02 Aug 13
I'm no fan of Russia or Putin, but they seem to make a valid point here. The USA lectures other countries regarding human rights abuses quite a lot, but I think of the waterboarding of people at gitmo, America's secret prisions in other countries during and after the Iraq invasion, and the many cases of Texas prison officals refusing to release inmates, even after DNA evidence has proven them innocent, and wonder if America is concerned about human rights, only when it's convienent.
This sutuation with Mr. Snowden will go away in time, but America needs learn not only to secure it's information better, but to start practicing what it preaches on the human rights front.
http://news.yahoo.com/snowden-no-business-usual-u-russia-040453339.html
02 Aug 13
1 edit
some of snowden's father media interviews were very interesting
namely, when his father said that the presidents job is to protect
the constitution - to protect our rights, and he is FAILING to do so:
skip to 7:00 for the constitution related quotes
he's [obama] a constitutional lawyer, but it seems it was for tearing into the document instead of protecting it. he will be remembered for being a weak president with the american public, at the very least!
02 Aug 13
Originally posted by bill718I would say that 'America' is not a single person and thus cannot really be said to do a single thing (or show 'concern' in a single way).
....and wonder if America is concerned about human rights, only when it's convienent.
The heart of the matter is how do you balance freedom with security. This applies to everything, including how you police. For example, a shoot to kill policy by police when facing a suspected armed criminal may be considered a violation of the suspects rights. I believe the UK has tended towards a 'no shoot' policy, and the US towards a much more trigger happy one.
However, there are americans who stand across the whole range of this question from complete pacifists to police state enthusiasts.
The problem comes when the US tries to preach to other countries, because as I say, there are good arguments for both extremes and where you come up with a balance is arguable, so preaching your own balance to others doesn't come across very well especially when you are not at either extreme. So there will always be other countries closer one of the extremes in either direction, that will make you look hypocritical whichever way you preach.
Another major issue for me, is the belief that a national of your country is worth more than a national of another country. I think this is no different than racism and just as immoral and despicable. If you believe torture or surveillance are wrong for your own citizens then they should be wrong for foreigners. Having different rules for foreigners essentially means you believe they are subhuman.
02 Aug 13
Originally posted by bill718The idea that America is somehow at fault for not securing its information is actually less credible than blaming a rape victim for an assault. While the US is not always 100% correct on every issue, Snowden is a criminal and should be treated as such.
This sutuation with Mr. Snowden will go away in time, but America needs learn not only to secure it's information better, but to start practicing what it preaches on the human rights front.
http://news.yahoo.com/snowden-no-business-usual-u-russia-040453339.html[/b]
02 Aug 13
Originally posted by bill718What does all that have to do with Snowden? This is not an issue of preaching to Russia or anyone else. Snowden knowingly committed a crime in the US. Trying to get him back to put him on trial is hardly a human rights violation. Gitmo and the Texas conviction review system really had nothing whatsoever to do with it.
I'm no fan of Russia or Putin, but they seem to make a valid point here. The USA lectures other countries regarding human rights abuses quite a lot, but I think of the waterboarding of people at gitmo, America's secret prisions in other countries during and after the Iraq invasion, and the many cases of Texas prison officals refusing to release inmates, even ...[text shortened]... man rights front.
http://news.yahoo.com/snowden-no-business-usual-u-russia-040453339.html
02 Aug 13
Originally posted by sh76"Snowden knowingly committed a crime in the US."
What does all that have to do with Snowden? This is not an issue of preaching to Russia or anyone else. Snowden knowingly committed a crime in the US. Trying to get him back to put him on trial is hardly a human rights violation. Gitmo and the Texas conviction review system really had nothing whatsoever to do with it.
What is the crime?
02 Aug 13
Originally posted by quackquack"Snowden is a criminal and should be treated as such."
The idea that America is somehow at fault for not securing its information is actually less credible than blaming a rape victim for an assault. While the US is not always 100% correct on every issue, Snowden is a criminal and should be treated as such.
what is his crime?
02 Aug 13
Originally posted by quackquackEspionage??? Who did he sell secrets to? Nobody, that is who. Fail!
Snowden admitted leaking classified secrets. Espionage, theft and conversion of property.
http://theweek.com/article/index/246029/is-obama-abusing-the-espionage-act
Theft??? All he did was talk, that is not theft. Conversion of property??? To who?
02 Aug 13
Originally posted by KazetNagorraClassified information that violates the 4th constitutional amendment. That is not a crime, that is a service to our country. Snowden is a hero that used his 1st constitutional amendment rights to expose an unconstitutional act that violated the 4th amendment.
I think he's accused of leaking classified information.
You Dutch would not know much about that though. This is our constitution, not yours. You Dutch do have one, right?
02 Aug 13
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainThere is a Dutch constitution, but I'm not sure how that is relevant in this case.
Classified information that violates the 4th constitutional amendment. That is not a crime, that is a service to our country. Snowden is a hero that used his 1st constitutional amendment rights to expose an unconstitutional act that violated the 4th amendment.
You Dutch would not know much about that though. This is our constitution, not yours. You Dutch do have one, right?
There are nifty institutions which are designed to figure out if someone's legal defense is valid or not. They are called "courts". Snowden has been accused of a crime by the US government, and a court should determine his guilt, not your interpretation of the US constitution.
Having said that, Russia is not obliged by law to hand Snowden over. AFAIK they don't have any extradition treaty with the US. Indeed, many EU nations (even ones that do have extradition treaties) have refused extradition of wanted fugitives to the US because of the danger they might be executed or tortured (abolishment of the death penalty is a precondition for EU membership). In this case, however, it just seems to be a phallic display from Putin.
02 Aug 13
Originally posted by KazetNagorra"a court should determine his guilt"
There is a Dutch constitution, but I'm not sure how that is relevant in this case.
There are nifty institutions which are designed to figure out if someone's legal defense is valid or not. They are called "courts". Snowden has been accused of a crime by the US government, and a court should determine his guilt, not your interpretation of the US const ...[text shortened]... or EU membership). In this case, however, it just seems to be a phallic display from Putin.
Which court? The supreme court? The court that determined that torture is not punishment? LOL!
I think Scalia should be executed for crimes against humanity, not merely impeached. Lets roll out the guillotine!
You are amusing my Dutch friend.
02 Aug 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainNot even Snowden's attorney would make that wild hairbrained legally unsound argument. Read the law dumbass.
Classified information that violates the 4th constitutional amendment. That is not a crime, that is a service to our country. Snowden is a hero that used his 1st constitutional amendment rights to expose an unconstitutional act that violated the 4th amendment.
02 Aug 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainThe Supreme Court is the top court in our country and the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution.
"a court should determine his guilt"
Which court? The supreme court? The court that determined that torture is not punishment? LOL!
I think Scalia should be executed for crimes against humanity, not merely impeached. Lets roll out the guillotine!
You are amusing my Dutch friend.
For those who do not like our system, our courts, our laws, they should leave America and refrain from breaking American laws.
No serious person denies what Snowden did was illegal. Even the most libertarian and government-hating legal scholars do not deny that Snowden broke the law.
Likewise, no serious person denies there is no viable defense that legally per se justifies his action. Sure, there may be discretion by the prosecutor and judge taking in the circumstances, but your arguments that somehow Snowden did not break the law are stupid.