Page 2 of 3
Re: If you've done nothing wrong...
Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2013 5:06 pm
by Impenitent
rally round your union boss boys!
-Imp
Re:
Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2013 5:44 pm
by Arising_uk
henry quirk wrote:...
So: why did Snowden out himself?
Self-aggrandizement: 15 minutes of fame.
Years and years in a federal prison is a hefty price to pay for gettin' on television.
Hmm.. more likely that he knew that he'd be uncovered as the source and is trying to stay out of prison.
"...trying to stay out of prison"
Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2013 6:41 pm
by henry quirk
If that's the case then, boy, is he dumb.
No way in hell, after foisting up a major embarrassment for the powers that be, he's gonna skate.
He'll die in the slam.
#
"rally round your union boss boys!"
HA!
More accurately: 'rally round your union boss, Bill!'
Re: "...trying to stay out of prison"
Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2013 10:56 pm
by Arising_uk
henry quirk wrote:If that's the case then, boy, is he dumb.
No way in hell, after foisting up a major embarrassment for the powers that be, he's gonna skate.
He'll die in the slam. ...
Hmm ... even tho' he could claim he was trying to protect the citizens constitutional rights?
Given what appears to be the Americans abhorrence of such govt surveillance who'd convict?
Is it a life sentence for such things? Seems harsh.
Is there a big furor about this over there amongst the prole? As it does seem very dubious as both our agencies appear to have got around their legal obligations to their publics right to privacy by getting each other to spy on us and then passing the info.
Re: If you've done nothing wrong...
Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 10:11 am
by marjoramblues
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/ju ... mentpage=1
'Snowden's decision to go public has mystified many. Why come out? He had, he said, seen at first hand the impact on colleagues of leak inquiries involving anonymous sources and he did not want to put his colleagues through another ordeal.
...He has been hailed as a hero by some and a criminal by others. He was denigrated in columns in the New York Times and Washington Post. The Post columnist Richard Cohen, though he has never met Snowden, wrote: "He is not paranoiac; he is merely narcissistic." In the New York Times, David Brooks offered up psychological analysis, writing:
Though thoughtful, morally engaged and deeply committed to his beliefs, he appears to be a product of one of the more unfortunate trends of the age: the atomization of society, the loosening of social bonds, the apparently growing share of young men in their 20s who are living technological existences in the fuzzy land between their childhood institutions and adult family commitments.'...
...Snowden would likely argue he is not guilty of a crime and claim the charges are politically motivated
Re: If you've done nothing wrong...
Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:04 pm
by marjoramblues
Detrimental to the 'public good' ?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/ju ... lines-told
A travel alert, dated Monday 10 June on a Home Office letterhead, said carriers should not allow Snowden to board because "the individual is highly likely to be refused entry to the UK".
The Associated Press news agency saw a photograph of the document taken on Friday at a Thai airport. A British diplomat confirmed to AP that the document was genuine and was sent to airlines around the world. A Thai airline official also confirmed the alert had been issued.
The official said such alerts were issued to carriers that flew into the UK, adding that any carrier bringing in Snowden would be liable to a £2,000 fine. He said it was likely the Home Office had deemed Snowden's presence in the UK to be detrimental to the "public good".
Re: If you've done nothing wrong...
Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:52 pm
by marjoramblues
Impenitent wrote:rally round your union boss boys!
-Imp
I kinda know who you're directing this to - the usually vocal...erm...image-oriented American amongst us, and his 'religion'. For all I know he may have replied to this but had his post deleted.
However, for me, your post did raise the question as to who would/could represent or offer power to the people, if their governments decided to treat any protest as unpatriotic, and protestors as 'terrorists'. Why not a 'union' - why should unions only be for 'workers' of whom there are less and less...?
Also, given the apparent apathy and silence - what might the role of philosophy be in this...if anything...why is it that we only seem mainly to hear the views of politicians and journalists...everyone else too scared? Where is the calm debate in the media? Too boring?
It seems important for definitions of 'patriotism' to be clear and not to be hijacked.
In addition, how clever is it to speculate and assume things without having all the facts. And how do we know what the facts of a situation really are. There are huge issues of fear and mistrust here...and I don't see it getting any better.
Rant over.
Re: If you've done nothing wrong...
Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 2:21 pm
by Impenitent
marjoramblues wrote:Impenitent wrote:rally round your union boss boys!
-Imp
I kinda know who you're directing this to - the usually vocal...erm...image-oriented American amongst us, and his 'religion'. For all I know he may have replied to this but had his post deleted.
However, for me, your post did raise the question as to who would/could represent or offer power to the people, if their governments decided to treat any protest as unpatriotic, and protestors as 'terrorists'. Why not a 'union' - why should unions only be for 'workers' of whom there are less and less...?
Also, given the apparent apathy and silence - what might the role of philosophy be in this...if anything...why is it that we only seem mainly to hear the views of politicians and journalists...everyone else too scared? Where is the calm debate in the media? Too boring?
