Politics Edward Snowden granted Russian citizenship
- Thread starter Shaboid
- Start date
Welcome to our community
Be a part of something great, join today!
noknobs
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2008
- Messages
- 4,945
- Likes
- 6,405
- Points
- 113
Someone so concerned about US surveillance programs wants to be a citizen of Russia of all places... oh the hypocrisy.
Phatguysrule
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2008
- Messages
- 22,227
- Likes
- 19,396
- Points
- 113
This wasn't a want. He was forced to remain there on his way to Ecuador, and the plane had a stop in Russia when the US pulled his passport. He was then stuck in the airport.
Now that he is trapped in Russia and cannot leave he is forced to follow official channels to make the best he can out of the rest of his life.
Last edited:
noknobs
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2008
- Messages
- 4,945
- Likes
- 6,405
- Points
- 113
Oh I see, he's the victim.
Phatguysrule
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2008
- Messages
- 22,227
- Likes
- 19,396
- Points
- 113
What else would he be? He shared that the government was violating our rights and had his life upended over it.
He tried to have the policy fixed multiple times by reporting it to the proper channels, only to be ignored. He'd seen other whistle blowers who tried to do it "the right way" have their life's absolutely destroyed and/or spend time in prison.
He knew he had to run or spend possibly the rest of his life in jail...
He was right. The government was violating our rights, and was telling us they weren't. They still are, but at least we know it now, thanks to Snowden.
noknobs
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2008
- Messages
- 4,945
- Likes
- 6,405
- Points
- 113
He disclosed documents that put U.S. personnel and facilities at risk around the world, damaged intelligence gathering efforts, exposed tools/methods used to gather intelligence, destabilized U.S. partnerships abroad and exposed U.S. intelligence operations, capabilities and priorities. The damage he did is still not fully understood. The stuff he exposed is meant (and does) to protect you from others who do the same thing but do it to hurt you. Quit being so naive about the way the world works.
I assume you're also okay with Trump stealing a bunch of top secret documents and undoubtedly already sharing some of them? Or is the line drawn at having your phone records logged? You can't expect a government to fight terrorism (foreign and domestic), foreign espionage, Russia hacking elections, tracking down those involved with Jan 6th, etc. if they don't have the capabilities that all these other entities have. And they do. The very things you're so worried about, and which I'm sure have not effected your life at all, are the very things that they use every day for good and you never hear about it.
He's a piece of shit, and I hope he's mobilized, taken as a POW and returns to the US to stand trial for the crimes he committed.
Last edited:
Phatguysrule
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2008
- Messages
- 22,227
- Likes
- 19,396
- Points
- 113
I'm not OK with the government illegally surveilling law abiding citizens in order to "protect" them.
Yes, if Trump had used those files to give to respected journalists, in an effort to put an end to illegal surveillance of US Citizens I would be 100% fine with it. But he very obviously did not.
If the US doesn't want people to have to give up that kind of information they need to stop violating our rights, and put in place better safeguards to ensure that if an employee or contractor suspects something like that is happening, proper action can be taken to end the practice.
But they haven't done that.
Snowden should be pardoned and given a medal.
And yes, I absolutely can expect the government to do their job without violating our rights. They have the tools at their disposal to track the Jan 6th perps and any other criminal without violating my rights.
noknobs
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2008
- Messages
- 4,945
- Likes
- 6,405
- Points
- 113
Okay, you're delusional, but I forgive you.
Phatguysrule
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2008
- Messages
- 22,227
- Likes
- 19,396
- Points
- 113
Yeah, that's BS. There is zero evidence that mass violating our rights to privacy has prevented any serious crime. At all.
noknobs
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2008
- Messages
- 4,945
- Likes
- 6,405
- Points
- 113
lol, like I said, delusional.
Delusional if you think every other 1st world government doesn’t do the same thing.
Delusional if you think it hasn't prevented serious crime,
Delusional if you think they actually want to “spy” on "law abiding civilians", like they have nothing better to do.
Delusional if you think it doesn’t actually “protect” you.
Delusional if you think what he disclosed didn't directly put real people at risk around the world.
Delusional if you think what he did didn't weaken the United States and benefit other Governments that aren't exactly fans of the US.
Delusional if you think the country would be better off having less intelligence than China, Russia and Iran do.
Delusional if you think what he exposed was limited to things only pertaining to "law abiding civilians" such as phone records.
