Amnesty International has always been critical of human rights abuses in the USA. Guantanamo, prison conditions, death penalty, treatment of refugees and immigrants, etc.
This is such bullshit. Snowden still committed a crime, he leaked confidential information belonging to the United States government. An action he knew was illegal. And this is the _sole_ reason why we revere him and the sacrifice he made.
The action still holds consequences. When a piece of information is kept confidential, the US Government makes that initial decision to do so. Just because it pisses the public off, that is no excuse for anyone to leak information at will, let alone be pardoned for it.
Don't get me wrong. Snowden is a hero, a far braver man than I might have been. But he is still a criminal.
Just because it pisses the public off, that is no excuse for anyone to leak information at will, let alone be pardoned for it.
I call bullshit. The government exists to serve the people, not the other way around. What is "legal" or "illegal" is bigger than just what Congress, the President or the Supreme Court think. As they say, "An unjust law is no law at all".[1]
Certainly an arguable point, but it's one I adhere to, and I think a lot of other HN'ers do as well. As well as a lot of Americans, and, for that matter, a lot of people period.
They also say, "we are a government of laws, not of men." The government should enforce, and follow, the laws as they are written, not go by what one man or another considers to be "just" or "unjust."
And as a practical matter, the majority of Americans think Snowden should be prosecuted.
The government should enforce, and follow, the laws as they are written, not go by what one man or another considers to be "just" or "unjust."
What "the law" is at any point in time is just a reflection of what men (well, "people") think is just. Except in this country, our political system has become so corrupt that a significant body of what passes for "law" here is total bullshit. People should feel empowered to violate unjust laws. Personally, I encourage everybody to break a few laws each and every day, simply as a matter of principle.
> Except in this country, our political system has become so corrupt that a significant body of what passes for "law" here is total bullshit.
What you mean is that you and your friends think they are bullshit. As far as I can see, they are for the most part quite reflective of what American voters want (or is at least consistent with a compromise position of the wants of the various voting demographics).[1] Most Americans are afraid of terrorism and are okay with some level of government surveillance, though they might quibble about the details. They want the government to be very harsh on crime (and are scared of computer hackers), and want the drug war to continue.[2] They wanted their elected leaders to be Christians, etc. I don't see corruption, I see a reflection of the wants and fears of the people.
Now, I don't always agree with the voter consensus, but, frankly, I'd rather have the laws I disagree with than a system where we ask mindcrime and his friends what transcendent principles should govern the country.
I think somewhere along the way, some people got confused about the precise nature of our society. It is a republic with a strong democratic streak as a result of amendments in the 1800's. The purpose of the Constitution is to enshrine this system of majoritarian rule. "Rights" (i.e. principles by which the courts tell the democratically-elected branches what they can't do) are a part of the foundational principles, but we are not a libertarian society where the fundamental purpose of government is to protect rights.[3] Rights must be respected, but when it comes time to interpret the scope of a right, whether broadly or narrowly, in the face of a conflict with the laws promulgated by the elected branches, I think it's critical to keep in mind that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" made it to the main body of the Constitution--search and seizure and the other rights were added after the fact.
[1] I think it's a crucially important fact to understanding this country that while Americans hate Congress as a whole, they historically love their particular representatives: http://www.gallup.com/poll/162362/americans-down-congress-ow.... Americans don't hate what their representative is doing (at least historically). They hate what other peoples' representatives are doing.
[2] I think it might be the case now that a slim majority of people might now want to see at least some decriminalization. However, I think the majority of voters still want to wage the drug war. The suburban soccer mom/dad demographic that shrilly preached "Just Say No!" at every school function every American student attended in the 1980's and 1990's is more politically active than ever, and has a good 15+ years of voting left in it.
[3] I think a good example of this distinction is Hong Kong (or at least, the idealized depiction of Hong Kong that is common on HN). Hong Kong doesn't have any democracy to speak of, but it does have a strong history of protecting rights. Many people might find Hong Kong preferable to the U.S. because they care more about rights than democracy.
What you mean is that you and your friends think they are bullshit.
And?
As far as I can see, they are for the most part quite reflective of what American voters want (or is at least consistent with a compromise position of the wants of the various voting demographics).
Yeah, well, majority rule is bullshit too, so what's your point? The "system" we have in place tries to avoid the "tyranny of the majority" but no political system can ever really avoid some element of that. There's no point pretending that the system we have in place doesn't have flaws, and that individuals are not sometimes justified in stepping outside of that system.
Now, I don't always agree with the voter consensus, but, frankly, I'd rather have the laws I disagree with than a system where we ask mindcrime and his friends what transcendent principles should govern the country.
Then I suppose you should hope that I'm never on a jury. :-)
I don't see corruption
You must not be looking very hard. But, being part of "the system", I guess that should be expected. What we all see is influenced by our fundamental worldview, and you clearly have a fundamentally different worldview than I do. So we'll probably always disagree on this.
I'm not criticizing your world view, I'm explaining mine and my take on what I think is the most appropriate description of the nature of our society. Our system does try to avoid "tyranny of the majority" but to a point. It is not a system that puts "rights" first and relegates democracy to whatever is left after various broad and expansive rights instituted. Rather, "rights" are the exceptions to the general rule of democracy.
If there is an animating principle to the Constitution, I think it's the phrase "consent of the governed." When you tell a starving man he can't kill his neighbor and take his livestock, a freedom of action he was born with and retains in the state of nature, or else some government which has no stake in either his neighbor's property or his huger will punish him, I don't think it suffices to appeal to some supernatural "right to life" or "right to property." I think it is wrong to impose that system on people on any other basis than democratic consensus. And I think there is a reason the founders spent so much ink describing how the U.S. was based on "consent of the governed," a key distinction between the U.S. and Britain, while they were by and large happy to inherit the system of "rights" from common law English principles.
Fair enough. Also, FWIW, I'm not one of the people who downvoted your post above. We may not agree, but I generally don't do the "downvote to express disagreement" thing.
True, but I'm not sure I'd say the laws against leaking government secrets are unjust. I'd say the various monitoring systems are potentially dangerous and unconstitutional, but those issues are separate from Snowden's charge.
Also, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that the nature of the leak will factor into his trial, which is where it should be evaluated (right?).
Because secret treason courts are where justice is best served? In the very country being accused of civil rights violations by the defendant?
And besides troop movements, names and locations of undercover operatives, and other specific information that could get people hurt or killed, why should the government keep secrets from its citizens for any reason? Or what does "consent of the governed" mean?
> and other specific information that could get people hurt or killed,
You've described the loop hole for a slippery slope. And I promise you, the first suggestions would seem so reasonable. After all, you didn't mention the descriptions of the operatives. Or the supplies needed to support the troop movements. Both of which are not specifically described by you, but could easily be used against the troops and agents. Both of which are reasonable to keep secret...
But it's still a slope. We think we are here overnight, but we are not. PRISM didn't just happens. It's been in the making for decades before you were born.
That's the part we need to realize. Obama didn't do this. Bush didn't do this. Hell, your parents didn't do this. We've all done this, one way or the other. We've all been apart of this.
True, but I'm not sure I'd say the laws against leaking government secrets are unjust.
I think you have to consider context. To flip it around, the law may or may not be inherently unjust, but breaking it may well be justified in some circumstances. Nominally, this is part of the reason we have juries, and why juries are able to make their determination on any basis they see fit... so they can allow for this kind of "fuzziness" to the law.
There's also a reason that prosecutors have discretion in choosing what charges to pursue, what sentence to seek, etc.
Now, you can argue that, given our system and all its checks and balances and protections, that Snowden should come home and face a trail in front of a jury of his peers. But you can also argue that, given all the publicity around the case, he's correct in saying that he won't get a fair trail. You could also argue that even a "fair trail" is unfair from the perspective of the individual being judged, if they don't consider themselves guilty of a crime.
At the end of the day, this whole idea of "justice" is not black and white, sadly.
While popularity may be irrelevant, being "right" in the eyes of the people is what justice is all about. After all, the civil rights movement was fairly unpopular for a large part of the U.S. population. Regardless, the legal precedents set during that time were "right" and just.
You contradicted yourself from one sentence to the next.
The population overwhelmingly supported oppressing the black minority. But the legal system disregarded what the large majority thought and did the right thing anyways.
It's not "leaking confidential information" if the information is evidence of ongoing criminal activity. Imagine that the government was kidnapping children and grinding them into a paste for use as a new MRE flavor. Would you put the person who told the media about this up for trial on espionage charges? Of course not. You'd use the evidence to convict the people that were grinding up the children.
This is the same thing except on a more abstract level of illegality.
A lot of hyperbole in that statement making it really off-base. You may think it's criminal/illegal activity, but the problem is it's completely within the law we have created. Whether or not it should be legal is a different topic.
The actions from what we've seen so far are completely legal; what Snowden did is not. It's incredibly simple.
> You may think it's criminal/illegal activity, but the problem is it's completely within the law we have created.
That's a completely unsupported assertion. Clearly what the NSA has been up to is compatible with a small secretive framework of laws and courts, but a large part of the outcry is due to the fact that this framework hasn't been publicly subjected to Supreme Court challenges, so the compatibility with the larger body of law and the constitution is fairly uncertain compared to things like normal law-enforcement procedures. (If PRISM et al had been thoroughly tested at the Supreme Court level, there would have to have been a decision as notorious as Dred Scott or Roe v Wade, and a corresponding movement to amend the constitution in order to overturn the Supreme Court. Neither has happened yet.)
> The actions from what we've seen so far are completely legal; what Snowden did is not. It's incredibly simple.
Ah, innocent until proven guilty and all that!
I am not entirely convinced everything we have seen the US do in this case in legal in international terms. By pressuring countries to ignore the asylum process in order to carry out an illegal extradition is already crossing a line. If he was to be extradited it would be breaking international law.
And the US was one of the primary authors of these international laws, treaties and standards of human rights.
There are non-refoulement[1] clauses in international refugee law that 181 countries around the world are bound to, I believe.
In previous cases[2] where people are deported whilst seeking asylum the UNHCR has said:
> UNHCR denounced the move as a violation of the "non-refoulement" policy that prohibits the forced return of asylum seekers to areas where they could face danger – a cornerstone of international refugee protection.
> "We cannot accept that these asylum seekers were deported without a chance to explain their case,"
In my opinion, for the rule of law to stand, the asylum process must conclude before he gets deported.
It isn't that simple. The government's programs are kept secret, even from most of Congress and most of the courts, and certainly from the public. It is very hard to square the sweeping NSA programs with the plain language of the 4th Amendment, which is the highest law of the land.
Reporting Constitutional violations should never be allowed to be considered as a crime in the first place. On the contrary, you will find that in many cases the person who reports the violation is protected and not hunted down by the authorities. But when the government is the violator... it goes the other way around.
We recognize what he did was a crime, but we agree it was the right thing to do, why is there any reason to punish someone for what we agree is right? Preventing harm to the public is a great reason to leak information, and the people thinking it was the right thing to do seems like an excellent reason to pardon him for it.
Not pursuing him sets a bad precedent; we can't allow any "slippery slope" effects in security. The impact on active operations is unclear, but it seems significant. I respect the principle of free information, but I recognize that we're at war and security is a very serious matter.
a bad precedent for leaking classified information at a time when serious military operations may be compromised. What right does this one guy have in making that decision and what are the odds that he has enough information to evaluate the consequences of that action? He may be a hero for revealing unconstitutional actions, but that doesn't mean he didn't commit a crime (possibly getting people killed in the process) nor does it mean he should be spared the consequences. I think we live in an international arena where traditional clearcut boundaries have mostly faded and a reality of exponentially increased personal destructive power is that we do indeed need to sacrifice some liberties for security.
Firstly, you're implying that Snowden revealed info about current military operations. If you read his comments (eg Guardian Q&A), he makes it clear that his issue is with the suspicionless surveillance and that he took steps to avoid revealing more. If he's shared info of the kind you're describing, please point to it. Otherwise there is no precedent set here.
Secondly, your approach basically boils down to "Don't get in the way of the Military or Governement. Ever." There are plenty of other countries in the world with similar doctrines, which I find ironic. Also, What d'you think about previous whistle-blower actions in US history, like the Pentagon Papers [1]?
He took unilateral action in determining what he thought was safe. Neither of us really knows the impact of the leak or its actual scope (as far as other lesser security breaches likely concomitant with the major leak).
The approach doesn't boil down to that hyperbole at all. There's a place for opposition, but I don't see it as among those people who choose to work on classified projects for the NSA and CIA. Compartmentalized security relies on trusted individuals not choosing to make unilateral security decisions. If he wants to resign and then generally oppose governmental surveillance, then he is welcome to do that.
I see the pentagon papers as along the same lines as this. The remnants of my teenage agents sympathize with the whistle blower spirit, but I see this as effectively the same as vigilante justice and blatant disregard of the importance of trust in security and while it may have had positive societal benefits, that doesn't mean there should be no consequences.
you could argue that the other slippery slope if that by pursuing a whistleblower, it sets a chilling effect on whistle blowing, and the govt then had less oversight.
I might consider your opinion if I thought he would be treated fairly in trial. If the last few years are any indication, there is no chance of that happening. The POTUS has already said that he is guilty of treason before any trial has begun. Do you realize the outrageousness of that simple fact?
Being that he has already confessed on video and presumably there's a good amount of other evidence the government would have nothing to gain from an unfair trial.
He confessed to infiltrating the NSA via B-A-H for the purpose of grabbing material to later leak to the public. He may not have realized it at the time but that's very damning, especially since he went out of his way to get information relating to Chinese hacking activities.
Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aiding or involved by such an endeavor.
The point is, if we can argue about it, then there should be a fair trial to determine whether or not it was treason. The president and other leaders saying it's treason doesn't lend itself to a fair trial in the future. The appropriate response is "He committed crimes, we will have a trial to determine the extent of those crimes and whether or not it is treason".
You're focusing way too much on treason. There's probably 5 other felonies besides that Snowden would be guilty of without even having to think about treason charges.
No. The Commander-in-Chief might, for non-state military members that happen to be Americans and a few other "Law of War" provisos. But that's why you don't oppose the U.S. militarily, it's been shown to be hazardous to one's health.
>Just because it pisses the public off, that is no excuse for anyone to leak information at will, let alone be pardoned for it
He alerted the public to the fact that an arm of the state is flagrantly, knowingly violating the Constitution of the United States. That's not crime, that's patriotism. Why isn't James Clapper being charged for lying under oath to Congress about state surveillance?
Just because it pisses the public off, that is no excuse for anyone to leak information at will, let alone be pardoned for it.
By that logic, anyone who freed slaves in the South during the Civil War shouldn't have been pardoned by the states whose laws they broke and prosecuted to the fullest extent.
>Just because it pisses the public off, that is no excuse for anyone to leak information at will, let alone be pardoned for it.
Just because the actions documented in the documents are unconstitutional and hence illegal is an excuse to leak documents that were trying to be hidden.
> "And this is the _sole_ reason why we revere him and the sacrifice he made."
What? No, not at all. I appreciate his actions regardless of the legality, would appreciate them whether or not he chose to reveal his identity, and will appreciate them whether or not he is eventually punished by the US government for what he did.
Good point, but if anything, this should serve as a reminder of why children, who are probably too young to even really understand what a "pledge of allegiance" even is, should not be being led through such a ritual everytime they turn around in school or whatever.
For that matter, it's probably a good warning against the whole idea of pledging allegiance to a nation-state at all.
> a good warning against the whole idea of pledging allegiance to a nation-state at all.
Pleading allegiance is an ancient tradition inherited from Kingdoms and Lordships, where the individual was a mere subject of the crown or superior power. Why plead allegiance in our era ?
You know... Most prisons in the US (non-maximum security) are more like hotels with free gyms, TVs, college class work, and Internet. Some of them where the non-violent white collar criminals go are seen almost (jokingly of course) as resorts. I disagree with your statement.
The fact that the US has a ridiculous amount of people in prison[1] seems like a fairly clear example of short sighted third world thinking to me. I know I personally find this fact rather concerning and I'm not even American. Some things should not be run for a profit.
Discussion on the conditions of low-security prisons in the US should be secondary to discussions about why so many Americans are in prison in the first place, IMO.
> about why so many Americans are in prison in the first place, IMO.
