Snowden had already decided to leak classified information before he had access to any of it - Polidicks

[QUOTE=catbarf;41203204]If he had come across just the NSA information in the course of his work, and then tried to carry it up the chain but got blocked by his superiors, and turned to the media as a last resort and faced the US government in public, I would call him a hero.[/QUOTE]The fact you're even suggesting that Snowden can go to his superiors and say "Hey, I think this PRISM project we're currently doing violates our freedoms including the 4th Amendment" displays that you know jackshit how the DoD works. [quote=NSA]The background investigation helps determine the applicant's honesty, trustworthiness, reliability, discretion, [B]and unquestioned loyalty to the United States[/B].[/quote] Despite being a government civilian agency, the requirement to be "unquestionably loyal" bears stark resemblance to how the US military works. Attempt to expose shit internally and you will be scrutinized.

[QUOTE=archangel125;41207102]I'll put this as simply as I can. There are certain countries the US can't touch without a damn good reason, because they are countries held in extremely high regard within the international community, countries with friends powerful enough to seriously damage the US and the alliances that benefit it. Canada, Germany, and most of Europe are good examples. [/QUOTE] Ahem. You said we could. [QUOTE=archangel125;41206987] Why do I pick on the US government? Because the US government is a bully. It is underhanded, it is irresponsible, and worst of all, it is powerful. Too powerful. And so long as its corporate overlords are happy at the end of the day, the rest of the world can burn and bleed. And it has. [/QUOTE] Could you now explain why we let the Afghanis sell the mineral rights in their country which we invaded and were being "kingmakers"? You know, let them sell? To china? Our kind of geopolitical adversary? We must be really bad at this kingmaking thing... [QUOTE=archangel125;41207102] As for suing those oil companies, that was because they fucked up in a major, very visible, very public way, and the government had to be seen to act so that people would continue to trust that government.[/QUOTE] Small problems with that theory. One, S&P is not a oil company. It's a rating bureau. Two, the furor was long dead when they sued. Three, [QUOTE=archangel125;41206719]The American people. People like you, growing fat and stupid, believing your government can do no wrong. [/QUOTE] So when the government does a bad thing, it's a bad government. When the government does a good thing, it's maintaining face so it can be a bad government. Have you ever stopped to consider that they have simply different priorities than you, living outside their borders in what is likely a middle class life that doesn't have to worry about things like education, funding, national security, and diplomacy? The government sues a [I]lot[/I] of companies, and enforces a lot of justice every week, every month, and every year. This is not some sort of mindblowing illusion. This is the role and function of government, which keeps me from not having to worry (too much) about being shot or robbed or those other things. [QUOTE=archangel125;41207102] But shit, they attack Pakistani civilians with hellfire missiles? Who gives a shit? They're just blowing up some brown people in Asia. Nobody cares, right?[/QUOTE] If we were just bombing civilians I'd think we'd be like, bombing the cities. That seems like a much easier way to bomb civilians. Might it actually be that we have some covert permission from the Pakistani government which takes no action to stop these bombings and provides information on them for us? And that we're actually bombing people who have seriously professed a will to harm others and our governemnt and people? Oh, yes. [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/03/AR2008110302638.html]That's exactly what we're doing.[/url] Look, I don't like war. I hate armed conflict. Nobody wins. But if people are going to wage war on us, I'm not shedding any tears when we successfully vaporize them without harming a single one of our people. Now of course you will point to the civilian casualties. Yes, bombing is not ideal. It is not an instant magic thought/action-seeking bullet. But it is a better option than, say, occupying a third country this decade. We are trying to do the least damage possible, you know? Assuming the US government is a malevolent entity, it serves them no good to pointlessly explode lots of extra people. Assuming the US govt is a benevolent or at least indifferent entity, those people are friends and can be traded with later. Hence we want to not explode them. And what exactly does it matter if it's a hellfire missile or not? It seems to me that you're using that word because it has an emotional undertone.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he at some point say he had more things to reveal? Damnit Snowden, hurry up and get to safety already so you can reveal some more of that juicy information :v:

[QUOTE=archangel125;41207102] I can sum this up: [B]It is important to the US government that they LOOK like they're the good guys, champions of liberty, justice and democracy, even if they only look that way to complete idiots. For the people who aren't idiots, they need to provide other incentives - Like a good standard of living, prospects of a happy retirement, a sense of national identity. That's why they're so angry at Snowden. He woke some people up, and exposed some of the US government's secret douchebaggery on the world stage. Shit, that's why they hunted Assange. He essentially did the same thing. The US hates to look bad. And anyone who can give people a glimpse of the ugly truth must be made an example of, to deter others from trying.[/B][/QUOTE] Big whoop. You want to be disgusted the US government? We made promises to a rebel leader, landed him on the bay of pigs, and let him get slaughtered. Go down to the archives. Find a dozen, find a hundred incidents where the US government has fucked up and not publicized the fact very widely. We don't like Assange because he's leaking our diplomatic cables. Go leak Canada's diplomatic cables. See what they do. We don't like Snowden because he engaged in espionage in a government agency and then, yes, is at very real risk of giving away that information unfiltered to countries which are not [I]in any way[/I] sunshine and happiness, to idiots or not. This isn't a matter of "making an example of" people, since we could just go hang Bradley Manning for that. Have we done so? Not last I checked. This is a natural process of the rule of law. Let's assume for a moment that Snowden is an unqualified hero and has done humanity, the US people, and whatever a great service. The US government will still prosecute him. It has to. Random people working in the government do not get a freebie to decide what is constitutional/legal or not, except in blatant cases, like those prosecuted under "Command Authority" which first and foremost says you don't have to follow orders to massacre people. That sort of thing. Not a court-approved domestic surveillance operation. He might not feel good at the end of the day. That's his perogative. He might intensely hate the idea. That is his perogative. He can quit. He can take no part in it. He can campaign, lobby for data protection laws. But releasing that information to the general public hurts the government's ability to operate. Not to mention he kind of deliberately did it without going through any sort of channels, like Congress. As much as Congress sucks, they can still do some okay things. So it's really a simple matter of governance.

[QUOTE=scout1;41207079]Part of the reason we so giddily throw foreign aid around, we fucking love a stable democracy that wants to talk. Sadly, not all countries are democracies, and not everybody is friendly. End result? Yeah, sometimes coups are a necessity.[/QUOTE] Wow. Please tell me I misread your post and you didn't just say coups are necessary because we prefer to negotiate with democracies. Though it would hardly surprise me if you did. The ends justify the means eh?

[QUOTE=Simski;41207290]Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he at some point say he had more things to reveal? Damnit Snowden, hurry up and get to safety already so you can reveal some more of that juicy information :v:[/QUOTE] We know Snowden's smart. My bet's that he's withholding the information as insurance. And I also think that the US government knows what the information is, and that it'll be very damaging indeed if released. That may be why there was a delay of a couple of days before they started asking Hong Kong to hand him over. If he's especially smart, he'll have some sort of Dead Man's switch.

[QUOTE=scout1;41207321]This isn't a matter of "making an example of" people, since we could just go hang Bradley Manning for that. Have we done so? Not last I checked.[/QUOTE] Yeah instead he was tortured for two years and is facing life in prison in front of a military tribunal, and what he leaked was far less severe than what Snowden did. That's a pretty harsh example and I have no doubt Snowden would be convicted of high treason considering how hard they tried to get that pinned on Manning as well.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;41207327]Wow. Please tell me I misread your post and you didn't just say coups are necessary because we prefer to negotiate with democracies. Though it would hardly surprise me if you did. The ends justify the means eh?[/QUOTE] Ideals don't mean much to guys with guns. Sorry to tell you. [editline]27th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;41207350]Yeah instead he was tortured for two years and is facing life in prison in front of a military tribunal, and what he leaked was far less severe than what Snowden did. That's a pretty harsh example and I have no doubt Snowden would be convicted of high treason considering how hard they tried to get that pinned on Manning as well.[/QUOTE] Yes, except Manning was not supposed to be tortured and his military tribunal ruled the terms of his detention were unlawful. Also there's that whole not killing him/not pinning high treason thing on him. Despite the fact that he was a member of the military and then did that thing very analogous to treason. And, the not hanging him thing. The US govt must really blow at making examples of these people. Or, perhaps, the military tribunal is actually doing its job.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;41207327]Wow. Please tell me I misread your post and you didn't just say coups are necessary because we prefer to negotiate with democracies. Though it would hardly surprise me if you did. The ends justify the means eh?[/QUOTE] His post is misleading. The US loves countries that will willingly bow to their pressure, not just "stable democracies" (that's just a codename for self-righteousness) - [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état"]democracies have been overthrown purely because they didn't answer to us[/URL], not because they weren't a "stable democracy"

