Privacy and the State

[Flosshilde]

I think the likelihood is that Mr Snowden is a political troublemaker based on the available evidence.

Based on the evidence (the same evidence I assume that you have) I think he's nothing of the sort. What would his motives be? What does he have to gain? He's put himself in a very tricky position, with death as a possible outcome if the USA govt gets its hands on him, for no apparent gain. I would have thought that you'd be familiar with the concept of acting purely from a belief that what you are doing is right, rather than for any personal gain.

[scottycelt]

Saving lives.

Exactly!

Not if they were saving lives.

Ditto! Like trying to contain terrorism, for example?

That's the kind of rhetorical, when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife question that broaches no answer.

Oh dear, it's back to that 'you must prove what you are saying but, hey, I don't have to prove anything, I just have to say you are wrong and debate over!' :laugh:

Of course, I could be wrong. However, it is just conceivable I might also be right. It's a question of using personal judgement based on what we already know and our experience of human behaviour.

People usually need a motivation to act. The general view seems to be that Mr Snowden is a thoroughly decent and innocent young chap who was shocked by what he discovered in his past employment with the US secret services and felt obliged to tell the world's press so that it never happens again. He is 'a hero whistle-blower' and we should all be profoundly grateful to him

Well, I find all that rather too much to swallow. It's hardly surprising to me that no country currently seems particularly eager to grant our hero whistle-blower political asylum. No doubt they are well aware that if Mr Snowden can so easily betray one trust he is very likely to end up betraying another.

One thing for sure, he already appears to have grossly under-estimated the intelligence and understandable caution of the authorities in both China and Russia!

[french frank]

Would you be in favour of prosecuting the 'lawbreakers' irrespective of the circumstances?

If the fire/police/ambulance drivers knocked down and killed a pedestrian, yes, prosecution should be considered. But only you know what you intended by 'irrespective of the circumstances' and how that would relate to the Snowden case.

My opinion is not necessarily 'unshakeable' and is certainly hardly more or less than your own apparently 'unshakeable' trust in Mr Snowden!

Should further facts emerge that suggested to me that his sole purpose was to betray his country, that might 'shake my trust' but my feeling is that if he were a genuine 'traitor' or 'spy' he would not have wanted the information to be published to the world - together with his identity: he would have passed the information on secretly to his paymasters, so that the US were unaware of the fact. I neither 'trust' nor 'distrust' Edward Snowden.

No more so than any other country. Have you any 'evidence' that 'spying' is not practised in some way by the security services of every other country in the world? Remember, we are talking about the real world not the imaginary one we might prefer to think exists in its place.

I certainly don't have evidence that the EU was spying on the United States, no.

I think the likelihood is that Mr Snowden is a political troublemaker based on the available evidence. Do you wholly discount this theory and if so can you please provide some counter-evidence as to why you are so (apparently) 'unshakeably' convinced that Mr Snowden is not simply a political troublemaker? I assume that you must have this other evidence.

It depends what you are implying by the term 'political troublemaker'. I imagine he was perfectly aware that the revelations of illegal activities against friendly countries would 'make political trouble' for the US. And I imagine some people will condemn that 'irrespective of the circumstances'. Others would take cognisance of the circumstances and be less ready to condemn.

[Richard Barrett]

It depends what you are implying by the term 'political troublemaker'.

What a meaningless phrase that is. As for "containing terrorism", I wonder in what way the US spying on the German government is supposed to be addressing that issue.

[MrGongGong]

No more so than any other country. Have you any 'evidence' that 'spying' is not practised in some way by the security services of every other country in the world? Remember, we are talking about the real world not the imaginary one we might prefer to think exists in its place.

Oh dear Scotty
you seem to be suggesting that because "everyone" does something then it's somehow OK for "us" to do it ?
What sort of Ethical framework is THAT ?

[ahinton]

As for "containing terrorism", I wonder in what way the US spying on the German government is supposed to be addressing that issue.

"Logic" might suggest that the US government believes that the Merkel government includes potential or actual terrorists and that, accordingly, they're part of the enemy in their "war on terrr"; hmmm - it's enough to make you wonder why they're ever allowed into US when they want to visit that country...

[scottycelt]

If the fire/police/ambulance drivers knocked down and killed a pedestrian, yes, prosecution should be considered. But only you know what you intended by 'irrespective of the circumstances' and how that would relate to the Snowden case.

Only me?