You are right and the prison situation in the USA is not ok. But that said, just as this situation could be called f--ked up, also keep in mind that many parts of US society are also REALLY F--KED UP. There's a lot of injustice and racism throughout the criminal "justice" system, but there's also a sick amount of senseless, senseless violence.
Source: Friends and family who are prosecutors and public defenders. A relative of mine was once in the position of having to defend a group of teenagers who lynched and murdered a stranger on the street with golf clubs.
Maybe without agreeing, you can at least understand the motivation for [definitely short sighted] tough-on-crime programs.
Yes, I can understand it while at the same time not agreeing with it.
It seems to me that one of the biggest questions on this issue that Americans need to face is: are you punishing or are you rehabilitating? I don't pretend to have a universally applicable and useful answer to that question, but societies should at least be very clear about which option is being chosen and what the consequences of that choice are.
> It seems to me that one of the biggest questions on this issue that Americans need to face is: are you punishing or are you rehabilitating?
It seems to me that there is a third option: isolating. Some people we cannot cure, but should not be "punished". Even so, they need to be kept away from the general population for the sake of the population.
I personally think that using imprisonment as a sort of "punishment" is barbaric and has no place in a civilized society. It should only be used to rehabilitate or, barring that possibility, isolate. You have someone who just won't stop killing people and your psychologists are at a loss as to how to turn him into a safe productive member of society? By all means, keep him locked up and off the streets, but trying to frame this detainment as a "punishment" is how we start down a very dark road.
Quite so. The purpose of my simplified question was to contrast the concept of punishment with really any other option. Because I don't think America has faced the fact that many of its citizens still require punishment of criminals as opposed to rehabilitation, isolation or whatever may actually be a more appropriate and humane response, were religious or pseudo-religious doctrine taken out of the equation.
I believe the privitisation of the penal system in the US has set the stage for all kinds of misdirected incentives. I wonder if some who benefit from the system as it stands are in fact quite happy to perpetuate the need for revenge/punishment.
I do none the less understand the impulse for revenge on an individual level. Anyone who says they don't must have had a charmed life indeed. I just think it's time we start consciously removing such instincts from our penal systems.
The US has a lot of people in prison because it's a big rich country with a diverse population. It's easy to commit crimes against people not like you, and easy to vote for stiff sentences against criminals not like you. And we have lots of money for police and prisons.
This doesn't happen in Europe, for example, because European countries are ethnically homogeneous. The reason is WWII, which was really just the rest of WWI, which started because of tensions over ethnic minorities -- officially in the Balkans but more so in Austria-Hungary, which was really just a club of little states pretending to be one big one.
As Tony Judt put it in his (fantastic) history of Europe after 1945, "The stability of postwar Europe is due in large part to the achievements of Hitler and Stalin."
You don't have to go to Europe to look up population statistics. In fact if you live in a big international city like London or Paris, you might have a skewed perspective on the diversity of European nations.
Reading down the list, most European nations have around 80% or more majority ethnicity. Even those with lower majorities tend to have closely related minorities, e.g. Belgium with its Flemings and Walloons.
By comparison the largest racial/ethnic group in the U.S., non-Latino whites, is under 65% and shrinking.
All that said, I personally think the high rate of imprisonment in the U.S. reflects a lot of latent to overt racism and can't be defended. I think that was the GP's point but I'm not sure.
You don't have to go to Europe to look up population statistics. In fact if you live in a big international city like London or Paris, you might have a skewed perspective on the diversity of European nations.
But most of the crime is in the big cities, which attract people from all around Europe. Using the population statistics for countries as a whole could be seen as a little disingenuous with that in mind. Though, I'd be willing to bet that the Gini coefficient is more relevant a measure.
Latino is an ethnicity; people of that origin identify themselves according to racial classifications like white, black, Native American, etc. Most do identify themselves as white.
You can't run affirmative action without knowing who to discriminate for or against. Likewise you can't tell which racial groups are being disproportionally attacked by government programs without knowing each person's race.
Tony one - of - our - most - dazzling - public - intellectuals Judt? Whose special expertise was modern European history?
This is taken from the introduction to POSTWAR, finalist for the 2005 Pulitzer Prize:
""" p. 9
We should not idealize this [pre-1914] Europe. What the Polish writer Tadeusz Borowski called 'the incredible, almost comical melting pot of peoples and nationalities sizzling dangerously in the very heart of Europe' was perilously rent with riots, massacres, and pogroms -- but it was real, and it survived into living memory.
Between 1914 and 1945, however, THAT Europe was smashed into the dust. The tidier Europe that emerged, blinking into the second half of the 20th century had fewer loose ends. Thanks to war, occupation, boundary adjustments, expulsions and genocide, almost everybody now lived in their own country, among their own people. For forty years after WWII Europeans in both halves of Europe lived in hermetic national enclaves where surviving religious or ethnic minorities -- the Jews in France, for example -- represented a tiny fraction of the population at large and were thoroughly integrated into its cultural and political mainstream. Only Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union -- an empire, not a country, and anyway only part-European -- stood aside from this new, serially homogeneous Europe.
But since the 1980s, and above all since the fall of the Soviet Union and the enlargement of the EU, Europe is facing a multicultural future... voluntary and involuntary migrants from failed or repressive states at Europe's expanded margins have turned London, Paris, Antwerp, Amsterdam, Berlin, Milan, and a dozen other places into cosmopolitan world cities whether they like it or not.
This presence of Europe's living 'others' -- perhaps fifteen million Muslims in the EU as currently [2005] constituted, for example, with a further eighty million awaiting admission in Bulgaria and Turkey -- has thrown into relief not just Europe's current discomfort at the prospect of ever greater variety, but also the ease with which the dead 'others' of Europe's past were cast far out of mind. Since 1989 it has become clearer than it was before just how much the stability of post-war Europe rested upon the accomplishments of Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler. Between them, and assisted by wartime collaborators, the dictators blasted flat the demographic heath upon which the foundations of a new and less complicated continent were then laid.
"""
On my trips to Europe I have seen students in Prague (none in Plzen), Arabs in Paris, some British tourists in Ljubljana.
Overall I was not surprised to learn that when Poles gained the right to emigrate by acceding to the EU, the richer member nations were swept by waves of anxiety over the arrival of a slightly different kind of white person.
I was already familiar with the late Tony Judt, and I don't wholly agree with his thesis. If there's one thing I find annoying it's the assumption that disagreement must be the result of ignorance. Bashing me over the head with Judt's accomplishment is little more than an argument from authority. I didn't say that europe was all a-OK with diversity, but that it was more diverse than the post above appreciates.
Did you not read even one sentence of mine after the one you quoted?
"...and easy to vote for stiff penalties for criminals who don't look like you."
That's a reference to the Drug War. Which Reagan cranked into high gear in the 1980s, in response to the crack epidemic, by introducing mandatory minimum sentences for drug possession. Penalties for possessing crack were, infamously, 100 times those for an equivalent amount of powder cocaine. Congress revisited the issue in 2011 and reduced the ratio. Now it's just 20:1.
Most crack users are black, and so, as a result, are disproportionately many prison inmates. Only 13% of the population is black. The other 87% continue to vote enthusiastically for politicians who are "tough on crime".
This is an extremely damaging myth and it needs to die. Prison conditions in the US are, by and large, deplorable. Worse than anywhere in Europe. Worse than most of Latin America. We look like Iran.
>Examples of mistreatment claimed include prisoners left naked and exposed in harsh weather or cold air;[120] "routine" use of rubber bullets[121] and pepper spray;,[120][121][121] solitary confinement of violent prisoners in soundproofed cells for 23 or 24 hours a day;[120][122] and a range of injuries from serious injury to fatal gunshot wounds, with force at one California prison "often vastly disproportionate to the actual need or risk that prison staff faced."[121] Such behaviors are illegal, and, "Professional standards clearly limit staff use of force to that which is necessary to control prisoner disorder."[121]
>Human Rights Watch raised concerns with prisoner rape and medical care for inmates.[123] In a survey of 1,788 male inmates in Midwestern prisons by Prison Journal, about 21% claimed they had been coerced or pressured into sexual activity during their incarceration and 7% claimed that they had been raped in their current facility.[124] Tolerance of serious sexual abuse and rape in United States prisons are consistently reported as widespread.[citation needed] It has been fought against by organizations such as Stop Prisoner Rape.