[QUOTE=scout1;41207361]Ideals don't mean much to guys with guns. Sorry to tell you.[/QUOTE] [B]Quite. And what we've been trying to tell you is that the US government has the most guys with the biggest guns.[/B] Think hard about that for a minute. Your defense of their competence of domestic government has nothing to do with the fact that they're trying to run the fucking world. You think Pakistan can really tell the US to fuck off? The US is sending them aid - Ergo, they have Pakistan by the balls as well. Trust me, any country with enough economic and military power, even if it were Canada, would act like assholes too. The US government is the world's biggest asshole because it has the world's biggest guns - And a thousand arms to hold them to the heads of its allies and its enemies. You spoke of Afghanistan - What do you think would have happened if the US denied Afghanistan's bid to sell mineral rights to China? Especially after repeatedly claiming that Afghanistan would have all its autonomy back? There'd have been massive public backlash. You remember what I said about all-important appearances? Afghanistan and Iraq were distractions. The Bush administration did a great job of buttfucking almost every American without them noticing it - They were too occupied with the War. Just because the government today makes you feel safe and happy in your home doesn't mean they're completely redeemed. They're still the world's biggest assholes. Your naivety is almost endearing. It makes me sorry to have to shatter that illusion. The world is not a nice place, and governments are all assholes in one way or another.

[QUOTE=scout1;41207361]Ideals don't mean much to guys with guns. Sorry to tell you. [editline]27th June 2013[/editline] Yes, except Manning was not supposed to be tortured and his military tribunal ruled the terms of his detention were unlawful. Also there's that whole not killing him/not pinning high treason thing on him. Despite the fact that he was a member of the military and then did that thing very analogous to treason. And, the not hanging him thing. The US govt must really blow at making examples of these people. Or, perhaps, the military tribunal is actually doing its job.[/QUOTE] And what ideals would those be? That if your government isn't conducive to our interests we're going to overthrow it and put in a more "cooperative" one to get what we want? If you're seriously a proponent of US imperialism I suppose I have nothing more to say to you because you're simply crazy. And who's been getting burned for Manning's treatment? Probably nobody. I don't see how just because they haven't killed him means he wasn't made an example of.

[QUOTE=scout1;41207361]Yes, except Manning was not supposed to be tortured and his military tribunal ruled the terms of his detention were unlawful.[/QUOTE] Aw, we didn't mean to kill nearly two hundred Pakistani children with drone strikes. That wasn't SUPPOSED to happen. We weren't supposed to torture Manning. CLEARLY we've done nothing at all wrong. Trust me, there are no accidents. There are examples and acceptable losses.

[QUOTE=archangel125;41207410][B]Quite. And what we've been trying to tell you is that the US government has the most guys with the biggest guns.[/B] [/QUOTE] If canada were the guys with the biggest guns tomorrow would they be innately evil? [QUOTE=archangel125;41207410] Think hard about that for a minute. Your defense of their competence of domestic government has nothing to do with the fact that they're trying to run the fucking world. You think Pakistan can really tell the US to fuck off? The US is sending them aid - Ergo, they have Pakistan by the balls as well. [/QUOTE] Why yes, we are trying to work with everyone in the whole wide world. Which is, why I believe, we have quite a mutually advantageous relationship with your country? Also, we are sending them mostly military aid. Part of which is the bombing. Which they provide information for. They could do other stuff to, you know, reduce the levels of bombing. They're not. [QUOTE=archangel125;41207410] Trust me, any country with enough economic and military power, even if it were Canada, would act like assholes too. The US government is the world's biggest asshole because it has the world's biggest guns - And a thousand arms to hold them to the heads of its allies and its enemies. [/QUOTE] Ah, well you can disregard the top of this post then. So all government is evil. Well, sorry about that, but I guess humanity is kind of boned for you then. [QUOTE=archangel125;41207410] You spoke of Afghanistan - What do you think would have happened if the US denied Afghanistan's bid to sell mineral rights to China? Especially after repeatedly claiming that Afghanistan would have all its autonomy back? There'd have been massive public backlash. You remember what I said about all-important appearances?[/QUOTE] Yes, yes. When it does bad things it's bad, and when it does good things it's just skating along to the next bad action. I'm sure our corporate overlords are really happy about the drained coffers though. What do they think about the government? We're supposed to be making them happy, right? [QUOTE=archangel125;41207410] Afghanistan and Iraq were distractions. The Bush administration did a great job of buttfucking almost every American without them noticing it - They were too occupied with the War. [/QUOTE] I assume this has something to do with the PATRIOT act. You can elaborate when you like. [QUOTE=archangel125;41207410] Just because the government today makes you feel safe and happy in your home doesn't mean they're completely redeemed. They're still the world's biggest assholes.[/QUOTE] Yes, well. I like being the nation with the biggest guns. It confers lots of benefits on me. I like that. Given the choice between my happiness with small guns and my happiness with the big guns to protect me, I will take the big guns. [editline]27th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=archangel125;41207464]Aw, we didn't mean to kill nearly two hundred Pakistani children with drone strikes. That wasn't SUPPOSED to happen. We weren't supposed to torture Manning. CLEARLY we've done nothing at all wrong. Trust me, there are no accidents. There are examples and acceptable losses.[/QUOTE] No, collateral damage is not supposed to happen. Do you think we enjoy blowing up Pakistani children?

Scout, I can sum up all you're saying with one sentence. This is as accurate and concise a summary of all you've said so far as I can imagine: "Well, yes, the US government kills a lot of people and does a lot of terrible things and ruins democratic countries and sucks corporate cock and illegally invades other countries and accidentally tortures detainees and runs a concentration camp in cuba but they're really a good government, they regulate a few companies at home and make me feel safe."

[QUOTE=archangel125;41207514]Scout, I can sum up all you're saying with one sentence. This is as accurate and concise a summary of all you've said so far as I can imagine: "Well, yes, the US government kills a lot of people and does a lot of terrible things and ruins democratic countries and sucks corporate cock and illegally invades other countries and accidentally tortures detainees and runs concentration camps in other countries but they're really a good government, they regulate a few companies at home and make me feel safe."[/QUOTE] Okay look I've been trying to figure out your worldview but if you're just going to keep insulting me and strawmanning in the hardest terms I got better things to do, yo. Least you could do is explain how the invasion of Afghanistan followed by giving away all that mineral wealth is helping us "suck corporate cock", even if you can't make a single other response to the points.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;41207392]His post is misleading. The US loves countries that will willingly bow to their pressure, not just "stable democracies" (that's just a codename for self-righteousness) - [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état"]democracies have been overthrown purely because they didn't answer to us[/URL], not because they weren't a "stable democracy"[/QUOTE] Would you have preferred Iran to be affiliated with the Soviets instead? If America didn't do it, the USSR would have.

[QUOTE=scout1;41207475]Yes, well. I like being the nation with the biggest guns. It confers lots of benefits on me. I like that. Given the choice between my happiness with small guns and my happiness with the big guns to protect me, I will take the big guns.[/Quote] Well it's nice of you to finally admit you're just as selfish as the country you live in. Fuck those other countries, what's important is that [I]I[/I] feel safe.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;41207637]Well it's nice of you to finally admit you're just as selfish as the country you live in. Fuck those other countries, what's important is that [I]I[/I] feel safe.[/QUOTE] Hey I'm all for supporting other countries, and not just because we benefit. But we do come first and foremost. You wouldn't join a political party if it looked out for someone else's interest before yours, would you?

[QUOTE=scout1;41207659]Hey I'm all for supporting other countries, and not just because we benefit. But we do come first and foremost. You wouldn't join a political party if it looked out for someone else's interest before yours, would you?[/QUOTE] A reasonable amount of self-interest does not include global espionage, funding coups, and overall being a bully and meddling into the affairs of other countries' business. How does that make you feel safe in any way? If anything it should make you feel less safe considering meddling in other people's affairs is what has made the US such a large target for terrorists and the like in the first place.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;41207793]A reasonable amount of self-interest does not include global espionage, funding coups, and overall being a bully and meddling into the affairs of other countries' business. How does that make you feel safe in any way? If anything it should make you feel less safe considering meddling in other people's affairs is what has made the US such a large target for terrorists and the like in the first place.[/QUOTE] Because terrorist attacks are, statistically, one of the least possible ways of dying and a far cry from the 60s and 70s where domestic terorrism was a real threat? Look I could explain to you why every government does every action, but you need to learn this for yourself, first of all, and second of all I don't have that kind of time. Governments all act in self-interest. How does it benefit their country? I mean the obvious example is why the US works at all with any dictatorship anywhere ever. They have something we want. Military buffer. Resources. Political leverage.