I suspect a few more than myself will grasp the point, even if they disagree. It was yourself who insisted on substituting the word 'illegal' for my own 'extraordinary' as if civil law should never be broken by anybody in any circumstances. The point is, of course, that there sometimes can be extenuating circumstances when breaking the law may be justified as being by far the lesser of two "evils" (at least in the eyes of some). In the case of Mr Snowden it is difficult to see what good will come out of any of these 'revelations' and I strongly suspect that this was way, way down his list of priorities in any case.

Should further facts emerge that suggested to me that his sole purpose was to betray his country, that might 'shake my trust' but my feeling is that if he were a genuine 'traitor' or 'spy' he would not have wanted the information to be published to the world - together with his identity: he would have passed the information on secretly to his paymasters, so that the US were unaware of the fact. I neither 'trust' nor 'distrust' Edward Snowden.

I repeat that I think the word 'traitor' has an old-fashioned ring to it. However, from an official American viewpoint it's maybe difficult to think of a more accurate one. I'm not sure that a 'spy' is any less a 'spy' by agreeing to do work for the US Secret Services and then rushing to a UK newspaper 'paymaster' with the information obtained rather than to a foreign government 'paymaster'.

I certainly don't have evidence that the EU was spying on the United States, no.It depends what you are implying by the term 'political troublemaker'. I imagine he was perfectly aware that the revelations of illegal activities against friendly countries would 'make political trouble' for the US. And I imagine some people will condemn that 'irrespective of the circumstances'. Others would take cognisance of the circumstances and be less ready to condemn.

I don't have any evidence either regarding the EU but I think it's a pretty safe bet that individual EU countries will have well-established spy networks and of course industrial espionage is rife. I used to do it myself on occasion pretending to be a customer to get information on a competitor's product. I feel certain competitors will have done exactly the same in reverse to get some useful information. If they hadn't they were most unlikely to have survived. That is not to say I condone the bugging of offices but I'd be genuinely amazed if such illegal practices only happened in the US and not the EU!

Finally, you appear to have readily condoned Mr Snowden's activities and are obviously quite willing to condemn others in turn. You are suspicious of Western governments. Fair enough. I tend to be just as suspicious of the motives of those like Mr Snowden. Am I really any more ready to be 'condemnatory' than your goodself?

[ahinton]

In the case of Mr Snowden it is difficult to see what good will come out of any of these 'revelations'

Difficult for you, perhaps, but that should not be the case; why do you say that it is "difficult"? What's "difficult" about it? Why do you suppose that Mr Snowden has done / is doing what he has done / is doing? Do you think it at best unimportant or at worst unwise to reveal the kinds of state-sponsored activity that he is seeking to reveal?

I repeat that I think the word 'traitor' has an old-fashioned ring to it. However, from an official American viewpoint it's maybe difficult to think of a more accurate one. I'm not sure that a 'spy' is any less a 'spy' by agreeing to do work for the US Secret Services and then rushing to a UK newspaper 'paymaster' with the information obtained rather than to a foreign government 'paymaster'.

But the same could be said of a country that "spies" on another, surely? In any case, what is - or rather should be - the international significance of "an official American viewpoint" with the implication that it somehow has to right to transcend other such viewpoints?

I don't have any evidence either regarding the EU but I think it's a pretty safe bet that individual EU countries will have well-established spy networks and of course industrial espionage is rife. I used to do it myself on occasion pretending to be a customer to get information on a competitor's product. I feel certain competitors will have done exactly the same in reverse to get some useful information. If they hadn't they were most unlikely to have survived. That is not to say I condone the bugging of offices but I'd be genuinely amazed if such illegal practices only happened in the US and not the EU!

I am unaware that anyone here has sought to imply either that US has some kind of monopoly on such activities or that they're usually worse when carried out by US; when individuals and firms become the victim of this kind of thing, the identity of the perpetrator is often of little consequence.

Finally, you appear to have readily condoned Mr Snowden's activities and are obviously quite willing to condemn others in turn. You are suspicious of Western governments. Fair enough. I tend to be just as suspicious of the motives of those like Mr Snowden. Am I really any more ready to be 'condemnatory' than your goodself?

What specific suspicions do you harbour as to the motives behind Mr Snowden's activities and why? How might you suppose that he would derive some kind of benefit from them (and what benefit) when, to all intents and purposes, he is, on the contrary, placing himself at very considerable risk as a direct consequence of his activites?

[french frank]

The point is, of course, that there sometimes can be extenuating circumstances when breaking the law may be justified as being by far the lesser of two "evils" (at least in the eyes of some).

