|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144461
Location: The Gold Coast
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ChefLinda wrote: | | ^^^Helping big business and sticking it to the average taxpayer then pretending you aren't, is pretty much the definition of most GOP politicians. Hey, look over here while I pick your pocket! And while we're at it let's blame our economic problems on unionized working middle-income people including those bastard teachers earning $35,000 year! |
Remove "GOP" from your commment and I would agree. No matter where they fall in the political spectrum, their desire is to line their own pockets and that of their friends. How else can a guy go into the Presidency rich and come out dirty, filthy, stinking rich. The only ones that didn't were the Bushs, because they were already dirty, filthy, stinking rich.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144461
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 2:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | Right. This one just makes me shake my head. Walker wants to use public money to help a couple hedge fund guys get a new arena for the team they bought, so that they can make money and sell the team for a profit. So he's going to sell it to the public by acting like the NBA players are paying for it.
I'll be interested to see whether Walker gets any blow back for this. |
Saving some jobs isn't something he should worry about?
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144461
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 2:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tlim wrote: | So if I'm an employer of a large corporation, according to Walker, you can "pay your way" by taking the income taxes of the employees to fund what you need.
So for a place like Googleplex, all of it could be paid for by the state by applying the $15k per employee for state taxes per year. So applying that logic to companies in general, all buildings should be essentially free for all businesses?
The logic of the GOP and their biases sicken me. Do this stuff for the top 0.1 % and claim that they pay their way. For everyone else, maintain low tones. |
If the Googleplex were open to offer other public events then that might be a valid comparison. It isn't, so it isn't.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Christopher C
Star Player
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 6292
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 2:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | But where is the "good" in exposing our intelligence activities against foreign countries? |
| Quote: | But contrary to what some want to suggest, the privacy rights of Americans aren't the only ones that matter. That the US government - in complete secrecy - is constructing a ubiquitous spying apparatus aimed not only at its own citizens, but all of the world's citizens, has profound consequences. It erodes, if not eliminates, the ability to use the internet with any remnant of privacy or personal security. It vests the US government with boundless power over those to whom it has no accountability. It permits allies of the US - including aggressively oppressive ones - to benefit from indiscriminate spying on their citizens' communications. It radically alters the balance of power between the US and ordinary citizens of the world. And it sends an unmistakable signal to the world that while the US very minimally values the privacy rights of Americans, it assigns zero value to the privacy of everyone else on the planet.
This development - the construction of a worldwide, ubiquitous electronic surveillance apparatus - is self-evidently newsworthy, extreme, and dangerous. It deserves transparency. People around the world have no idea that all of their telephonic and internet communications are being collected, stored and analyzed by a distant government. But that's exactly what is happening, in secrecy and with virtually no accountability. And it is inexorably growing, all in the dark. At the very least, it merits public understanding and debate. That is now possible thanks solely to these disclosures. |
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/07/nsa-brazilians-globo-spying |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12628
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| venturalakersfan wrote: | | ChefLinda wrote: | | ^^^Helping big business and sticking it to the average taxpayer then pretending you aren't, is pretty much the definition of most GOP politicians. Hey, look over here while I pick your pocket! And while we're at it let's blame our economic problems on unionized working middle-income people including those bastard teachers earning $35,000 year! |
Remove "GOP" from your commment and I would agree. No matter where they fall in the political spectrum, their desire is to line their own pockets and that of their friends. How else can a guy go into the Presidency rich and come out dirty, filthy, stinking rich. The only ones that didn't were the Bushs, because they were already dirty, filthy, stinking rich. |
Except there is really only one party (and John McCain) with a large number of politicians, but nearly all of its base, that wants to get money out of politics as best we can--though to be fair, many in the Tea Party seem to resent the power of money. And by the way, not one of the Justices of the SCOTUS who voted for Citizen United was appointed by that party.
And while we're at it (yes, I'm quite the dreamer) when we get a sizable portion of the money out of politics, we lock the revolving door as well.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ribeye wrote: | Was it Snowden or was it Assange (whom I do see differently than Snowden) who released the State Department emails? I seem to remember Assange saying something to the effect of, oh well.
I would also have a problem if Snowden turned the information over to Russia, even if they are (or were) not considered an enemy of the US, but I don't know if that is known one way or the other. |
It was Assange. He got his stuff from Manning, not Snowden.