>He's right about that. After being apprehended on the Iran-Iraq border, Sarah Shourd, Josh Fattal, and I were held in Evin Prison's isolation ward for political prisoners. Sarah remained there for 13 months, Josh and I for 26 months. We were held incommunicado. We never knew when, or if, we would get out. We didn't go to trial for two years. When we did we had no way to speak to a lawyer and no means of contesting the charges against us, which included espionage. The alleged evidence the court held was "confidential."
>What I want to tell Acosta is that no part of my experience—not the uncertainty of when I would be free again, not the tortured screams of other prisoners—was worse than the four months I spent in solitary confinement. What would he say if I told him I needed human contact so badly that I woke every morning hoping to be interrogated? Would he believe that I once yearned to be sat down in a padded, soundproof room, blindfolded, and questioned, just so I could talk to somebody?
>I want to answer his question—of course my experience was different from those of the men at California's Pelican Bay State Prison—but I'm not sure how to do it. How do you compare, when the difference between one person's stability and another's insanity is found in tiny details? Do I point out that I had a mattress, and they have thin pieces of foam; that the concrete open-air cell I exercised in was twice the size of the "dog run" at Pelican Bay, which is about 16 by 25 feet; that I got 15 minutes of phone calls in 26 months, and they get none; that I couldn't write letters, but they can; that we could only talk to nearby prisoners in secret, but they can shout to each other without being punished; that unlike where I was imprisoned, whoever lives here has to shit at the front of his cell, in view of the guards?
It is a crazy, awful, and unnecessary black mark on America's human rights record. There is no excuse for this sort of thing, and it happens every day. Other first-world countries get along fine without systematic mistreatment of nearly eight people in a thousand.
Well, you had a lot of peer pressure in that pledge thing. If you sat and didn't pledge (hell, some teachers would force you to stand) your peers would become quite hostile.
I find that odd though, since most children love being rebellious over frivolous things like that.
It is so utterly bizarre to ask children that young to "pledge" their allegiance to something. I didn't even have a functional understanding of what those words meant until I was much older, before then they were just words that I had memorized. But because it was introduced so young, it only had the opportunity to appear strange in retrospect...
Young children are ridiculously easy to indoctrinate. You see this type of thing with religious education and upbringing all the time. A lot of adults are religious not because they chose to do so, but because they were brought up in religious households and their childhood activities involved going to church. As such, religion became a part of their identity.
There do seem to be plenty of parallels; enough for me to feel confident that the mechanism is the same.
I wonder though if these systems were implemented accidentally or in a cool calculating way. The religion one seems like something that could bootstrap itself from true belief (if you honestly think that you have life figure out, chances are you are going to tell your kids), but the pledge one seems more calculated to me. There just really is no reason to have young children pledging allegiance to a flag and its government.
Personally, I'm glad my children say the "pledge" every day to start school. Yes, I'm religious, but I'm also liberal on some things. For instance, I think anyone charged with marijuana possession should be freed from jail-- that's absurd in my opinion. However, you have to draw the line somewhere. My childrens' identity isn't tied to "religion" per se, but rather "faith." But I wouldn't expect someone with hostility towards religion/faith to get that...
What do you think the benefits of having them recite the pledge at school every single day are? Some sort of loyalty to government that could not be taught?
If you think loyalty to government is a good idea, that is fine, but why not teach them why that is the case? I'm sure you have plenty of good reasons lined up, so give them those reason instead of making them recite a pledge...
It has nothing to do with "loyalty to government." It's loyalty to the concept of a free country, where you can even choose not to say the "pledge." I really don't care what you do. The point of the pledge has nothing to do with a physical piece of cloth, and everything to do with the "republic for which it stands." That's the benefit. It's a reminder to be loyal to the people, not to the mechanisms of the government. The fact that people from all backgrounds/countries can be united under common principles is the point.
So, no, I don't teach my children loyalty to "government", but rather their country, which, up until recently was pretty free from their government.
As a non-American responder, are you talking about the original pledge, or the 1948-1954 changes that added the words "under God" to it?[1] The original was formally adopted in 1942 by Congress, prior to this change:
The original:
I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
This change was largely brought about by the realization that the pledge was dangerously close to the NAZI party's way of indoctrinating Nationalism (however Fascistic it was)[2] and that there should be some manner to differentiate between the good, moral, American version and the evil, unethical German version.
Nationalism (and Socialism) were ideologies of the 19th Century, and America does not have a great history of citizenship for all, with certain cultures not sharing in it until post WW1.[3]
So, I'm afraid: the pledge does, and always has had, a streak of Nationalism a mile wide to it. I find the modern American denial of this fascinating.
And, if you cannot see how it is used to indoctrinate children, then I am happy to provide non-wiki specific psychology papers proving that it does.
Please read what I wrote, and the links provided. I stated 1948-1954, and this is exactly correct:
Louis A. Bowman [in 1948], an attorney from Illinois, was the first to initiate the addition of "under God" to the Pledge. The National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution gave him an Award of Merit as the originator of this idea...
President Eisenhower had been baptized a Presbyterian very recently, just a year before. He responded enthusiastically to Docherty in a conversation following the service. Eisenhower acted on his suggestion the next day and on February 8, 1954, Rep. Charles Oakman (R-Mich.), introduced a bill to that effect
The "Daughters of the American Revolution"[1] were a political group that had considerable influence in American politics pre-WWII and their initial drives had nothing to do with fears of Communism (they were also against the revocation of the Bellamy salute until the declaration of war in 1941). So, your blase claim is not wholly correct ~ they're also a fascinating element of female power within the United States and the influences of matriarchal organization "behind the scenes of power" are little known, sadly. Well worth looking into.
However, yes, of course this period includes "the Red Scare", and this pledge was tied into this new strand of the American National Psyche. I apologize, I assumed this was a given at this level of debate.
I'm talking about the current incarnation which makes the most sense to me anyway. I know there were different versions but I like the current version the best. And it's clearly the most "liberal" in language.
The only differences between the current pledge and the pledge as it was many decades ago are superficial. Changing the salute and adding the (problematic for other reasons) reference to a god serve to change the appearance of the pledge, but not its substance. It remains as nationalistic as ever.
(Also, the addition of the words "under god" and a reference to a particular government hardly make it more "liberal"?)
The pledge is not teaching, it is brainwashing. If you value the notion of a free society (and I am sure that you do) then you should be able to teach that appreciation (and I am sure that you could, if you tried). Explain to them why it is something to be valued, don't merely have them accept it as axiomatic by having them repeat it ad nauseam.
Also, the pledge is absolutely to a particular government; I don't know how that could be any more clear.
Your condescension does nothing to further your argument. And I'm quite happy with what I teach my children about their country--warts and all. I was simply replying to the GP about the pledge. If you don't like my opinion I don't care and you can go pound sand.
I don't think there was condescension in my comment. I am saying that if you believe something, you should be able to defend it. I am confident that you are right, a free society is something that is to be valued, and I am confident that you could teach it. If you are also confident that you are right, then you don't need to brainwash your children to agree.
So if you are pleased with what you are teaching your children, as you claim, then why is the pledge important? Your lessons should carry sufficient strength. Brainwashing is the tool of people who are not confident in what they say; it is not a tool for you.
Let me put this briefly: the pledge was used to teach children the basics of what this country values. You can argue that this is brainwashing. So, then, argue that teaching rote math and English rudiments is brainwashing. Children can't internalize the important concepts of the constitution when they're 5-6 yrs old. They can recite them for a while, but the ideas are too abstract until they get older. You say "indoctrination", I say "rote memorization until they can understand it."
Do you think my 5 & 6 yr olds will understand my explanation of what Snowden did, and why?
And, yes, there was lots of condescension in your comment, just so you know for the future...
If you value the notion of a free society (and I am sure that you do) then you should be able to teach that appreciation (and I am sure that you could, if you tried).
Not to be a dick, but if you were one of my personal friends and said that to me at a bar, I'd slap you in the nuts to get your attention. Maybe midwestern Americans take that differently.
If children cannot understand the pledge, then they are too young for their loyalty to a free society to be important. Seriously, when could that issue come up for someone who is incapable of understanding it?
Furthermore, the pledge is not some sort of "teaching through rote repetition". If it were, then why is it not done in social studies or american government classes (you know, like rote memorization of arithmetic tables is done in mathematics classes), why the emphasis on ritual (you don't stand up, face the front of the room, and salute a multiplication table...), and why does it continue past school grades for toddlers? What place does "rote memorization of why freedom is rad" have any place in, say, high schools? Those children are surely capable of receiving a proper lesson. And they get those proper lessons... but for some reason the pledge continues.
I don't think your interpretation of what the pledge it is holds water in the slightest. You are trying to treat it as something that it simply is not.
> "Do you think my 5 & 6 yr olds will understand my explanation of what Snowden did, and why?"
I am suggesting nothing of the sort. Not sure why you would think I am suggesting that.
> "I'd slap you in the nuts to get your attention. Maybe midwestern Americans take that differently."
Yeah, on the coasts we don't take kindly to physical assault in retaliation for minor perceived slights. What the hell... I hope you are exaggerating.
>>Yeah, on the coasts we don't take kindly to physical assault in retaliation for minor perceived slights. What the hell... I hope you are exaggerating.
I hope he doesn't treat his kid that way... holy hell.
No, i'm not advocating assault. Don't you ever slap your friends in the arm, or somewhere not as sensitive as your nuts, when you're trying to get their attention. That's what I meant--sorry to derail the conversation.
>>Let me put this briefly: the pledge was used to teach children the basics of what this country values. You can argue that this is brainwashing. So, then, argue that teaching rote math and English rudiments is brainwashing. Children can't internalize the important concepts of the constitution when they're 5-6 yrs old. They can recite them for a while, but the ideas are too abstract until they get older. You say "indoctrination", I say "rote memorization until they can understand it."
Memorization != Understanding.
Nobody says that they need to understand the importance of the Constitution when they are 5 or 6 years old. Wait a bit longer until they actually can understand it, and then teach it to them.
Not every non-believer is hostile towards religion and/or faith.
I dislike the pledge because every time I hear it I'm reminded that Americans were once stupid enough to believe that modifying the words to it would be enough to thwart communist spies. It's like they forgot that athiests don't really acknowledge the concept of blasphemy.
Should I become Benevolent Dictator of some future anarchist America, the Pledge might actually be the first thing I get rid of. I'm of the opinion that if people are going to pledge allegiance to anything it will be because they want to, not because they were made to recite some prose.
Of course I know that opinion isn't exactly controversial around here.
Well, foundationally here, if you want to talk about voluntarism all those kids are forced to be there, and their parents often don't have a power to stop it (too busy to homeschool, too poor to private school).
There's a very compelling societal interest in having children receive a basic education though. We make kids get shots, require them to learn to drive to get a license, etc. for the same reason.
There's no compelling societal interest in brainwashing kids to claim to support a government (since even making them recite the Pledge hardly makes them more reliable citizens).
Public schooling often doesn't provide a basic education, though. The graduating illiteracy rates, lack of any retained historical knowledge ("is Britain a state? or "isn't Toronto in the US?") the inability to do basic arithmatic without a calaculator, etc.
It also doesn't teach anything close to critical thinking, problem solving, questioning fundamentals, or anything close to an exposure to career domains.
Also, the shots are at a parents discretion, even if peer pressure is applied. The choice to get a drivers license is inevitably on the child (you can't force them to take the test). Public education is compulsory by gunpoint (ie, imprisonment of parents who withhold their children from the public school system or homeschooled exams, though there are so many exceptions it is silly).
It is amazing how our institutions enroll their new members into their private agenda with intent to promote the longevity of the institution, in the long term, and their immediate survival, in the short term. In some strange way, we feed off our young and consume them, rather than nourish them. Sad
> This is not a form of brainwashing. This is not a form of brainwashing. This is not a form of brainwashing. There is nothing creepy about having children pledge allegiance every morning to something they don't even understand...
I rebelled against the pledge in my freshman year of high school. I don't remember any significant outcomes though, other than sitting through pledges until I started missing homeroom every day from ever-increasing laziness.
To be fair, it's not like the US hasn't had it share of human-rights abuses before, just historically less than some other countries.
As for the Snowden extradition actually being a human-rights issue that's another story. I get that what he did was probably morally right but it was still illegal. I'm not sure why everyone is so shocked (SHOCKED, I say!) at the US wanting to prosecute him.
That said, the US would be smart to just forget about the whole thing. The damage has been done and this continued talk about prosecution for Snowden is making him a martyr.
Jews were legally killed as far as the Nazis were concerned.
Just become something is legal - in this case a wrong assertion because spying on citizens is against the constitution so it is illegal - does not mean that it complies with Human Rights.
Quite a stretch between divulging state secrets to anti-semitism and homophobia combined with murder.
The fact is that Snowden had the opportunity to quit when he found out what his work was going to entail or what his work was being applied to if he didn't approve. He continued to work and collect a paycheck. He knew he was breaking the law.
As much whining goes on here at HN about the lack of personal responsibility it's ironic that there's a ton of people so willing to not face the facts about the situation.
I fail to see how it's better to pledge allegiance to a piece of paper than a piece of cloth. Surely both are symbolic of the general idea of "America" rather than the actual object.
The constitution is the "legal" document that ratifies the formation of the United States of America so it is far from symbolic. If you do away with it you would effectively dissolve the Union.
In pledging allegiance to the constitution Snowdens' actions are only illegal in the sense that the current government has laws against what he did and justify those laws based on its constitutionally granted power. On the other hand every citizen has a responsibility to uphold the constitution, so his actions while illegal under the governments' laws are supported by the constitution and its founding principles.
Amnesty is coming from a different position where they are making their judgement based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of which the United States is a signatory.
The kids should be taught about the Constitution and that they should support and defend it (especially the spirit of it) against all enemies foreign and domestic, even the President. That would mean rejecting any obvious wrongdoing and ignoring flag-waving rhetoric.
I love the U.S., but it's not a perfect country. And Amnesy International has been pointing it out for as long as I can personally remember being aware of them. (nearing 25 years now)
This is not nearly the first time AI has accused the U.S. of human rights abuses. Just look at the history of the death penalty in this country for one example.
My take is the Streisand effect is this his best shield and his strategy spins on it. "Booz, Endgame, etc" are burning night oil, Russia, Beijing, Mossad also, on how to best take advantage with some possibly horrible false flag options as well. I believe all these experienced ``spy craft'' agencies are capable of imagining their own strategic desirable outcomes far greater than you or I, some dangerous, high-risk "ops" of unforeseen consequences not necessarily desirable for Edward.
Today I learned that American kids need to pledge allegiance to their country. Or were you an immigrant and had to pledge allegiance in order to gain citizenship?
"Congressional sessions open with the recital of the Pledge, as do many government meetings at local levels, and meetings held by many private organizations. It is also commonly recited in school at the beginning of every school day, although the Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions that students cannot be compelled to recite the Pledge, or punished for not doing so."
"According to the United States Flag Code, the Pledge of Allegiance reads:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
The "under God" part was added to distinguish us from 'godless communists'
It's a grade school ritual that usually takes place once a week or so at the start of the day. Some teachers found this to be silly and were eager to make sure kinds knew it was voluntary or would come up with a better way to spend the three minutes. But some teachers would take it very seriously...
I don't know why people think that "I think Edward Snowden did the right thing" is incompatible with "Edward Snowden should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law." If I run a stop sign to the hospital because my child has a serious injury, I did the right thing (as long as I did it safely), but I still expect to get a ticket for the violation. The reason that Snowden is being called a "hero" in some corners is because of the likely penalties for his actions, penalties that ensure that people don't blog about every piece of classified information that they find distasteful.
Amnesty International really puts itself in a weird position by using the words "hunt down"... the US has simply made written requests of countries under existing treaties, requests which have been ignored by Hong Kong without immediate consequence. "Hunt down" implies something Seal Team Six-style.
Because falling on your sword, while noble and makes for great story-telling, is unnecessary. Requiring whistleblowers to fall on their own swords discourages whistleblowing, which as a society we've in the past explicitly spelled out as desirable behavior.
tl;dr: If you punish desirable behavior, desirable behavior won't happen.
Whistleblowing is a desirable behavior only in certain situations, and the distinction between whistleblowing and espionage is one that is made on a case-by-case basis and open to reasonable debate in many cases. Snowden seems to be really treading quite heavily in this grey area with his disclosures of US cyberattacks on Chinese targets.
Unless you're making the case that classified information shouldn't exist at all, in which case espionage can't exist, and the White House would be Tweeting military strategy before it was executed.
The distinction between whistleblowing and espionage is pretty clear. Espionage is done covertly for the benefit of a foreign power. Whistleblowing is done overtly and for the benefit of the public. You would have to be using a pretty stretched definition of "espionage" (like the one the US government uses) to think it has anything to do with whistleblowing.
Cut-and-dried espionage isn't a grey area. It's "for the benefit of the public" which can be hard to assess. If a government employee leaked the details of the Osama Bin Laden raid and it subsequently failed, would that be for the benefit of the public? What about leaking the plans of the Union Army during the Civil War? In each case, the answer is not obvious -- the reason that leaking classified information is such a serious crime is that there are extreme, permanent costs to making the "wrong" decision.
> If a government employee leaked the details of the Osama Bin Laden raid and it subsequently failed, would that be for the benefit of the public? What about leaking the plans of the Union Army during the Civil War?
Those things aren't being done to the public. Cripes, man.
Something doesn't have to be done to an individual directly for that action to strongly influence that person's life. The Union victory in the Civil War, to this day, influences the average American's life much more than PRISM. All actions with wide-ranging lasting consequences are "done to the public."
Attacks against civilian infrastructure, like hospitals.
"any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." -- John Donne ( http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Meditation_XVII )
If someone does something in your name and with your money that you would be ashamed to do yourself, how is that not an attack on you? Honest question.
Unless you're making the case that classified information shouldn't exist at all, in which case espionage can't exist, and the White House would be Tweeting military strategy before it was executed.
Yes, and? What difference would there be? The civilians in some third world village would have time to run to the hills, and the US would still get to drop their bombs and use their drones, and weapons and arms manufacturers would still get to supply them. They make just as much money wether they blow up empty space or people, after all.
Sure, it would stem the flow of convenient terrorists which provide the pretext for the fireworks, but you could have undercover operatives do that, and since those also have to get paid by tax payers, it would be a net win -- even more money would be magically generated and trickle down to everybody, yay! We would all move from rich to mega rich, so yes, I would want to make that case, absolutely.
Do you think that it would have been good for a "whistleblower" to send information about the invasion of Normandy to the Axis leadership? Classified information is necessary when dealing with a hostile force that keeps classified information of its own. It's a lot easier to claim that "Information X should be public" than it is to make a blanket claim that "All information should be public."
Do you think that it would have been good for a "whistleblower" to send information about the invasion of Normandy to the Axis leadership?
That's kind of the point. When was the last time that actually applied? Cold war, at most.
When was the last time military action by the US meant anything other than pounding peasants into (further) submission? The strategy is outlined, it's for full spectrum dominance. Not defense, conquest. For that reason I think a more apt comparison would be to compare it to someone who gave out secrets about axis operations.
> When was the last time military action by the US meant anything other than pounding peasants into (further) submission?
As recently as 1991 or thereabouts.
I would count 2001 myself to dislodge Al Qaeda but I might understand why you wouldn't.
And before 1991, a U.S. warship escorting merchant traffic was almost destroyed by a mine placed into international waters by a fairly advanced Mideast nation, so it's not as rare as you seem to think.
^ Explain a stunt like that in presence of an actual, credible threat. I'll wait.
And before 1991, a U.S. warship escorting merchant traffic was almost destroyed by a mine placed into international waters by a fairly advanced Mideast nation, so it's not as rare as you seem to think.
Anything else? I mean, don't get me wrong. I know it's bully 101 to consider even being looked at the wrong way as an attack, while considering anything defense as long as they are the ones doing it. I also know bullies don't like it when people have sharp bones on which their fists get hurt. But other than that...
You said it yourself; "full spectrum dominance". Why should any military fight another military on even odds if they can bring overwhelming force? Iraq certainly had a military composed of persons other than peasants, otherwise it wouldn't have been in Kuwait!
> Meanwhile, the US just shoots down an civilian airliner and refuses to even say sorry
But the U.S. did pay reparations. The U.S. should apologize, certainly. But what does that have to do with "wars not involving conquest", which is what I thought you were talking about?
Either way I don't see why you're having to resort to personal attacks.
Why should any military fight another military on even odds if they can bring overwhelming force?
If you defend yourself, the strength of the attacker doesn't matter as much as if they actually are an attacker. You have to defend yourself either way, and yes, of course you use anything you can to your advantage.
But what does that have to do with "wars not involving conquest", which is what I thought you were talking about?
As much as running over a sea mine? If such an incident is an argument for anything, how much bigger a military apparatus would Iran be entitled to just based on that plane being shot down?
Iraq certainly had a military composed of persons other than peasants, otherwise it wouldn't have been in Kuwait!
Well, I meant peasants in relation to the US, not to their neighbours.
"Nobody" had a problem when Saddam gassed Kurds while he was an ally -- neither with him being a dictator. It was when he disobeyed that he suddenly was this grave threat to everyone and the whole region. That's what I consider bully logic. It wasn't about peace or innocent life, it was about obedience, and even more innocent lifes were ended just to make that point. Twice, because the first time they somehow turned around after defeating Saddam, like saving a dessert for later.
Either way I don't see why you're having to resort to personal attacks.
I did not intend to call you personally a bully, sorry for not making that more clear. And please don't think I believe most nations don't engage in the same hipocrisy and selective indignation, calling a pin prick suffered a holocaust, and a holocaust dished out a pin prick. But the US is currently very good at it, state of the art if you will. That even this might be offensive to some Americans I would have to accept. Those are the choices violence forces on us, once there has been abuse that has not been acknowledged and cleared up, you can't be friends with the abuser without insulting the abused, and vice versa.
Whether a certain action would be more like giving out Allied secrets or more like giving out Axis secrets is a matter of opinion and perspective -- by going public, a whistleblower forces his or her own interpretation of the situation onto the entire population.
Yeah, he's such a nasty agressor. Best put him away for espionage, before he can brutalize everyone even more. And to think we even defend that guy! Stockholm Syndrome much, right?
Even then, it's not like actual "bad guys only" are needed, only the public perception in enough people that they exist. There are many avenues to explore here, think big? You kinda have to; it's a trillion dollar industry, it doesn't take no for an answer.
But who decides whether you are whistleblower or a spy? And that case could easily be made on Snowden if he shared certain information to select people and not the public (not saying he did, mind you, just demonstrating how easy it would be to cross that line).
And do not mistake prosecution with guilt.
On one hand, I'm glad he shared what he did, but I also fear what could happen should we blindly believe everything we are told, whether the person telling us is a member of the government, or a member of the government in a foreign country.
But who decides whether you are whistleblower or a spy?
Those who look at the issue and arrive at a conclusion.
If you let someone else make that decision for you: if you're unable to make it yourself, how would you confirm they made the right decision on your behalf? And if you are able, why not cut out the middleman?
I didn't mean so philosophically. I meant more practically. Unless you are suggesting a malicious spy leaking secrets to the enemy should only be treated like a whistleblower, which I seriously doubt is the case.
> If you let someone else make that decision for you...
Keeping this in context (being prosecuted or fleeing), that's what everyone is doing right now: allowing someone else to make that decision. Information being shared is only what interested parties want being shared (Snowden and the Governments).
If Snowden was tried by a jury of his peers, would he be found guilty or innocent? Would he be a whistleblower or a spy?
And yes, I'm ignoring things like would he get a fair trial and all that jazz. I just see what Snowden is doing as a very effective way to play the part of a spy. Sell X information secretly and share Y information publicly. Not suggesting that is what he is doing mind you. I'm just thinking out loud.
> if you're unable to make it yourself, how would you confirm they made the right decision on your behalf?
This happens all the time though. I trust my doctor with my health and my children's health. They explain things, but I still have to trust them. Sure, it's not exactly the same thing, but I feel it's close enough. Basically, I can't know everything about everything. At some point, I have to trust others. Maybe that's too much down the rabbit hole, though. =)
Not having the information is one thing, but provided you had the information and are able to mentally process it, you absolutely are "entitled" as anyone to make such decisions. All nations (worth a damn) derive their legitimacy from the people, people just like you. If you can't do it, you can't expect anyone else to.
That's very general and maybe not very helpful here, but I still wanted to make the point, because I think it's very tragic that we are so eager to hand off our opinions to "experts". I can accept teachers, so that ideally when they're done with me, I'm an "expert", too. But I don't trust those who would just remain as experts hovering in some vague place above you. From what I learned about life so far, those are all hacks.
And if these things are too complicated for regular citizens to understand, then they need to be made less complicated, or we need better citizens. Democracy in an industrialized world is no trivial task.
Basically, I can't know everything about everything. At some point, I have to trust others.
Yes, of course. But you still use indicators for that, yes? If you visited a new doctor, and you heard loud screams, you would slip out again. If a friend recommends a dentist and you're currently looking for a good one, you'll give the recommended one a try first, that sort of thing. I've seen doctors do shit (to others) that made me not EVER trust one blindly. I am usually lucky with mine, but I do pay attention to them, I do second-guess them, I measure up their character, how peaceful and concentrated they are, versus just loud and constantly on the move, etc. At the end of the day, nobody but my own immune system, family and friends truly care about my well-being, to the point they'd loose sleep over it.
> Not having the information is one thing, but provided you had the information and are able to mentally process it, you absolutely are "entitled" as anyone to make such decisions.
I completely agree. And I agree with this as well:
> I think it's very tragic that we are so eager to hand off our opinions to "experts".
But I think it's important to understand that whether you think Snowden is a whistleblower or a traitor, you are making that decision in part based on "experts." You are trusting people who haven't proven themselves to be untrustworthy.
We don't know everything (or maybe we do, it's difficult to say). Sure, we can say "Hey, he told us these things that were true." But I also don't have any reason to trust him outright. So, on one hand, I have valid reasons to distrust the government, but I also have valid reasons to distrust Snowden.
So on one hand, I want to believe he's told the entire story, and is being completely truthful. But on the other hand, on multiple levels he's demonstrated his untrustworthiness.
For what it's worth, I haven't decided Snowden is "a good guy". (I'm not 100% sure of anything in life other than "something exists", and so far I don't even know what "exists" means) But I consider it likely enough that I wouldn't feel good about anything but a very, public trial, where everybody moves reaaal slow and I can see their hands at all times. [which is silly of me to say, because I'm not even an US citizen, but that's how I think and feel about this, doubly so if I were one :P]
All those people, even officials who are already yelling traitor and espionage? Restrain those first, show them their place, before you ask Snowden to come into their reach.
Some guy who leaked slides is on the run, while the man with kill lists resides in the White house; there is so much wrong with that picture. Maybe Snowden should get a trial, but not one presided over by a bunch of hardened criminals who just happen to have the law on their side because they can't keep their fingers off it.
You look at the issue, and then you make the decision to either tell your government to pursue him or tell your government to back off. Everyone gets to finish the sentence "I think the government should..." as they choose.
Well then any good person would want the government to pursue him to be tried, so he could be found innocent by his peers and allowed to come home. But then a lot of people don't want to see that happen, and would rather see him exiled.
Of course, if he's guilty of some greater crime, I'd always want to see him punished. For me, it's simple.
But it's really not. It's not as simple as saying you want the government to pursue him or not, especially now when the information is still coming in.
Regardless, this is deviating from my original question, and I think you are missing the point.
Coming to the correct conclusion about whether he is a whistleblower or a spy is not something that is easy to do from your armchair, reading reports on the internet from sources who have their own agendas.
In order to really make the determination, you need to have lots of evidence presented to you, hear each side present their case as to why the facts support their position, and have each side answer tough questions about things they are leaving out of their side of the story.
Oh, and it's also very easy to make conclusions from the armchair about how others arrive at their conclusions. It's not like there is no context or continuity at all here, either. It doesn't matter even if Snowden exists; power and transparency are supposed to flow one way, anyone who refuses to play along is to be made an example of. If that's not an old hat to you by now, a repeat of a repeat of a repeat, I just don't know what to tell you.
You are making the leap to assume there will be punishment (probably a fair assumption, but an assumption nonetheless). He isn't yet being forced to fall on his sword. The US hasn't sentenced him to death or life in prison. The US is simply trying to bring him back to face his charges.
Death is a possibility, depending on what he is charged with, though given the nature of the case I'd personally doubt the government would pursue it. It is, however, within the realm of possibility, especially after he revealed the anti-Chinese hacking information.
It's not a leap, simply put. It's the only logical outcome if he is caught. The government has been extraordinarily clear what will happen to Snowden. When you have some of the most powerful politicians calling him a traitor, along with clear statements from the intelligence community on the matter, it's all beyond obvious.
"Prosecuted to the full extent of the law" cannot possibly mean anything but facing punishment. That's not really an assumption — it's right there in the thesis.
Snowden is, for all intents and purposes, protesting against the government and its laws. Why would he willfully return and subject himself to a system he considers unjust?
I know the scale is different, but logically, what you're saying would be the equivalent of the founding fathers turning themselves in to England instead of starting a revolution.
""Hunt down" implies something Seal Team Six-style."
Is it unreasonable to expect such a thing? Suppose Snowden beats the odds and makes it to Ecuador. Would you be surprised to hear that he was found dead in his apartment in a year or two? Would you be shocked to learn that the US government was involved?
Why should we trust the US government to follow the laws of Ecuador, Venezuela, or Cuba? Snowden runs a real risk of being covertly kidnapped without regard to the laws of whatever country he happens to be in. He runs a real risk of being killed by a drone strike. The US government has done all of the above in the recent past, to both citizens and foreigners, in various regions and countries.
Yes, because outside of the movies, the USA doesn't seem very good at that sort of thing. How would they seal team six someone out of Moscow, Ecuador or Hong Kong?
Right, because as we all know the USA has never covertly assassinated someone, nor kidnapped someone from a foreign country, nor deployed drones... I guess if we ignore all the times the US government has done this sort of thing, you might be right.
I think I am seeing the outline of a decent propaganda technique here. If you want to make anything seem infeasible, just write it into fiction.
Government assassinations? Won't happen because it happens in the movies. High end German automobile catches fire after hitting a tree at 80+mph? Doesn't happen because that is what happens in the movies (Remember the Michael Hastings conversation on HN a few days ago? Assertions that cars don't actually catch fire were running rampant.) Marry your highschool sweetheart and enjoy each others company for the rest of your lives? Won't happen, because that is what happens in the movies. Bad guy gets shot in the arm but keeps shooting a few more times at the good guy? Won't happen, because that is what happens in the movies. (Countless examples of this happening, though tell my mother this and she'll tell you Hollywood is making it up.)
They Seal-Team-Sixed Osama Bin Laden, and subsequently his corpse, out of a country on perennially high military alert. They couldn't do it in Moscow or Hong Kong without potentially starting a major war, but I could easily see them doing a targeted kill or extract from Ecuador. Seal Team Six's capabilities, as demonstrated in the OBL raid, are extremely high.
I don't think Snowden is going to make it out of Moscow as a free man, but if he does, the US will orchestrate political change in Ecuador and eventually get him that way. America is Ecuador's biggest and most important trading partner, and relations are usually friendlier-- the current President is an exception to the rule. The US also tolerates a little bit of Yankee-bashing from Latin America as political posturing, but this is different-- harboring Snowden is a serious issue for the Obama Administration.
Israel (a much tinier country with much less resources for this sort of thing) quite handily kidnapped Eichmann from Argentina in 1960. Why do you think that it would be so impossible for the US to do the same?
No, I don't think such a thing is unreasonable. What I think is unreasonable is Amnesty International using the words "hunt down" to refer to the United States filing criminal charges and making formal extradition requests.
"Besides filing charges against Snowden, the US authorities have revoked his passport – which Amnesty International said interferes with his rights to freedom of movement and to seek asylum elsewhere."
This to me seems a lot more like "hunt down" than "the US has simply made written requests of countries under existing treaties"
Of course you revoke the passport of someone who has fled the country to avoid criminal charges -- the passport's purpose is to certify that the US government is certifying your travels abroad, which it certainly will not do for Edward Snowden unless the destination is the United States. Passport revocation is garden variety practice even for white collar criminals out on bail.
> I don't know why people think that "I think Edward Snowden did the right thing" is incompatible with "Edward Snowden should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law."
It's because the vast majority of people disbelieve in liberal democracy. They require heroes and villains in their news stories, and have difficulty acknowledging the existence of people outside of those categories; this is one of the biggest reasons why democracy is difficult.
I bet the first draft of the White House's reply to Amnesty International reads just like the ones typical banana republic dictatorships use: throwing a tantrum about "interference with internal affairs", Snowden broke "the law" and must be deported at once, etc...
It is sad that this is pretty much expected from this government the same way the ones among us who grew up in Pinochet's Chile or any other dictatorship could predict from their own government.
The White House rather unambiguously threw Snowden under the bus:
"Mr. Snowden's claim that he is focused on supporting transparency, freedom of the press and protection of individual rights and democracy is belied by the protectors he has potentially chosen - China, Russia, Ecuador, as we've seen [...] His failures to criticize these regimes suggests that his true motive throughout has been to injure the national security of the United States, not to advance Internet freedom and free speech."
If it's not one thing, it's another. No matter what Snowden did, they would come up with some excuse to trivialize his disclosures.
This one is particularly egregious because it can be turned right back around on the US government which also claims to support transparency, freedom of the press and protection of individual rights and yet it also consorts with despots and dictators.
Not to undermine your point at all - as the US is guilty many times over of doing terrible things in the name of overthrowing governments - but Democracy != good. Just because people can vote, doesn't mean they won't vote in evil leaders. The US elected Nixon, Bush, and Obama, after all.
Electing bad guys (which itself is kind of a ambiguous term - what metrics and who gets to choose the metrics?) is a risk of democracy.
It's kind of like seedless watermelon - if you want rich, succulent aka "good" watermelon you have to put up with the occasional seed. If you want a guarantee of no seeds then you have to accept a watermelon that doesn't taste anywhere near as "good" - maybe it is passable but it certainly isn't good.
That's not to say that democracy can't be perverted, just that it can't be perfect.
Yep. We elect bad guys in large part because our democracy is flawed. At a minimum we need approval voting to loosen the stranglehold the two major parties have on us.
Hilarious, not the least because the White House itself is usually very timid about criticizing China or Russia. Also, what do they expect him to do, step out of the airplane in Moscow and shout "I hate Putin"?
Interesting comparison, considering it was with help from the USA that Pinochet got into power after that "other" September 11. Sad perhaps, but maybe not entirely unexpected.
I find the media reporting on this incredibly frustrating. So many articles seem to be blindly making claims along the lines that both China and Russia have extradition treaties with the US and should be "following the law".
> It was not clear if he was speaking of China or of Russia, when he added: “If we cannot count on them to honour their legal extradition responsibilities, then that is a problem.”
Well given that neither Russia or China have extradition treaties with the US, I would hazard a guess they were referring to Hong Kong.
Makes sense: Snowden is somewhere on the other side of the world, Amnesty have absolutely no say in his fate, so might as well write up a nice press release about him, right? Let's hit those front-pages, people!
Meanwhile, a few yards from their lovely London HQ, a certain unsympathetic Australian is under indefinite house arrest. When his tribulations first started, Amnesty first stood silent for days, then threw him unceremoniously under the bus. Because evildoers are always somewhere else, never in your own backyard, of course.
Note the date: 27 September. It took them 3 months to get their head out of their arse, and only after they bled supporters. In June and July, their tone was very different, more akin to what their Swedish branch is still saying: http://www.thelocal.se/43510/20120928/
Still they deserve credit for coming around. Better that they do that then stick to a wrong position. Criticize them when they do the wrong thing, but not when they do the right thing.
And while I have no view at all about his guilt or innocence of rape in Sweden and would argue against his extradition to the US I am certain beyond all reasonable doubt that he is guilty of breaching his bail conditions for which I think he should be punished.
Every morning, every child is forced to stand up, place their hand over their heart, face the flag, and recite the words "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
In my school, one had the option of remaining silent, a few people would opt --I even did once in a while, for kicks, no one gave me any flak.
That being said, it's trivial compared to the conditioning they do in Japanese schools. I.e. all the loudspeaker commands throughout school and the environment.
On, on a positive note, at least it's to a country (ideals) rather than a Queen.
As a Brit I take some offense to your throwaway comment.
What you fail to understand is that the Queen (or monarchy) also represents the ideals of the country. They are a binding force, that tie us to our past and our future. They hold very little power and have to endure much responsibility (mentoring politicians, representing the country abroad, upholding the values and behavior expected of them) and suffer much inconvenience (media intrusion).
It is also very rare for a pledge of allegiance of any kind in the UK especially in schools (I understand it happens at citizenship ceremonies and in certain public office positions such MPs) - the idea of school children pledging blind allegiance to an entity is pretty horrid in my opinion.
And to be clear, the problem in America is not the flag, but rather the pledge to it. With no daily pledges to the Queen, I definitely don't see a parallel problem.
> They hold very little power and have to endure much responsibility (mentoring politicians, representing the country abroad, upholding the values and behavior expected of them) and suffer much inconvenience (media intrusion).
The royal family is fabulously wealthy and enjoys much celebrity. I wouldn't call that very little power. They might not be able to tell parliament what to do anymore, but it's more power than you or I will ever know. The responsibility and inconvenience, while not zero, seem like a small price to pay for privileges granted by royal blood.
They're like A-list Hollywood actors, except there's almost zero ability to get into the family on the basis of merit. Marriage perhaps.
In Canada, we sing (or used to; been out of school for some time) the national anthem at the start of each day. I think it's the same for most countries.
I wonder how something as explicit as a pledge of allegiance compares to the national anthem in terms of the effect it has on a child's values.
In many schools the only way to opt-out without receiving significant grief for doing so is to claim a religious exemption to pledging to things. I saw kids receive perpetually refilling detentions for refusing to say the pledge, though at the time I found it weird that they would refuse.
Don't generalize. I had a few brushes with the administrations in middle and high school because I refused to stand for the pledge. Whenever I was forced to stand, I would look the other way in protest. Luckily the high school eventually just dropped the morning pledge altogether.
Honest question: Can someone draw the lines for me from looking at call meta data to human rights?
Is privacy even a right in the same sense as other human rights? Human rights are generally about what you CAN do, not about what others (ie.the government) CAN'T do.
Snowden will be hunted down, and murdered by drone.
He will never have the chance to face his accusers. There will never be a trial. There will be a mostly silent poof in the night, and Mr. Snowden will become another drone strike statistic.
So we should stop saying X country should stop violating it's citizen’s civil rights with torture, imprisonment for protesting etc? The US (and the rest of us) may need to start keeping a lot quieter then...
Didn't the US invade Iraq in the 90s because they were internally committing genocide? But now what ever happens in your border is all ok?
Sure, but I think the commenter has a point. Let's assume everything works the way it's supposed to. Ideally, when something like this happens it makes perfect sense for the US government to take notice of the fact that a law has been broken, bring charges, and take this to court. If the system continues to work the charges will be contested on the grounds that the action was in the interest of the public and that the leaks document a violation of the constitution. The govt drops the charges, and heads off to repair the completely fucked effects of the patriot act, etc.
So I agree it's naive and even unreasonable to expect the US not to file charges. I also agree that there's plenty of evidence that our justice system fails to operate even close to the way it ought to with respect to cases of this nature so I'd sure as shit get out of town if I was in this situation too.
[edit: Very much agree with replies to this comment suggesting none of this is likely to, or can possibly happen today.. I'm just saying the nature of the machine is to act as if it's not broken, which with respect to our approach to intelligence-related disputes, it obviously is.]
The charges will be contested how? The secret courts and the secret interpretation of the Patriot Act are secret and the State holds them to be State Secrets, and thus you cannot contest the charges, and thus the Constitutionality of the law is never challenged, and thus the law stays on the books, to be fully enforced.
If this is not a definition of corruption, I don't know what is.
Do you mean something else, because even ignoring the stark differences between Manning and Snowden, and the military and civilian courts, Manning's trial, last I heard, had started.
Well, I think he's being charged for revealing information about how the US Government violates the Constitution, specifically the 4th Amendment.
Let's be clear: in the United States of America, the Constitution is the Law. The first 10 Amendments constitute the Bill of Rights, and
the first paragraph of http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.htm... clearly shows why they were included in the Constitution:
"During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens.
The way I read the article, it seemed like Amnesty are just saying that he should have protection as a whistle-blower on the grounds that the leaks demonstrate human rights violations.