Up until he did this, the NSA was a relatively unknown thing. Now the whole world is informed, and I for one, am glad he did it.

This whole god damned situation makes me afraid for things to come, honestly.

[QUOTE=scout1;41204869]The constitution guarantees him a fair trial. Do you think we're already betraying the constitution? Then why do you think this is so new and revelatory?[/QUOTE] He is a deserter and depending on whether the information he could have harvested is considered a military secret he is going to be tracked the fuck down at all costs because any minute he could leak that information and that would really be a point of no return for the US or Snowden himself and would really make him a target. And who knows what could happen in Russia, what if he leaks it privately to the Russian authorities? That would be even more difficult for the US to know but still poses a very serious risk.

[QUOTE=scout1;41206540]Yeah I feel real appreciative that your only concern is hurting my government which provides the [B]highest standard of living[/B] in the western hemisphere[/QUOTE] Wow you actually, honestly believe this?

[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;41203697]Because people as a whole are irrational and formulate opinions with half-truths, incorrect, and biased information. If you were to ask for the whole country's input do you seriously expect the government to ever accomplish anything? Especially seeing as you have a significant amount of people who believe Obama is a socialist....[/QUOTE] Oh boy, you're the type to support an autocracy aren't ya? Then of course you'd love this kind of shit.

[QUOTE=scout1;41207816]Because terrorist attacks are, statistically, one of the least possible ways of dying and a far cry from the 60s and 70s where domestic terorrism was a real threat?[/QUOTE] This is the very same reason the government is using in order to create programs like PRISM. We don't need massive data surveillance and storage to catch terrorists. Having a secret FISA court that has never denied a request dictate what can and can't be monitored is rather suspicious. I'm not saying our government is spying on us and trying to become tyrannical or something but these programs and laws can be turned against American citizens at a moments notice. The information they farm doesn't only pertain to terrorism but any kind of communication between people on the internet. So that could be used to find out potential political dissidents and so on. Sure they probably won't use it but the [i]potential[/i] to use it is still there, and that's what worries me.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;41207190]The fact you're even suggesting that Snowden can go to his superiors and say "Hey, I think this PRISM project we're currently doing violates our freedoms including the 4th Amendment" displays that you know jackshit how the DoD works. [/QUOTE] If not his direct superiors, then directly to Congress via the Lloyd-La Follette Act. Or an oversight committee. Or the Office of Special Counsel. Or the Merit Systems Judicial Board. Or the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, if unfairly punished. Or the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, or the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, or the Judicial Conference Committee on Codes of Conduct, all via the Ethics in Government Act. Or almost any other agency, including the DOJ and DHS, thanks to the Whistleblower Protection Act. Please, tell me more about how there was nowhere for him to turn and how he was justified in not even trying. I sure love when people condescendingly insult my knowledge and then offer no contrary evidence whatso-fucking-ever. Great way to start the day. [QUOTE=Starpluck;41207190]Despite being a government civilian agency, the requirement to be "unquestionably loyal" bears stark resemblance to how the US military works. Attempt to expose shit internally and you will be scrutinized.[/QUOTE] No kidding there are military-like loyalty requirements, most members of the intelligence community have access to far more sensitive information than the vast majority of military servicemen. For the NSA, CIA, and FBI, any analysis position comes with Top Secret clearance as standard. But as for scrutiny, there are numerous acts in law that specifically prevent unfair treatment of whistleblowers. Can you give some examples to back up your assertions?

If this was all planned ahead of time, I think he used the information about the NSA spying on people to get the people to admire and glorify him, then proceeded to leak other information to other countries knowing that if the US government tries to kill him or anything, the people would be very angry. He used PRISM as insurance. "A people's voice is dangerous when charged with wrath." - Aeschylus

[QUOTE=demoguy08;41203771]It's funny how we always end up focusing more on the guy who leaked the information than the information itself.[/QUOTE] because there isn't that much released yet

[QUOTE=Jarate Lover;41211346]If this was all planned ahead of time, I think he used the information about the NSA spying on people to get the people to admire and glorify him, then proceeded to leak other information to other countries knowing that if the US government tries to kill him or anything, the people would be very angry. He used PRISM as insurance. "A people's voice is dangerous when charged with wrath." - Aeschylus[/QUOTE]That's what it is really starting to look like.