We'll never know for sure what Snowden gave to who. We do know that Snowden released a lot of classified information about our foreign intelligence activities into the public domain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheJellosJigglin' wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | But where is the "good" in exposing our intelligence activities against foreign countries? |
| Quote: | But contrary to what some want to suggest, the privacy rights of Americans aren't the only ones that matter. That the US government - in complete secrecy - is constructing a ubiquitous spying apparatus aimed not only at its own citizens, but all of the world's citizens, has profound consequences. It erodes, if not eliminates, the ability to use the internet with any remnant of privacy or personal security. It vests the US government with boundless power over those to whom it has no accountability. It permits allies of the US - including aggressively oppressive ones - to benefit from indiscriminate spying on their citizens' communications. It radically alters the balance of power between the US and ordinary citizens of the world. And it sends an unmistakable signal to the world that while the US very minimally values the privacy rights of Americans, it assigns zero value to the privacy of everyone else on the planet.
This development - the construction of a worldwide, ubiquitous electronic surveillance apparatus - is self-evidently newsworthy, extreme, and dangerous. It deserves transparency. People around the world have no idea that all of their telephonic and internet communications are being collected, stored and analyzed by a distant government. But that's exactly what is happening, in secrecy and with virtually no accountability. And it is inexorably growing, all in the dark. At the very least, it merits public understanding and debate. That is now possible thanks solely to these disclosures. |
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/07/nsa-brazilians-globo-spying |
What a shock that Greenwald doesn't have a problem with it. Sure, our intelligence activities shouldn't be secret. Thanks, Glenn. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| venturalakersfan wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | Right. This one just makes me shake my head. Walker wants to use public money to help a couple hedge fund guys get a new arena for the team they bought, so that they can make money and sell the team for a profit. So he's going to sell it to the public by acting like the NBA players are paying for it.
I'll be interested to see whether Walker gets any blow back for this. |
Saving some jobs isn't something he should worry about? |
What makes you think that building an arena saves jobs? Sports teams have a negligible effect on a city's economy, except that they shift activity from one venue (movie theaters, bars, etc.) to another (spectator sports). They don't create wealth unless they bring in money from outside the city. From the perspective of the state, as opposed to the city, this effect is tiny. If someone drives from Madison to Milwaukee to watch a Bucks game, the state economy gains nothing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wilt
LG Contributor
Joined: 29 Dec 2002
Posts: 13725
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | Was it Snowden or was it Assange (whom I do see differently than Snowden) who released the State Department emails? I seem to remember Assange saying something to the effect of, oh well.
I would also have a problem if Snowden turned the information over to Russia, even if they are (or were) not considered an enemy of the US, but I don't know if that is known one way or the other. |
It was Assange. He got his stuff from Manning, not Snowden.
We'll never know for sure what Snowden gave to who. We do know that Snowden released a lot of classified information about our foreign intelligence activities into the public domain. |
But if an NSA contractor like Snowden had access to all of this information, don't you think foreign intelligence services and the army of foreign spies, including ones from Russia, working in the US already know this stuff anyway? ... I fail to see how Snowden could provide anything of significance to Putin that he doesn't already know.
_________________
¡Hala Madrid! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Christopher C
Star Player
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 6292
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | TheJellosJigglin' wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | But where is the "good" in exposing our intelligence activities against foreign countries? |
| Quote: | But contrary to what some want to suggest, the privacy rights of Americans aren't the only ones that matter. That the US government - in complete secrecy - is constructing a ubiquitous spying apparatus aimed not only at its own citizens, but all of the world's citizens, has profound consequences. It erodes, if not eliminates, the ability to use the internet with any remnant of privacy or personal security. It vests the US government with boundless power over those to whom it has no accountability. It permits allies of the US - including aggressively oppressive ones - to benefit from indiscriminate spying on their citizens' communications. It radically alters the balance of power between the US and ordinary citizens of the world. And it sends an unmistakable signal to the world that while the US very minimally values the privacy rights of Americans, it assigns zero value to the privacy of everyone else on the planet.
This development - the construction of a worldwide, ubiquitous electronic surveillance apparatus - is self-evidently newsworthy, extreme, and dangerous. It deserves transparency. People around the world have no idea that all of their telephonic and internet communications are being collected, stored and analyzed by a distant government. But that's exactly what is happening, in secrecy and with virtually no accountability. And it is inexorably growing, all in the dark. At the very least, it merits public understanding and debate. That is now possible thanks solely to these disclosures. |
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/07/nsa-brazilians-globo-spying |
What a shock that Greenwald doesn't have a problem with it. Sure, our intelligence activities shouldn't be secret. Thanks, Glenn. |
How about addressing his points, or would that interfere with your jingoism? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90305
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have to admit i have a major conflict with the Snowden issue, perhaps because it highlights the dichotomy between a free society and classified information.