Delusional if you think the intelligence agencies can effectively do their job without these surveillance programs.
I'm not going to change your mind, I know that.
Phatguysrule
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2008
- Messages
- 22,227
- Likes
- 19,396
- Points
- 113
Based on what?
How is this relevant? I don't want my or my children's rights restricted like the citizens of other countries. I want them to have the rights guaranteed to them in our constitution.
Source please?
Excellent. Then there is no reason for them to be doing so.
I don't care if it "protects" me. And certainly not from something that is far less of a risk than being killed by police. So please, bring some evidence.
Then don't violate our rights. Have a system to make sure you're not, and a system to address the problem if employees or contractors raise concerns that our constitutional rights are being violated. In fact, if you really care about keeping that data private, offer a bounty for employees and contractors to turn that kind of stuff in.
No, the US violating our rights caused that. And their failure to heed many warnings forced Snowden to do the honorable thing if he didn't want to be a part of the problem.
I don't want the US government to have as much data on US citizens as China, Russia, and Iran have on their citizens. The US is stronger than all 3 even without that information. I expect the US government to protect our data from those bad actors.
I didn't claim this. And I don't care. The US shouldn't have been doing it and that data wouldn't have gotten out. Simple as that.
I have no problem with intelligence or surveillance. Except when it violates the rights of American citizens.
To do so would require some kind of evidence, of which, none exists.
The US doesn't need to violate our rights to dominate the world. We are the most self reliant, most naturally and militarily well defended country in the world, and our currency is the worlds reserve currency. Any reason given to violate the constitutional rights of American citizens is propaganda on the scale of Nazi, Stalin, and Xi. It is absolute unpatriotic evil.
I'm sorry that you have been taken in by such fear mongering hogwash propaganda.
Road Ratt
King of my own little world
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2015
- Messages
- 5,163
- Likes
- 4,034
- Points
- 113
After Nearly a Decade in Exile, Snowden Granted Russian Citizenship
While the whistleblower said "a little stability" would benefit his family, one digital rights advocate noted that "if the Biden administration dropped the charges against Snowden, Putin wouldn't be able to use him for a PR stunt."
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2...ade-exile-snowden-granted-russian-citizenship
It looks like Snowden won't be forced to participate.
While the whistleblower said "a little stability" would benefit his family, one digital rights advocate noted that "if the Biden administration dropped the charges against Snowden, Putin wouldn't be able to use him for a PR stunt."
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2...ade-exile-snowden-granted-russian-citizenship
It looks like Snowden won't be forced to participate.
Shaboid
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2014
- Messages
- 10,407
- Likes
- 13,885
- Points
- 113
Not trying to butt into the discussion that is going on (hesitant to call it an argument, I think it's a good one) but I see both sides of.
What Snowden did put many American service members and contractors at risk.
What the intelligence agencies were doing was definitely illegal. What they were doing was also their job, which is to protect against all enemies foreign and domestic. That shouldn't give them a pass. I go back and forth on that. We all don't follow the law in one way or another.
I don't think what what he did was honorable, but nor was violating his morals, so I go back and forth on that too.
I don't want to live in a military state but I also don't want to live in a state that is constantly at war because the enemies are infiltrating us and attacking us from within.
It's an important ethical, constitutional, and moral discussion.
What would you do if you were in his shoes? I'll be totally blunt with my answer. Who's paying me the most?
What Snowden did put many American service members and contractors at risk.
What the intelligence agencies were doing was definitely illegal. What they were doing was also their job, which is to protect against all enemies foreign and domestic. That shouldn't give them a pass. I go back and forth on that. We all don't follow the law in one way or another.
I don't think what what he did was honorable, but nor was violating his morals, so I go back and forth on that too.
I don't want to live in a military state but I also don't want to live in a state that is constantly at war because the enemies are infiltrating us and attacking us from within.
It's an important ethical, constitutional, and moral discussion.
What would you do if you were in his shoes? I'll be totally blunt with my answer. Who's paying me the most?
noknobs
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2008
- Messages
- 4,945
- Likes
- 6,405
- Points
- 113
lol. I already told you I know I'm not going to change your mind, there was no need to post all of that and further display your naivety and lack of knowledge while espousing pie-in-the-sky solutions to the intelligence community that have no link to reality or possibility. I wish we lived in your utopia, I really do. I suggest you live off the grid if you're this paranoid about your privacy, you shouldn't even be on here. Everything you do is being tracked in some form or fashion, government aside.
I'm referring to the information they have on US citizens. Also, taking a page out of your playbook, please source the sentence in bold (in PM).
lol, you're the one making the outlandish claim that there's zero evidence that surveillance and intelligence gathering on US citizens has ever prevented serious crime. You first (in PM).
Cheers
(if you want to continue this then PM me, we've hijacked the thread)
Phatguysrule
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2008
- Messages
- 22,227
- Likes
- 19,396
- Points
- 113
If the claim is so outlandish please feel free to prove me wrong.
Please name another country with friendly neighbors on 2 borders, with oceans the size of the Pacific and Atlantic on the other 2 borders, as many natural resources as we have, and as few imports as we have? Now, we also have a more capable military than the next dozen nations combined, and we're the world's reserve currency.
I'm sorry, but you have yet to provide even one legitimate reason we should allow our government to violate the constitution, or that we should punish people for using the only means available to let the public know that our government is violating our constitution.
Making vague claims that they are protecting us is just baloney.
And I actually think this is relevant to the Russia Ukraine thread. As allowing this kind of government overstep is exactly how you wind up where Russia is right now.
Last edited:
noknobs
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2008
- Messages
- 4,945
- Likes
- 6,405
- Points
- 113
Doesn't work that way. You claimed the world was flat, you prove it.
It's your right to be this naive and ignorant, but I really find it fascinating, so I'll reply. You really don't think that gathering intelligence helps the intelligence community do their job?
For example, I said, “Delusional if you think they actually want to “spy” on "law abiding civilians", like they have nothing better to do.”, and your response was, “Excellent. Then there is no reason for them to be doing so.”
How do you think they find the people who aren’t law-abiding? Knock on their door and ask? The amount of data is astronomical, it’s not something they sift through by hand until they have good reason to. The vast majority of the data will never be viewed at all, let alone actioned on. Intelligence gathering of this kind doesn't work if it's only on a specific segment of society. So it's all or nothing, meaning you must want nothing.
If there's a tech-savvy uni-bomber out there not stupid enough to pen a manifesto, how do you propose we find him? If there's a Russian spy, same question? Or a serial killer whose DNA isn't in the system, and who kills out of site from the 7-11 surveillance camera? Law enforcement relies on phone records, GPS data, social media, internet activity, buying history, and much more, all the time to catch people. And if regular law enforcement has to rely on it so much, of course agencies like Homeland, the NSA and the FBI do as well, when the stakes can be much greater. So to say there's no evidence is really bizarre to me.
And it's also bizarre that you don't want law enforcement and government agencies to evolve at the same pace as "the bad guys".
I'm not saying I prefer it, just that I acknowledge it's 2022 and we live in a world where this is required. I'm referring to the actual programs and practices that are necessary to combat/prevent/find those with comparable ability who want to commit crime or terrorism.
Oh I'm glad you brought this up. Surveillance, intelligence, spy satellites, you name it - can you acknowledge that maybe those factor into our military's strength? That maybe the military is in touch with our intelligence community every so often? There's war in 2022 with groups that don't operate within one country. Who don't fight with guns. And you're not going to find or defeat them with guns.
And again, since this started with Snowden, it's been largely reported that much of what he stole and released had nothing to do with his claim of merely wanting to expose domestic surveillance programs. For example the New York Times had the article about ISIS learning about how the US gathered information on militants and changed their own tactics because of it.
So the very thing you're bragging about (the military) is one of the things he substantially damaged, yet you want him to have a medal. I know you mean well but a little pragmatism would go a long way.
Phatguysrule
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2008
- Messages
- 22,227
- Likes
- 19,396
- Points
- 113
Lol, no. You claimed allowing the government to violate our constitutional rights to privacy was acceptable because it makes us safer. I said there was no evidence to support that claim.
You have yet to dispute that by providing any evidence, at all. The burden on proof is on you, after your insane claim that we should be allowing the government to violate our constitutional rights to privacy.
It's called police work. It's what they used to do before there was an internet. Thanks to the Fourth Amendment (protects the right of privacy against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.) and Fifth Amendment (provides for the right against self-incrimination, which justifies the protection of private information.).
Yes. If they are too stupid and lazy to do real police work by following leads then yes. They can do nothing and be fired. Then we can train and hire some real police.
Again, I've asked for evidence that allowing the government to violate our constitutional rights results in us being safer. Any evidence. You've provided none. Resorting to childish name calling instead. Again, if it's so obvious please provide some evidence to back up your claims.
This is insane. Should I allow police to rape my wife and daughters since bad guys are capable of doing that as well?
Again, please provide evidence of a terrorist act or high stakes crime like you're describing above which was only possible to solve by using mass collection of data which violate our 4th and 5th Amendment rights to privacy. Please, any evidence? Then we can go about checking the impact on crime rates and how rare of a situation that is.
You have again claimed it's required without any evidence to support this claim.
I have never said surveillance is bad. Only surveillance that violates our constitutional rights. If you have reason to believe somebody is up to no good, by all means, surveil them. That's not what is being discussed here, it's not what Snowden reported to the proper channels to try and stop, and so I'm not sure why you're pretending it is.
Can you please link to the article you're referencing?
And I'm not bragging about our military, I'm stating facts.
You're making paragraphs upon paragraphs in this thread you didn't want to hijack because you simply refuse to supply any evidence to back up your claim that allowing our fourth and fifth amendment rights to be violated makes us substantially safer. Seriously, there is no need to keep playing games and going back and forth if that's what you really care about. Just back up your claims with some evidence.
Last edited:
Phatguysrule
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2008
- Messages
- 22,227
- Likes
- 19,396
- Points
- 113
You can't prove anything you claimed so you're done. That's fine, just admit it.
It's not a big deal. We didn't need all of the insults along the way.
Fairly-Hard
Former Member Gone New!
- Joined
- May 2, 2021
- Messages
- 9,062
- Likes
- 7,413
- Points
- 113
This feeling i totally understand.
Phatguysrule
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2008
- Messages
- 22,227
- Likes
- 19,396
- Points
- 113
Yes, having evidence to back up your claims makes your point of view far more compelling.
I don't buy into dogma of any kind. Especially when that includes moving power and control away from the population as a whole into the hands of a ruling class.
Bring the evidence or you're not going to have a good time.
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2008
- Messages
- 34,659
- Likes
- 25,944
- Points
- 113
Maybe Snowden had the purest of intentions, but his actions were way out of proportion to the harm he was trying to address, and running away rather than facing the consequences of his actions removed any moral high ground he might have had.
barfo
barfo
Phatguysrule
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2008
- Messages
- 22,227
- Likes
- 19,396
- Points
- 113
We wouldn't know our rights were being violated by our government if he didn't do what he did. There was no way for a single individual to parse that much information for evidence, and the government wouldn't allow a review or even an audit when he tried the proper channels.
He had no choice, other than being part of the problem.
Last edited:
Fairly-Hard
Former Member Gone New!
- Joined
- May 2, 2021
- Messages
- 9,062
- Likes
- 7,413
- Points
- 113
What you are calling “Dogma” everyone else considers common sense.
Sorry that ship sinks in your muddy water.
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2008
- Messages
- 34,659
- Likes
- 25,944
- Points
- 113
He had plenty of choices. He chose the most cowardly, most harmful way to expose the program.
barfo
Phatguysrule
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2008
- Messages
- 22,227
- Likes
- 19,396
- Points
- 113
The water which is only muddy because it requires evidence. Gotcha.
Have you considered the new MAGA overlord? He hates facts and evidence as well...
Phatguysrule
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2008
- Messages
- 22,227
- Likes
- 19,396
- Points
- 113
What other choice was there? Aside from not running and spending his life in jail. I admit it was a choice he had, but I also don't blame him for running.
Fairly-Hard
Former Member Gone New!
- Joined
- May 2, 2021
- Messages
- 9,062
- Likes
- 7,413
- Points
- 113
I thought you wanted facts? Where are these facts that say he would have spent his life in jail? Would he have been incarcerated? Yes most likely. Would he have been allowed his day in court? I guess you are suggesting he would not have been?
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2008
- Messages
- 34,659
- Likes
- 25,944
- Points
- 113
Maybe not give everything he stole to the Chinese and Russians?
Just spitballing here.
And I do blame him for running. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. I think I heard that somewhere.
barfo
Fairly-Hard
Former Member Gone New!
- Joined
- May 2, 2021
- Messages
- 9,062
- Likes
- 7,413
- Points
- 113
Well there is that also.
Similar threads