And there I will leave your own argument to defend what you seem to regard as indefensible.

[ahinton]

It's hardly surprising to me that no country currently seems particularly eager to grant our hero whistle-blower political asylum. No doubt they are well aware that if Mr Snowden can so easily betray one trust he is very likely to end up betraying another.

It might not be "surprising" to you, but yours is not the only view either on this or indeed on any other aspect of this case. It should be plainly obvious that a decision to grant political asylum to anyone accused of the commission of grave crimes against another nation is bound to be fraught with political risks of many kinds and would thus not likely be taken lightly and without due consideration; furthermore, a potential host country would surely be further discouraged from granting such asylum if it is already indulging in activities similar to those which Mr Snowden is exposing.

That said, when you write that "if Mr Snowden can so easily betray one trust he is very likely to end up betraying another", you may have a point, especially if Mr Snowden's prime concern is not merely that US is doing this kind of thing but that it's so common as to seem almost like a national sport; however, the nature of any such "betrayal" would inevitably be different, since Mr Snowden is a US citizen, so not only his own position vis-à-vis his country's snooping tactics but also others' view of that position will be different to the view taken of his possible exposure of other nation's snooping activities - in other words, his alleged status as "traitor" in respect of his exposure of his own country's activities cannot apply in the same way to any such exposure of other nations' snooping activities that he might choose to expose.

One thing for sure, he already appears to have grossly under-estimated the intelligence and understandable caution of the authorities in both China and Russia!

Has he? How? - and on what evidential grounds do you base your assumption here? As I have stated, the decision to grant political asylum is rarely taken lightly or rapidly, especially in cases such as this one where the risk of all manner of diplomatic fallout is inevitably very real.

[amateur51]

Well, I find all that rather too much to swallow. It's hardly surprising to me that no country currently seems particularly eager to grant our hero whistle-blower political asylum. No doubt they are well aware that if Mr Snowden can so easily betray one trust he is very likely to end up betraying another.

One thing for sure, he already appears to have grossly under-estimated the intelligence and understandable caution of the authorities in both China and Russia!

Could it possibly be that the reluctance of countries to offer asylum to Mr Snowden might be rather more to do with the bullying reputation of the USA and its complete disregard for international opinion (witness the invasion of Iraq, the use of drones in Pakistan, the assassination of bin Laden in Pakistan, which is supposed to be an ally of USA)?

If Snowden is the treacherous mastermind that you've been building him up to be, how come he didn't conclude that neither Russia nor China were likely to be entirely understanding of the plight in which he has willingly placed himself, scotty?

[Richard Barrett]

Could it possibly be that the reluctance of countries to offer asylum to Mr Snowden might be rather more to do with the bullying reputation of the USA and its complete disregard for international opinion (witness the invasion of Iraq, the use of drones in Pakistan, the assassination of bin Laden in Pakistan, which is supposed to be an ally of USA)?

Amazing, Holmes!

[Frances_iom]

The USA seems to have annoyed the EU - not just in the amount but the suggestion that the USA sees Europe as a target - as I pointed out in a very early posting the commercial pressure is for American industry (especially the military complex which owns the US government) to gain a competitive advantage by such eavesdropping - the Moslem world has long seen the US as a bully in hock to Israel now it seems the EU is coming round to the same view

[Richard Barrett]

the commercial pressure is for American industry (especially the military complex which owns the US government) to gain a competitive advantage by such eavesdropping

Maybe scottycelt can remind us what this has to do with "containing terrorism"? They are spying on their many supposed enemies, but also on their supposed allies, and even on their own citizens, and all seemingly with the connivance of their lickspittles in London. In what way is this making the world safer - apart from safer for the profits of those at the top of the aforementioned complex, who IMO are the most frightening human beings on the planet?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

...and arguably the most threatening, whether or no one is frightened of them .... rule by men not by laws huh?

E J Snowden regarded it as a compliment to be bad mouthed by Cheney, that makes him ok by me!

Further, it's important to bear in mind I'm being called a traitor by men like former Vice President Dick Cheney. This is a man who gave us the warrantless wiretapping scheme as a kind of atrocity warm-up on the way to deceitfully engineering a conflict that has killed over 4,400 and maimed nearly 32,000 Americans, as well as leaving over 100,000 Iraqis dead. Being called a traitor by Dick Cheney is the highest honor you can give an American, and the more panicked talk we hear from people like him, Feinstein, and King, the better off we all are. If they had taught a class on how to be the kind of citizen Dick Cheney worries about, I would have finished high school.

Snowden