On the one hand, it is entirely impossible to effectively run a government, and especially the intelligence apparatus necessary to do so, without having information that must be kept inviolate. The CIA can't very well do its job if it has to publicly list its assets and targets and methods. And I get the fact that you can't keep such secrets and simultaneously allow individuals to make their own ad hoc decisions about what should and should not be kept secret.
On the other hand, if classified information is truly so inviolate that the agencies in charge of it can break the law and pretty much do whatever they want, secure behind the firewall that whomever blows the whistle is putting themselves in personal and legal jeopardy of the gravest sort, what is to prevent them from essentially doing just that, whatever they want? At what point do their elected controllers no longer have any check over them?
Snowden broke laws that are very necessary to preserving legit classified information. But he also revealed that those very rules were being used t hide amazingly broad and deep violations of the law themselves. How do you square that circle?
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheJellosJigglin' wrote: | | How about addressing his points, or would that interfere with your jingoism? |
First of all, let's drop the personal stuff. You and I profoundly disagree on this subject, but I'm not going to engage you if you persist in taking personal shots at me. Come on, man. We're better than that.
With respect to Greenwald, I absolutely disagree with the idea that Snowden's actions are justifiable because international espionage should be subject to some sort of accountability. We don't live in some sort of utopian world where countries operate under some sort of code of ethics. The Russians, Israelis, and Chinese have all been busted for spying in the US in the past few years. Our government has a duty to protect our interests in the real, non-utopian world. Guys like Greenwald who try to justify this stuff to advance their careers are not worthy of respect in my view.
Domestic spying is a different ballgame. When it comes to domestic spying against US citizens, I have sympathy for the views expressed by 24 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Christopher C
Star Player
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 6292
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tlim
Star Player
Joined: 26 Jun 2002
Posts: 6649
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I suspect it had to do with Putin's hit on an opposition leader... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Christopher C
Star Player
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 6292
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tlim wrote: |
I suspect it had to do with Putin's hit on an opposition leader... |
Actually, Snowden has wanted to come home ever since he revealed himself as the whistleblower behind the NSA leaks, and his lawyers have been negotiating with the DOJ for several months. The reason he won't come home is because he won't receive a fair trial.
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/04/snowden-wants-come-home-stories-case-study-media-deceit/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tlim
Star Player
Joined: 26 Jun 2002
Posts: 6649
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| venturalakersfan wrote: | | tlim wrote: | So if I'm an employer of a large corporation, according to Walker, you can "pay your way" by taking the income taxes of the employees to fund what you need.
So for a place like Googleplex, all of it could be paid for by the state by applying the $15k per employee for state taxes per year. So applying that logic to companies in general, all buildings should be essentially free for all businesses?
The logic of the GOP and their biases sicken me. Do this stuff for the top 0.1 % and claim that they pay their way. For everyone else, maintain low tones. |
If the Googleplex were open to offer other public events then that might be a valid comparison. It isn't, so it isn't. |
OK. You still have to purchase tickets to the place so is it really a "public event"? So let's go with your assumption that it has to be a public event that people have to pay for to get in.
If that is the case, then why aren't we subsidizing private convention centers? Or private hotels, where they can hold conventions? It's still "public" and you purchase tickets to these events.
Where is your slippery slope and where do you stop? Finally, what prevents Google from allowing their hangar to be used as a public event place, and should that place be funded from a tax payer perspective? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheJellosJigglin' wrote: | | I don't think the idea of probable cause is utopic. I also think innocent people in countries other than the United States deserve to have privacy. The NSA wants to collect literally every form of human communication by every human on the planet. That seems pretty dystopic to me. |
You don't think that the idea of probable cause is utopian in the context of international espionage? Okay. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
focus
Star Player
Joined: 23 May 2012
Posts: 2526
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wilt wrote: | | focus wrote: | | Wilt wrote: | So David Petraeus will plead guilty for disclosing classified information to his mistress. Amazingly, it's just a misdemeanor. Two years probation and a fine. 
Btw, remember that MoveOn.Org ad that called him "General Betray Us" a few years ago? They received so much criticism for that. They turned out to be correct.  |
Wish that was at all funny. Disclose classified info to mistress if you're a general and it's a misdemeanor? Good example for non-generals. |
My laughter came mostly from disgust, as opposed to not realizing the seriousness of this. |
I got that, just meant to emphasize the issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the association
Star Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wilt wrote: | So David Petraeus will plead guilty for disclosing classified information to his mistress. Amazingly, it's just a misdemeanor. Two years probation and a fine.
