I would vote to acquit based on nullification of a dangerous law.
I would vote to convict, but opt for the lightest sentence.
I would vote to convict, with no opinion on the sentence.
I would vote to convict and vote for the strongest sentence.
Of course, allied to that is a humungous apparatus to deny such a thing exists - hence you will have this type of thing associated with freaky conspiracy theories about the moon-landing or whatever.
I do believe that there is this technology and that it is being used - I also believe that the people using it believe they are doing society a service by doing so. As I said, I have no doubt that many many lives have been saved because of, not only this type of technology, but because of police surveillance in general.
Now, there is that small issue of privacy etc......
Last edited by Soberphobia; 06-10-2013 at 11:41 AM.
I see little differenced between the Snowden case and that of Bradley Manning. They both leaked classified information. Snowden worked for the CIA and I am sure signed agreements. He also worked for a government contractor (Booz Allen) and I am sure signed confidentiality agreements as well.
It's different than a media outlet publishing info they receive. That is freedom of the press and ok.
Snowden did it. He admits it. He is guilty. If a jury nails him, who knows.
Manning is dead meat. Although his is not a jury trial (unusual), the judge would see her career (and pension) terminated unless she finds him guilty.
He also admitted he did it.
Major Hassan also admitted he shot all those people at Fort Hood but claimed he was "defending his people" (sound familiar) who were Moslem freedom fighters overseas.
Manning is supposed to have leaked information that was of direct value to Al Quaeda. He will be tried in a military court that is closed to the public. He has a snowball's chance in hell of coming out of that scenario with less than the book thrown at him.
Snowden leaked information about a global policy of spying on our own citizens. He did not overtly or directly imperil anyone (I know, the NSA will say he did because he tipped off would-be terrorists everywhere that their phone records were being tracked - as if they didn't guess that already!) in the sense that Manning did, who also leaked stuff that was not of the "naming agents int he field" category. I think he will be convicted, if extradited, but I would not be surprised he there is more leniency here.
The problem is that without proof of these secret practices, the NSA and government in general would just deny and deny. I'm not sure that this stuff gets before the public unless somebody makes themselves a sacrificial lamb.
I might not disapprove of the meta-analysis of phone data per se, as it could have deterrent value. But I do seriously disapprove of secret policies being formed to do so that are not subject to the scrutiny of the electorate. That's a pretty shabby form of freedom.
Snowden is a narcissistic fame whore. Have you seen this clown congratulate himself on worldwide tv last couple days? Friggin little twerp who probably needs to buy prostitutes to lose his virginity and sell out his country to get famous.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
Who precisely has betrayed their country? Which value is of higher importance? What price are we willing to pay for supposed safety?
Back in 1776, you would have been railing against Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, George Washington, and Company for being narcissistic fame whores who sold out their own country.
Last edited by long island leprechaun; 06-11-2013 at 08:25 AM.