It seems important for definitions of 'patriotism' to be clear and not to be hijacked.
In addition, how clever is it to speculate and assume things without having all the facts. And how do we know what the facts of a situation really are. There are huge issues of fear and mistrust here...and I don't see it getting any better.
Rant over.
organize against the powers that be...
http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/13/fbi-h ... roups-say/
oops... comrade Obama the savior will make sure that all opposition to his benevolence will be crushed...
read the federalist papers lately? this is why we have a second...
-Imp
Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 3:11 pm
by henry quirk
"even tho' he could claim he was trying to protect the citizens constitutional rights?"
He could've achieved the same goal and remained anonymous.
He's a self-aggrandizing dink.
#
"who'd convict?"
The American government has practically unlimited resources and every reason to make an example of him...do the math.
#
"a life sentence for such things?"
Could be worse: he could get the chair.
Wouldn't be the first time.
#
"Is there a big furor about this over there amongst the prole?"
The domesticated don’t give a poop about nuthin' if they're fed and cozy and warm.
Snowden's inevitable demise (real or figurative) is just a clanging of the pots and pans to remind the domesticated that each 'is' domesticated (or, the clanging is a distraction from that domestication...either...both...*shrug*).
##
"...Snowden would likely argue he is not guilty of a crime and claim the charges are politically motivated"
Since he won’t be trying himself: irrelevant.
His idiocy could be monumental...he pokes the powers that be with a sharp stick, revealing those powers’ predation, and then perhaps expects the powers to treat him 'properly'.
##
"
image-oriented American"
HA!
Got you pegged, Bill...
#
"how do we know what the facts of a situation really are?"
No one ever does...it's impossible to...being a 'perspective' (standing in a place relative to sumthin'), by definition, means a whole whack of information is inaccessible to you (and me). One does what one can, which is, apprehend information and 'think' about it...that is: make the best use of what you got (limited information and limited self).
#
"I don't see it getting any better"
Flux and flow, wax and wane: nuthin' is static...give it time.
Re:
Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 4:44 pm
by marjoramblues
Sorry if this format is confusing - my latest remarks are in bold.
henry quirk wrote:"even tho' he could claim he was trying to protect the citizens constitutional rights?"
He could've achieved the same goal and remained anonymous.
He's a self-aggrandizing dink.
M:
You said that already. You think he is an eejit who is in it for 5 minutes of fame ?
Based on what?
See above: He apparently 'outed' himself so that his colleagues wouldn't be subjected to harrassment by the authorities.
But how do we judge the truth of the matter. As you say, we can only go by limited info and limited self.
----------
"Is there a big furor about this over there amongst the prole?"
The domesticated don’t give a poop about nuthin' if they're fed and cozy and warm.
M:
..with guns in pocket
----------
"...Snowden would likely argue he is not guilty of a crime and claim the charges are politically motivated"
Since he won’t be trying himself: irrelevant.
M:
Relevant to his defence ?
----------
His idiocy could be monumental...he pokes the powers that be with a sharp stick, revealing those powers’ predation, and then perhaps expects the powers to treat him 'properly'.
M:
From the Guardian article, it seems that he has considered the negative consequences of his action very carefully indeed.
Edit to add link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/ju ... mentpage=1
----------
"
image-oriented American"
HA!
Got you pegged, Bill...
M:
But not out in the desert under a blazing mid-day sun...
----------
"how do we know what the facts of a situation really are?"
No one ever does...it's impossible to...being a 'perspective' (standing in a place relative to sumthin'), by definition, means a whole whack of information is inaccessible to you (and me). One does what one can, which is, apprehend information and 'think' about it...that is: make the best use of what you got (limited information and limited self).
M:
We have almost limitless information - that is the problem...sorting out the more reliable sources. It helps if you've actually witnessed something first-hand; then you can compare the various reports...but how often does that happen?
----------
"I don't see it getting any better"
Flux and flow, wax and wane: nuthin' is static...give it time.
M:
Yeah, I know 'everything changes', yet some things stay the same...power and greed. How much time in a cycle, an evolution...and at each new turn...some things are better, others are worse...
Where is the power to interrupt a cycle that is damaging...eg if politicians are in power for 5yrs, they have broken any promises made during election, decisions are taken allegedly for the 'public' good' and in the 'national interest'...
shouldn't there be some kind of circuit-breaker...?
Re: If you've done nothing wrong...
Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 5:47 pm
by marjoramblues
Tip of the iceberg: PRISM, partisanship and propaganda.
Don't think this is going to be swept under the carpet anytime soon.
Interesting, eye-opening 6-point article. Glenn Greenwald on 'Security and Liberty':
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... anda-prism
Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 5:59 pm
by henry quirk
"You think he is an eejit who is in it for 5 minutes of fame? Based on what?"
Principle of Parsimony.
I'm happy to entertain alternate theories, but -- as of now -- I'm going with 'eejit'.
He bulk-releases information that stands on its own (info not made more 'real' or factual by way of his identity being known), THEN he outs himself.