Btw, remember that MoveOn.Org ad that called him "General Betray Us" a few years ago? They received so much criticism for that. They turned out to be correct. |
This disposition would be laughable if it wasn't so heinously despicable at the very same time. Too bad Aaron Swartz wasn't fortunate enough to benefit from this exclusive brand of prosecutorial discretion ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hoop_Knowledge
Starting Rotation
Joined: 12 Jul 2002
Posts: 512
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheJellosJigglin' wrote: | | tlim wrote: |
I suspect it had to do with Putin's hit on an opposition leader... |
Actually, Snowden has wanted to come home ever since he revealed himself as the whistleblower behind the NSA leaks, and his lawyers have been negotiating with the DOJ for several months. The reason he won't come home is because he won't receive a fair trial.
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/04/snowden-wants-come-home-stories-case-study-media-deceit/ |
Snowden is full of it and he knows it. Snowden simply wants immunity from prosecution in exchange for possibly never revealing any of the unreleased classified information he still has in his possession. He knows that, since he claims to be a defender of the Constitution, that this country is built on laws. He broke them, period. People, this needs to be put to rest; here is a snippet of the document HE SIGNED prior to receiving access to classified U.S. Government information:
"2. I hereby acknowledge that I have received a security indoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified information, including the procedures to be followed in ascertaining whether other persons to whom I contemplate disclosing this information have been approved for access to it, and that I understand these procedures.
3. I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation. I hereby agree that I will never divulge classified information to anyone unless: (a) I have officially verified that the recipient has been properly authorized by the United States Government to receive it; or (b) I have been given prior written notice of authorization from the United States Government Department or Agency (hereinafter Department or Agency) responsible for the classification of information or last granting me a security clearance that such disclosure is permitted. I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it, except to a person as provided in (a) or (b), above. I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.
4. I have been advised that any breach of this Agreement may result in the termination of any security clearances I hold; removal from any position of special confidence and trust requiring such clearances; or termination of my employment or other relationships with the Departments or Agencies that granted my security clearance or clearances. In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the provisions of sections 641, 793, 794, 798, *952 and 1924, title 18, United States Code; *the provisions of section 783(b}, title 50, United States Code; and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. I recognize that nothing in this Agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation."
Please see the bold print from the U.S. Government Classified Information Non-disclosure Agreement (SF-312) above. Anyone who has ever worked for the U.S. government as a civilian or contractor knows this form and knows that one cannot legally receive access to U.S. Government classified information without signing this form (with a witness signature as well). This is a contract that he willingly agreed to, and willingly broke. The consequences for not adhering to the rules and stipulations outlined within the document are clear as crystal.
Snowden broke laws; regardless of the fact that he believed some of the programs were illegal (in his view). Under our laws, a vigilante can still be prosecuted if he/she breaks laws while killing a criminal in an effort to right what they believe to be a wrong. In this case, he is a vigilante since he possessed no legal right or authority to release the information he stole (while using fraudulent credentials to access the compartmented information). This is not a case of self-defense for him, and the government can EASILY show the quantitative damage that has occurred to the United States because of his actions.
Furthermore, should we just toss out a legally binding and enforceable contract (that he agreed to) because we feel he should be given some leniency for exposing the fact that our government, since 9/11, has been electronically paying closer attention to its citizens? Ignoring the fact that he just severely damaged our Intelligence gathering capabilities and potentially weakened our National Security?
What was his point in not only exposing domestic surveillance programs, but basically blowing the lid on some of our foreign intel/surveillance capabilities & techniques as well?
Was he (and Greenwald) trying to tie the U.S.'s hands behind our backs while EVERY OTHER COUNTRY ON THE PLANET (including our allies) continues to spy and steal information from us? Spying between countries, nation-states, etc have been going on for centuries. If he is such a patriot, what was the point of damaging our Foreign Intelligence gathering capabilities while enhancing everyone else's (including our enemies)?
