The father believe his son is committing treason for revealing government corruption and to stop exposing it further: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/17/exclusive-father-... The father prejudiced the public against his son in the hopes of having his son close to him again. The father even believes Wikileaks is an irresponsible organisation.
It seems that Snowden may have not planned for his family to be used to get him back. It's eerily similar to dictatorships who warn citizens going abroad that their family will still be here if they do not return.
Sometimes a parent's sentimentality and love for their child blinds them to all else. It has been mentioned that a number of his family works for the government in various capacities, so they could very well be of a slightly more authoritarian or trusting in authority than Snowden himself.
Snowden seems willing enough to face the statutory punishment for his actual crimes, just not the trumped up politicised charges the Government seems to have in mind.
I don't even know papa Snowden and it's pretty obvious to me he's just saying what some government agent told him to say... or else. It is a sad state of affairs that the U.S. has fallen so low. Why isn't anyone protesting? Why aren't people marching on capitol hill? I thought americans wouldn't stand for this kind of stasi crap. I was wrong.
The first time the father spoke, it was begging for his son to come home, that his son had done something terrible. Most people probably (wrongly) agreed with him. That got peoples' attention.
This time he's changed position, he's a lot more moderate. The people who agreed with him before will now have to re-evaluate their own position.
Snowden should agree to go back to america and go on trial on the condition the NSA and all those related get to go on trial in a publicized court of Showden's choosing with full, live, and uncensored media coverage.
Any lawyer would have a field day if it was made completely public with media coverage of what was happening and then BAM they screwed him the moment he set foot in the country.
I learned something vital about democracy from videogames. In Civilization II and Alpha Centauri, democracy and technological progress were modeled as being inherently "insecure." Your democratic, free and high-tech government was more susceptible to espionage and you could not effectively conduct espionage.
It amazes me how this simple model reflects the real world nature of free governments.
Leaks happen. The Obama administration's response should not be proactive prosecution. It should be to dismantle unjust, invasive security programs. They are plainly incompatible with free government, and they will be rendered ineffective—either by capitalism, politics, or in this case, whistleblowers.
Edward Snowden is but one of many ways our security apparatus is nullified by genuine freedom.
I don't think people would really have that much of an issue with spying programs if they were more transparent.
By that I mean they can't spy on ANYONE, they actually have to have justifiable evidence to suggest a person or group of people is conducting some form of illegal activities or are involved in potential terrorist activities/groups. Which they must then get a court order granting them the ability to spy on these people for a period of time.
During that period of time they don't have to give out the name but once the warrant expires if nothing shows up then the warrant becomes public domain, or if it expires and they prove its helping build a case then names can continue to be suppressed until the time of trial.
No secrecy within the country but enough secrecy that the person being spied on doesn't know until its too late.
I also think that warrants should detail the crime and only that crime can be charged with evidence gathered. Anything else for different crimes should be fruit of the poisonous tree, insofar as criminal proceedings are concerned. This would help prevent fishing expeditions, and the granting of warrants until there was reasonable strong suspicion to grant a warrant.
The weirdest thing for me is, after seeing pretty thorough comparisons between open/insecure and closed/secure systems throughout history, the folks in charge have decided to pursue closed/secure despite a proven track record of failure.
I don't know exactly what to chalk it up against, other than short-term thinking that benefits the individuals making the decisions, hubris that "this time it's going to be different!", or some sort of intentional pursuit of the worst long-term strategy possible. Probably some combination of the first two?
They should also add provisions for:
(1) Trial by jury
(2) Public hearing
(3) No solitary confinement
(4) No other forms of torture. Name an organization such as Amnesty International who is responsible for determining what is and is not cruel and unusual torture.
I would also like to see Obama debate Greenwald live on national TV just like the Frost Nixon debates, but I know that would never happen.
It seems that Snowden may have not planned for his family to be used to get him back. It's eerily similar to dictatorships who warn citizens going abroad that their family will still be here if they do not return.
In contrast, Julian Assange's family supports him fully in public. That's pretty powerful support. His mum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bn7s10_VZ8
It's so sad. I hope he continues for the people of the world, unfortunately without a father in life.