By revealing it, its efficacy is compromised, and these groups will now have an easier time operating without being detected. His leak has aided the enemy. I don't see what's so hard about this but it keeps coming up over and over again.
[QUOTE=catbarf;41154955]I don't see how that's relevant. If he goes to court, and it is demonstrated that the NSA's actions were illegal, then he'll be exonerated as a whistleblower. If, as so many people here keep saying, he's a legitimate whistleblower and the NSA was wrong and clearly illegal et cetera et cetera then he'll win in court. Terrorist groups are the enemy. These groups operate within the US. The documents he leaked detailed a surveillance method for catching these groups. By revealing it, its efficacy is compromised, and these groups will now have an easier time operating without being detected. His leak has aided the enemy. I don't see what's so hard about this but it keeps coming up over and over again.[/QUOTE] Well Russ Tice from the other thread did follow the proper channels a while ago, but nothing ever came of it, it just got swept under the rug. He isn't wanted, but he also didn't make a big wave back then.
[QUOTE=catbarf;41148648]What are you talking about? Snowden is going to be tried by the US because he broke US law. Schindler wasn't tried by the US because he broke Nazi law. We don't put people on trial for breaking the laws of other countries, let alone of countries we defeated militarily. It's not a valid comparison.[/QUOTE] ur dumbe~
[QUOTE=catbarf;41154955]I don't see how that's relevant. If he goes to court, and it is demonstrated that the NSA's actions were illegal, then he'll be exonerated as a whistleblower. If, as so many people here keep saying, he's a legitimate whistleblower and the NSA was wrong and clearly illegal et cetera et cetera then he'll win in court. Terrorist groups are the enemy. These groups operate within the US. The documents he leaked detailed a surveillance method for catching these groups. By revealing it, its efficacy is compromised, and these groups will now have an easier time operating without being detected. His leak has aided the enemy. I don't see what's so hard about this but it keeps coming up over and over again.[/QUOTE] How would the NSA not have been on illegal ops amidst of all this? Didn't they get data on billions of people worldwide? The US is basically using "but terrorists!" as an excuse to spy on just about everyone and now they want to catch one guy for exposing the shit they've been doing. I really don't understand what "the US" has in "its mind". The country that prizes itself on a bunch of patriotic shit and freedom and bla bla bla has been caught doing some of the most illegal things possible, and now they want to catch the guy who exposed them. It's like someone saying you killed someone and then you announcing that you are gonna catch and kill the witness. And to top it off, China and Russia have been threatened with "unforseen consequences" for harboring him in. What the fuck is this shit?
[QUOTE=dass;41169757]How would the NSA not have been on illegal ops amidst of all this? Didn't they get data on billions of people worldwide?[/QUOTE] Well then, Snowden should have no trouble in court, right? How do you think the NSA's actions will be deemed illegal if it doesn't go to court? [QUOTE=dass;41169757]The US is basically using "but terrorists!" as an excuse to spy on just about everyone [/QUOTE] The documents themselves paint a very different picture from spying on 'just about everyone'. I suggest you actually read them and stop repeating what other people have told you. [QUOTE=dass;41169757]and now they want to catch one guy for exposing the shit they've been doing.[/QUOTE] Or for leaking national security information. That stuff is classified for a reason and it's not simply to keep it from the public. I'm getting tired of the amount of bullshit that people keep repeating that has nothing whatsoever to do with reality, but a sensationalist media source kinda hinted at it and winked so it must be 100% infallibly true. Read the goddamn documents and form an argument based on what's actually there before you go on a tirade about all the evils the US has gleefully committed.
[QUOTE=catbarf;41170689]Well then, Snowden should have no trouble in court, right? How do you think the NSA's actions will be deemed illegal if it doesn't go to court? The documents themselves paint a very different picture from spying on 'just about everyone'. I suggest you actually read them and stop repeating what other people have told you. Or for leaking national security information. That stuff is classified for a reason and it's not simply to keep it from the public. I'm getting tired of the amount of bullshit that people keep repeating that has nothing whatsoever to do with reality, but a sensationalist media source kinda hinted at it and winked so it must be 100% infallibly true. Read the goddamn documents and form an argument based on what's actually there before you go on a tirade about all the evils the US has gleefully committed.[/QUOTE] Why exactly are you defending the most backwards government on Earth? NSA's actions wont be deemed illegal because its the goddamn NSA and they do as they will. It's the same as being some Average Joe fighting a bunch of corporations that accidentally killed his relative in an hospital procedure and then didn't take responsability for it. It's effortless to fight it because they have the upper hand. Or is spying on people legal now? The documents that have stated that it goes far beyond spying on just the country? Ok then... It's classified because TERRORISTS, and because people would freak the fuck out if suddenly they knew they were being monitored. If this was a tirade about all evils the US has ever committed, we would just be setting our hands in our faces in shame for the fucked up shit it goes on there. For fuck sake, they already threatened fucking China and Russia. That's just asking for shit to go down even worse. Then again, why is the US chasing just Snowden? I think theres lots of people out there that didn't have a single doubt that shit like this was already being pulled before all of this was made public. All for the sake of freedom... Pathetic.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.