Snowden needs to, and will, serve jail time (if he ever comes back) for stealing classified U.S. information and running to hide in countries who we are not allies with... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^^^^
While I agree with your bottom line, you can take that argument too far. We wouldn't want to say that the government can contractually prevent someone from being a legitimate whistleblower. I don't think you're saying that, and I agree with you that Snowden went well beyond just being a whistleblower. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hoop_Knowledge
Starting Rotation
Joined: 12 Jul 2002
Posts: 512
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | ^^^^
While I agree with your bottom line, you can take that argument too far. We wouldn't want to say that the government can contractually prevent someone from being a legitimate whistleblower. I don't think you're saying that, and I agree with you that Snowden went well beyond just being a whistleblower. |
No, I am definitely not saying the government can or should prevent someone from being a whistleblower. In this instance, this is not the case. The government has an established, yet arguably limited, whistleblower program for personnel to report any and all fraud, waste, corruption, discrimination, etc. This program was in effect long before Snowden. The program has been improved post-Snowden, but to be truthful with the situation, Snowden did way more than just "whistle-blow" or expose some programs he thought may be illegal. Just because he had a clearance, doesn't mean he had access to (or authority over) the information he released. A lot of the information he stole he was NOT granted access to (meaning he did not have a need-to-know). He maliciously used other administrators credentials to access compartmented information, and bypassed the now insignificant audit controls that were in place (that have now been improved).
To put this in perspective, Snowden:
a) Used his clearance and credentials to access and illegally remove/download classified information (This is criminal)
b) Fraudulently used other officials credentials to access and illegally remove/download classified information that he originally was not granted access to (This is criminal)
c) Placed stolen classified information on unapproved media (misuse and mishandling of classified info - This is criminal)
d) Fled country with unauthorized possession of classified information on unapproved media (This is criminal)
e) Provided classified information to sources (including foreigners with long-established bones to pick with the U.S.) who were not cleared, were not authorized, and did not have a need to know (This is criminal)
f) Fled to countries (with unauthorized possession of classified information) that do not have extradition agreements with us and are not allies with us (This is treasonous)
If he does come back, there is no way that he is not going to be prosecuted and convicted. And he knows this...
Last edited by Hoop_Knowledge on Thu Mar 05, 2015 6:42 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Christopher C
Star Player
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 6292
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hoop_Knowledge wrote: | | Wall Of Text |
I don't have time to debate with you, especially when it seems like you didn't even read the article that you quoted (the one in my post). If you want to know my answers to all of your questions you can scroll through this thread:
http://forums.lakersground.net/viewtopic.php?t=161697 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hoop_Knowledge
Starting Rotation
Joined: 12 Jul 2002
Posts: 512
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheJellosJigglin' wrote: | | Hoop_Knowledge wrote: | | Wall Of Text |
I don't have time to debate with you, especially when it seems like you didn't even read the article that you quoted (the one in my post). If you want to know my answers to all of your questions you can scroll through this thread:
http://forums.lakersground.net/viewtopic.php?t=161697 |
Sorry if I came across as quoting your linked article; I was not. There is really no need to debate as that was not my intention. I was merely stating the facts of the situation, regardless of any personal feelings that some people may have for Snowden's cause and/or plight. The fact of the matter is, Snowden, pursuant to the law and the contract he signed, committed major crimes. It doesn't matter that he feels he exposed (in his mind) illegal surveillance programs. And no matter how he or his lawyer or defenders at the Guardian or the Intercept want to spin it, he will not escape the consequences for the long-term damage he has caused the United States without jail time. If he doesn't want to face the fact that he broke his contract and broke laws that have been in effect for decades, then he can stay in Russia under the protection (or watchful eye) of Putin's corrupt regime.
I also want to make it very clear that he will be prosecuted no matter who is sitting in the Oval Office. It won't matter if the POTUS has a "D" or an "R", he will be prosecuted, and fully. If not by the 44th POTUS Admin, then the 45th POTUS Admin, or 50th, or 55th (if he is still alive by then). Within government intel and security circles, he is already known as the most heinous leaker of all time. And it is not by sheer amount of information he stole and leaked (the most is still Chelsea Manning); it is by the content and overall damage that is still being determined and quantified to this day... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Conjecture Alert: The following is just a theory that has no basis in evidence or media reports. Take it with a grain of salt.
I suspect that Snowden's motivation right now is that he has figured out that Putin's logical end game is to kill him and blame it on the United States. Putin has milked Snowden for all he is worth. Snowden has damaged our relationships with our European allies and with countries like Brazil. His only remaining value to Putin is as a martyr. So Snowden dies mysteriously, Putin points the finger at the United States, and we have no ability to disprove it. Snowden will take the risk of a conviction if he can limit the likely sentence to ten years or so (with a chance of winning if his lawyer can turn the trial into a circus). Breathing free air in 2025 beats wearing a toe tag in 2015. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
