Results 1 to 18 of 18
  1. Default Snowden, why didn't you just stop while you were ahead.

    In a single move he went from a person looking out for the rights of us internet-users to a scumbag who should be killed in his sleep.

    This should be considered aiding the enemy; I doubt he will ever get close to us again so he won't see any justice, but god damn, what the hell man. You know for pineappleing sure that Russia and China already have all of the info, that's the reason they are still willing to harbor him in the first place, information; otherwise, he would just be a nuisance from an international politics' standpoint.

  2. Default Re: Snowden, why didn't you just stop while you were ahead.

    At least Snowden's leaking it to Americans, not just the enemies of the state...

    As far as I'm concerned, your enemies knowing your priorities is one of the prices of being a free country. A secret government agency with no oversight by the people and free reign to write its own rules is a recipe for the most horrendous crimes against humanity we have on record. We know they're imprisoning people with no trial. We know they're torturing people. How is it in any way alright to let them keep the rest of their activities a secret?

    Frankly your attitude towards Snowden terrifies me. If you give up on freedom this quickly, are you even going to notice when all your rights have been taken away in the name of security?

  3. Default

    What an insubstantial article.

    Who are the 'enemies' and what do you mean by a 'free country?' What stipulation obligates a 'free country' to dispense private information to 'enemies' against their own will? Is this the ground work for an argument or is this simply rhetoric employed with no basis?

    Debatable. This past December HSBC was tried in court for money laundering i.e. helping wash hundreds of millions of dollars for Mexican drug cartels. The 'bank' moved money for organizations like Al Qaeda and Hezbollah and helped countries like Iran, the Sudan and North Korea evade sanctions. Violating any conscionable application of Trading With the Enemy Act and blatantly denying wrong doing even after being thoroughly charged, the Department of Justice chose settlement with a fine that equates to roughly two weeks of profit from the banking institution. When we weigh violations against humanity, they should be considered for the plurality of injustice. When you have a government institution that openly states they willingly choose to have no oversight on banks that have free reign over determining living cost on not only physical products, but also on intangible materials (like air & energy) to future desires (like loans & life insurance) we already have all witnessed the worst crime against humanity that could ever occur. Finances are the de facto standard of humanity. Unaccountable government agencies is something that could lead to horrendous crimes. However, the fact that government agencies that are held accountable have also failed to hold to the standard, arguably being unaccountable should consequently provide context of how much value the concept of your own humanity holds to anyone except yourself.

    Tell me what rights? If we're discussing the rights that correlate to the Justice System, then we're talking about a medium that also bases itself around money. In such a medium, your rights are directly proportional to the quality of your lawyer. And the quality of the lawyer is proportional to the size of your pockets. Based on law firm alone, certain attorneys from lower-tier law practices will move instantly into settlement when paired in litigation with a lawyer representing an extremely prestigious firm. Security itself is a figurative concept that exists on the same intangible plane as human rights. The same goes with freedom. Everyone has freedom. Everyone possesses the ability to make an independent choice on some thought process. You can't technically lose freedom. However, it is wrong to imply that we'll lose to the government simply by making the personal decision to 'give up' to the 'forces at large'. People are subjugated because they choose to play by rules established by the very people you encourage them to be wary of. Compromise is understandable, but individuals don't compromise to abuse of authority because they expect the rules to change, but because they are cognizant that they are too weak to actually make a significant difference in the system. Freedom has no place when discussing standards that people must accept because they are aware that they cannot change the current status quo. That's subjugation.
    Last edited by Катюша; 2013-08-30 at 01:35 AM.

  4. Default Re: Snowden, why didn't you just stop while you were ahead.

    So, because he's leaking it to Americans, it's OK that he's also leaking it to everybody else? Sensitive data is just that. Some information the public isn't meant to know. As much as I dislike not knowing something, I'd rather pass on it than put millions of people at risk for some only moderately useful (or even interesting) information. Millions of dollars is no longer a very large amount when our debt is 5-6 digits higher than that. If it were tens of billions, I might see the usefulness of this information IN THE PROPER CHANNELS, with details that completely compromise our national security structure left out for the general public.

    Telling EVERYONE all of our weakpoints when we are the world's number one superpower is absurd, and the best way to quickly and destructively remove us from that. Isn't that the very definition of traitorous?

  5. Default Re: Snowden, why didn't you just stop while you were ahead.

    Did the Post not censor it so their would be minimum danger? @Flonne;

  6. Donator Straight Male
    IGN: ShinkuDragon HoukaPhoenix BoshokuRaven
    Server: Scania
    Level: 152
    Job: Batman
    Guild: IDissOrtis

    Default Re: Snowden, why didn't you just stop while you were ahead.

    he raises a good point however, how do you expect to be informed as an american, without having U.S.' enemies be informed too? at what point information is "sensitive"? according to the US, all information he's revealed so far is sensitive, that's what got him in trouble in the first place

  7. Default Re: Snowden, why didn't you just stop while you were ahead.

    Most places are doing so, which is actually something I'll give the media credit least until someone wants more attention and spills everything. The media isn't the source of the leak though, they are just an outlet.

    That's a difficult line to draw, I agree, and I don't really know the answer, all I know is this one went over it for me. I was totally OK with everything else he leaked.

  8. Default

    You're lying. 'This one' went over it for me. What did you actually dislike from the source document that is posted on the linked web site.

  9. Default Re: Snowden, why didn't you just stop while you were ahead.

    I prefer not to take sides, so I'll just leave a couple of comments here.