I conclude he be dink.
#
"He apparently 'outed' himself so that his colleagues wouldn't be subjected to harrassment by the authorities."
Perhaps. This just makes him naive (in the least). The powers will scour the system...every one he worked with (as well as family and friends) will be scrutinized...he protected not a soul. Again: he lays bare predation by the powers, then expects the powers to 'play nice', to 'play right'.
Naive.
#
"Relevant to his defence"
You presume his trial will be sumthin' other than 'kangaroo'.
#
"it seems that he has considered the negative consequences of his action very carefully indeed."
I disagree with that assessment. Seems to me: if Snowden had "considered the negative consequences of his action very carefully" he would have strived for anonymity. Again: the information he disclosed stands on its own...his identity (as leaker) adds nuthin' to the weight of that information.
Also: there were a number of ways he could have released the information more quickly and with far less chance of his being exposed. Instead: he went, hat in hand, to have a sit down with a newspaper.
*shrug*
#
"We have almost limitless information"
No, we really don't.
We lots and lots and lots of 'noise' with the barest bit of signal embedded in it.
It's sifting out of the signal (and learning to ignore the noise) that requires 'thinking'.
#
"shouldn't there be some kind of circuit-breaker...?"
There are plenty, but no a one of 'em is 'peaceful'.
"guns in pocket"
Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 9:21 pm
by henry quirk
Not sure if that's a *shot at gun nuts, or, a pointed remark about the wholly natural desire to self-defend.
Clarify, please.
*pun intended
Re: If you've done nothing wrong...
Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 11:53 am
by marjoramblues
Previously:
M: What did strike me was the relative silence on here - from the usually vocal Americans. Also, from what I can gather from the media, people seem more concerned about categorising the whistleblower as 'hero' or 'traitor' ( neither, he says, he is American) than any effects on their freedom. Strange, given the almighty hoo-hah re gun restrictions
A_uk: Is there a big furor about this over there amongst the prole?"
hq:The domesticated don’t give a poop about nuthin' if they're fed and cozy and warm.
M: ..with guns in pocket
hq: Not sure if that's a *shot at gun nuts, or, a pointed remark about the wholly natural desire to self-defend.
M: It is a referral back to my original surprise that this does not seem to have raised the hackles - been given as much prominence - as the gun control debate.
Also, I remember being slightly alarmed listening to Matt Frei's interview with Larry Pratt on 13th Feb 2013 (Channel 4 news) - the impression being given that as long as Americans owned guns - the right to bear arms and form a militia - then they could overthrow a 'tyrant'...ie not let Obama have his way...the 2nd amendment being seen as a 'warning'.
http://www.channel4.com/news/us-guns-se ... -a-warning
So, perhaps owning a gun gives a false sense of security when it comes to other, less tangible, freedoms being violated?
Re:
Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 12:40 pm
by marjoramblues
henry quirk wrote:"You think he is an eejit who is in it for 5 minutes of fame? Based on what?"
Principle of Parsimony.
M: Easiest option for a swift judgement
----------
I'm happy to entertain alternate theories, but -- as of now -- I'm going with 'eejit'.
He bulk-releases information that stands on its own (info not made more 'real' or factual by way of his identity being known), THEN he outs himself.
I conclude he be dink.
M: He may or not be 'dink' but he gone and done it; how many would have...----------
"He apparently 'outed' himself so that his colleagues wouldn't be subjected to harrassment by the authorities."
Perhaps. This just makes him naive (in the least).
The powers will scour the system...every one he worked with (as well as family and friends) will be scrutinized...he protected not a soul. Again: he lays bare predation by the powers, then expects the powers to 'play nice', to 'play right'.
M: Yup, not a soul can be protected against scrutiny - and he would know that; his 'outing' as the source perhaps lessened the degree slightly...
----------
"Relevant to his defence"
You presume his trial will be sumthin' other than 'kangaroo'.
M: assuming he will be given a trial...and not go 'missing'... any trial could raise interesting questions - or not...
"it seems that he has considered the negative consequences of his action very carefully indeed."
I disagree with that assessment. Seems to me: if Snowden had "considered the negative consequences of his action very carefully" he would have strived for anonymity. Again: the information he disclosed stands on its own...his identity (as leaker) adds nuthin' to the weight of that information.
Also: there were a number of ways he could have released the information more quickly and with far less chance of his being exposed. Instead: he went, hat in hand, to have a sit down with a newspaper.
*shrug*
M: *shrugs right back at ya'*
We will have to agree to disagree. It was a carefully chosen newspaper, and only after several measures of security...
"We have almost limitless information"
No, we really don't.
M: Yes, we really do. This is the information age; we are overloaded.
It is what might be done with this information that is the problem.
"shouldn't there be some kind of circuit-breaker...?"
There are plenty, but no a one of 'em is 'peaceful'.
M: And therein lies the pity and shame...
And so, the issue under discussion...perhaps swept aside temporarily; the magical carpet having flown to foreign lands...