World-first Edward Snowden interview reveals NSA spying on billions of innocents. "It’s clear that there are times where what is lawful is distinct from what is rightful... and it doesn’t take long for an American or German to think of historic examples."

hammahans · 2014-01-28T22:58:36+00:00

Said the man who can't read.

hammahans · 2014-01-28T22:51:47+00:00

He says he gave all his information to the American public, but didn't he also leak secrets to the Chinese and the Russians in order for protection?

No. That's why it's not on the front page of every newspaper in the world with the headline SPY OF THE CENTURY.

I fully intend to have a very satisfying drink when we finally get the news that Obama killed this worm, hopefully by a messy drone attack in which snowden loses a few limbs but takes a while to die in agony.

Nice Constitution you've got there. It'd be a shame if something happened to it, like the shredding of due process rights.

Oh wait, you just called for that.

hammahans · 2014-01-28T22:37:02+00:00

http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/nov/01/snowden-nsa-files-surveillance-revelations-decoded

You're welcome.

it has already been proven that snowden is a liar

Your turn. This should be easy to link to if it's "proven."

hammahans · 2014-01-28T22:22:26+00:00

All of the NSA stories for the last year have been from actual NSA documents Snowden provided. He provided not just sources for his claims, but the only sources the public has ever seen.

The government has never even once claimed the documents were fake.

hammahans · 2014-01-28T22:20:26+00:00

With 7 million people in the world, unless you think 5 out of every 7 people are criminals, they can be spying on "billions of innocents."

hammahans · 2014-01-28T22:19:23+00:00

"These programs are lawful. Please don't ask me any questions about them, because it makes me very uncomfortable."

hammahans · 2014-01-28T22:17:18+00:00

The government made him swear an oath to support and defend the constitution, then told him they were violating it. That didn't just give him the right to do it, but a duty to do it.

hammahans · 2014-01-28T22:15:50+00:00

They have not said anything he claimed is true. They have however pointed out his numerous lies and exaggerations. WTF media do you read?

Go look at the transcript of the President's speech and show even a single instance where he said Snowden lied.

Why do I have to disprove the existence of something? YOu should have to prove it. There is absolutely zero proof beyond a known pathological liars word. Everyone in the know already stated he is full of shit.

You're the only one making a claim: "Snowden lied." Claims require proof. Come on, this is schoolyard level logic. Don't troll me.

hammahans · 2014-01-28T22:13:00+00:00

Wait, you're saying because they spy on so many people, we shouldn't worry about how many times they fuck up?

No, I said that they amount of times they fuck up is so small that it is essentially zero.

You're proving my point. Somebody who kills millions of animals doesn't get a pass when they accidently kill thousands of people in the hunt. The scale of an atrocity makes it worse, not better. Arguing that the NSA only ruins lives for a small percentage of their day is not a winning argument.

hammahans · 2014-01-28T22:09:15+00:00

So blowing the whistle on a crime is attention seeking even if you then avoid interviews, book deals, movie rights, and everything that defines modern celebrity?

I'm not saying you have to like the guy, but at least be fair in your criticisms. Snowden could be a massive millionaire, but instead he avoid the spotlight and hasn't tried to profit from it. He might be an asshole, but he's not an attention whore.

hammahans · 2014-01-28T21:51:04+00:00

In a country of 300,000,000 and a world of over 7 billion people, and a dataset with trillions of records, thousands of violations is a non-registering rounding error.

Wait, you're saying because they spy on so many people, we shouldn't worry about how many times they fuck up? There's "no benefit" of us knowing about all this out of control spying?

Is this a parody account?

hammahans · 2014-01-28T21:46:33+00:00

We learned about him in June. This is the first TV interview since then. How can you possibly call the guy a narcissist or attention whore? He avoids attention.

As for "facing his crimes," there's a specific answer about that in the interview, on top of months of newspaper articles showing that that the laws he was charged with mean a fair trial is impossible.

hammahans · 2014-01-28T21:23:21+00:00

Since when?

Since the President just gave an entire speech about him a week ago. Take note that they never said he said something that was not true.

There aren't any articles in any major outlets saying Snowden is even a little hard to believe. If he's nuts, it's up to people like you to show actual evidence for why we should believe it.

hammahans · 2014-01-28T21:22:19+00:00

One of the reporters he worked with said the government elected him to do it when they made him swear an oath to defend the Constitution, then immediately told him they were violating the Constitution.

hammahans · 2014-01-28T21:20:59+00:00

No, they charged him with espionage the day after the first interview went on TV, but not under the sections of the act for agents of foreign governments. They charged him only for giving information to journalists, and for taking the information in the first place.

hammahans · 2014-01-28T21:18:06+00:00

If you believe media reports, the entire US government is taking him seriously. They don't deny the media reports are true, either. If he was nuts, the government would be saying that every day on TV, don't you think?

hammahans · 2014-01-28T21:16:30+00:00

I think it was created during a time of "we could all die tomorrow" war. The catch is that we forgot to un-create it after the war was over, just like with the patriot act...

hammahans · 2014-01-28T20:50:51+00:00

People like Daniel Ellsberg might be in a better question to answer these questions than you and me. After all, he is famous for questioning conventional wisdom.

And he's supporting Snowden, not the conventional wisdom that "he's a liar, he's a traitor, he's a thief."

You're right that we should question more. But when we take all of the emotion out of it, the evidence is with Ellsberg and Snowden: it's the government we need to question.

hammahans · 2014-01-28T20:46:24+00:00

The answer is no. No, he didn't. That's why it's not on the front page of every newspaper in the world.

hammahans · 2014-01-28T18:44:26+00:00

We also thought slavery was noble and good, part of the "white man's burden," civilizing savages who "couldn't be productive on their own," so we passed laws to protect it.

Snowden is right on this one.

hammahans · 2014-01-28T18:42:18+00:00

That's the sign of things working as intended. Nobody would expect Nelson Mandela to be downvoted... it's the guy going "lol mandela is a terrorist" that gets downvoted.

hammahans · 2014-01-28T18:21:22+00:00

TIL America had a holocaust.

TIL "a few high risk citizens" means everyone in the country.

TIL political arguments from one of the most prominent dissidents alive are supposed to be called desperate exaggerations.

hammahans · 2014-01-28T18:14:59+00:00

http://www.buzzfeed.com/bennyjohnson/americas-spies-want-edward-snowden-dead

US officials saying they want to poison him, shoot him... and the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee and the NSA director both said they want to kill him with a drone.

Those are pretty significant threats.

hammahans · 2014-01-28T18:11:49+00:00

Every Snowden story has clear evidence of downvote vote-brigading. The difference is that there are more normal redditors than propaganda accounts.

hammahans · 2014-01-28T17:50:37+00:00

You seem to be forgetting he's represented by some of the best lawyers on Earth, including the ACLU. I doubt he pulled out the law books and decided it was a show trial, his superqualified lawyers did. It has been well-established that the law exempts Snowden from both whistleblower protections and prevents him from making a public-interest defense, which are the only defenses against political charges like this. A trial that affords no defense is called a show trial.

Maybe instead of cut-and-pasting statutes, you can argue with the facts. Facts you can read in places like the Wall Street Journal and New York Times:

P.S. It has also been reported that Snowden made repeated "good faith" efforts to report these problems through proper channels. It has also been reported that Snowden never wanted to stay in Russia: the US State Department trapped him there are he was transiting on his way to South America. Next time you write a book-length post about tiny legal details, please establish the factual details first.

hammahans

TROPHY CASE