    => Nurmengard - "For the greater good"... who deems what is good? How good is good enough? Do the ends - (a/an) "greater good(s)" - justify the means? On whose justification(s)? This applied to both sides of the current issue.
    => Moral obligations are... I would say, highly personal and subjective. The claim of a moral obligation is not a solid argument because it is not solely affected by societal norms. A twisted righteousness is still righteousness... to the own person but not others. Morality is, unfortunately, not universal, and most definitely isn't tied to us all being (civilised) humans.
    => Even if one's words and actions resonate with some others, performing an act that is later echoed by others does not necesarily grant one justification for one's actions at that point of time. Because of this, judging one's actions becomes very... nuanced.

    @above: would you mind clarifying your sentence? Its sentence structure makes understanding difficult.


  10. Default Re: Snowden, why didn't you just stop while you were ahead.

    My easiest option here is to quote Wikipedia:
    Censure being the main one I'm thinking of with regard to Snowden. And I tend to draw the line on private information at "personally identifying information". I don't want to know what specific terrorist threats the CIA/NSA are combatting, in terms of "they are wiretapping 1-800-555-1234". I do want to know that they're using proper judicial channels to obtain their wiretaps, and a general idea of who they're employed against.

    I'm not actually interested in weighing which is worse pound for pound. But thanks for pointing out that they're already doing it.

    Uh you can technically lose many freedoms. Freedom of expression, freedom of congregation, freedom from imprisonment. If a government takes one away, very few individuals have the resources to fight back.

  11. Default

    OP states that the information leaked in this instance constituted a 'breaking point' that was somehow worse than previous leaks. However, doesn't provide details on how this is the case. Having skimmed over some of the headers, sparse information is provided therefore begging to question how one can make such a call. My impression is that the OP hasn't bothered to check the formatted 'source document' and has instead relied on the tone of the article in passing their own judgment.

    You should have grasped in my prior post that I find ideas like 'freedom of congregation' and 'freedom of imprisonment' to be a debasement of my belief that no matter what has happened, is happening, or will happen to an individual they always possess an uncompromisable ability of choice. I suspect that you brought freedoms into this discussion as a matter of thought-train consistency with respect to you elaborating on your initial promotion that America should hold to being a free country. However, we are discussing two very different things. My prior post was more focused on the discussion of freedom as it exists as a concept. Your response is a discussion of how institutions implement the concept of freedom as freedoms. Are we good? Because I actually typed up an entirely different response before realizing that it was just easier to explain how I feel that this was a conversation over cmanticks.

  12. Default Re: Snowden, why didn't you just stop while you were ahead.

    I'm not sure if I can agree with that, unless people can cease to be individuals without, in the traditional sense, dying (take people in persistive vegetative comas - they're not able to make any choices as far as I can tell). Also, a third party can certainly affect your set of choices - if you're in solitary confinement "kiss a person" is no longer one of your options, you're stuck with "pace restlessly", "stare at the wall", "starve yourself to death", and so on. It's in this sense that I care about freedom - I feel that some choices should be available to anyone, in order to maintain human dignity. And when you take those choices away from someone you're doing something bad. That's not to say it's never necessary - but just that it needs to be acknowledged as such in every case when it's done (and as far as I'm concerned, the only reason to do it is to prevent them doing worse to others).

    btw I'm a little confused if you have 2 accounts or just completely didn't post the thing I was rebutting.

  13. Default Re: Snowden, why didn't you just stop while you were ahead.

    Quick answer. Yes, coma patients are unconscious and therefore don't have the freedom to make their own decisions. No, people in solitary still have the freedom to make their own decisions, they are limited though in the ability of decisions they are able to make due to their presence in a 'solitary' environment. There is no proven correlation with humanity and dignity or dignity being an objective standard to judge humanity. Yes, I agree that it would be nice if people have the ability to do anything they wanted, but realistically we know that is not true. And no, I don't believe that restricting someone's ability of choice is bad. I believe that it is only a disparity that comes from one person having a superior platform to the other person. I am still under the belief though that even though we don't have a choice to how we are born in this world, we do have a choice of how we die, the only caveat being children born with severe birth defects and disabilities that leave them physically crippled and unable to move their bodies (a caveat just for you). I have more than two accounts. Due to my impulsive nature I sometimes jitter about. But I am mostly on this one all the time. And I responded to what I felt was relevant to discussion.

  14. Default Re: Snowden, why didn't you just stop while you were ahead.

    I'm honestly not sure how to take the other viewpoint of this, so I don't really know how to respond to you defending him. It's on such a fundamental level of "wrong" to me that it isn't possible for me to do so. Here's a larger list since I guess you didn't look up more articles on this:

    I don't mind the leak on 1-5, and while 8 is sketchy I'd still say I'm fine with it, but 7 and especially 9 are breaches of national security at a major level, plain and simple. ...and it didn't number them.

  15. Default Re: Snowden, why didn't you just stop while you were ahead.

    I don't understand. What about #7 and #9 make them so important?

  16. Default Re: Snowden, why didn't you just stop while you were ahead.

    For one, that we are looking to obtain that information. China/Russia has always been the "Enemy closer than my friend" circumstance. Although they are considered "allies" it still looks bad when you're exposed for looking through your "friends belongings". It also reveals how much information we do have. That put's us in a poor position as they know our limitations while there information is endless as far as we as a country are concerned. It also red flags what we are looking for, thus they focus their "counter espionage" on those points.

    I didn't really want to comment on snowden until his intentions were finally developed, this just proved he was more of a traitor than a patriot, hell he had most of the world believing the later, so just to me, seems like a bad fellow in general :|

  17. Default Re: Snowden, why didn't you just stop while you were ahead.

    How much information do we have on them?

  18. Default Re: Snowden, why didn't you just stop while you were ahead.

    Essentially all the information they need is what we are targeting, which defines our interests, and that we know of the existence of these programs but not in detail. They'll obviously make it even more difficult to acquire that information, which by evidently our government standards should be a priority, for reasons probably out you or I's understanding, or rather perspective



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts