tl;dr: If you punish desirable behavior, desirable behavior won't happen.
Unless you're making the case that classified information shouldn't exist at all, in which case espionage can't exist, and the White House would be Tweeting military strategy before it was executed.
Those things aren't being done to the public. Cripes, man.
"any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." -- John Donne ( http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Meditation_XVII )
If someone does something in your name and with your money that you would be ashamed to do yourself, how is that not an attack on you? Honest question.
I think that is what the OP is exhorting you to access for yourself.
Yes, and? What difference would there be? The civilians in some third world village would have time to run to the hills, and the US would still get to drop their bombs and use their drones, and weapons and arms manufacturers would still get to supply them. They make just as much money wether they blow up empty space or people, after all.
Sure, it would stem the flow of convenient terrorists which provide the pretext for the fireworks, but you could have undercover operatives do that, and since those also have to get paid by tax payers, it would be a net win -- even more money would be magically generated and trickle down to everybody, yay! We would all move from rich to mega rich, so yes, I would want to make that case, absolutely.
That's kind of the point. When was the last time that actually applied? Cold war, at most.
When was the last time military action by the US meant anything other than pounding peasants into (further) submission? The strategy is outlined, it's for full spectrum dominance. Not defense, conquest. For that reason I think a more apt comparison would be to compare it to someone who gave out secrets about axis operations.
As recently as 1991 or thereabouts.
I would count 2001 myself to dislodge Al Qaeda but I might understand why you wouldn't.
And before 1991, a U.S. warship escorting merchant traffic was almost destroyed by a mine placed into international waters by a fairly advanced Mideast nation, so it's not as rare as you seem to think.
1991? You mean Iraq? "It's only a war when two armies fight" -- Bill Hicks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony)
^ Explain a stunt like that in presence of an actual, credible threat. I'll wait.
And before 1991, a U.S. warship escorting merchant traffic was almost destroyed by a mine placed into international waters by a fairly advanced Mideast nation, so it's not as rare as you seem to think.
Meanwhile, the US just shoots down an civilian airliner and refuses to even say sorry... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
Anything else? I mean, don't get me wrong. I know it's bully 101 to consider even being looked at the wrong way as an attack, while considering anything defense as long as they are the ones doing it. I also know bullies don't like it when people have sharp bones on which their fists get hurt. But other than that...
> Meanwhile, the US just shoots down an civilian airliner and refuses to even say sorry
But the U.S. did pay reparations. The U.S. should apologize, certainly. But what does that have to do with "wars not involving conquest", which is what I thought you were talking about?
Either way I don't see why you're having to resort to personal attacks.
If you defend yourself, the strength of the attacker doesn't matter as much as if they actually are an attacker. You have to defend yourself either way, and yes, of course you use anything you can to your advantage.
But what does that have to do with "wars not involving conquest", which is what I thought you were talking about?
As much as running over a sea mine? If such an incident is an argument for anything, how much bigger a military apparatus would Iran be entitled to just based on that plane being shot down?
Iraq certainly had a military composed of persons other than peasants, otherwise it wouldn't have been in Kuwait!
Well, I meant peasants in relation to the US, not to their neighbours.
"Nobody" had a problem when Saddam gassed Kurds while he was an ally -- neither with him being a dictator. It was when he disobeyed that he suddenly was this grave threat to everyone and the whole region. That's what I consider bully logic. It wasn't about peace or innocent life, it was about obedience, and even more innocent lifes were ended just to make that point. Twice, because the first time they somehow turned around after defeating Saddam, like saving a dessert for later.
Either way I don't see why you're having to resort to personal attacks.
I did not intend to call you personally a bully, sorry for not making that more clear. And please don't think I believe most nations don't engage in the same hipocrisy and selective indignation, calling a pin prick suffered a holocaust, and a holocaust dished out a pin prick. But the US is currently very good at it, state of the art if you will. That even this might be offensive to some Americans I would have to accept. Those are the choices violence forces on us, once there has been abuse that has not been acknowledged and cleared up, you can't be friends with the abuser without insulting the abused, and vice versa.
No, you couldn't.
And do not mistake prosecution with guilt.
On one hand, I'm glad he shared what he did, but I also fear what could happen should we blindly believe everything we are told, whether the person telling us is a member of the government, or a member of the government in a foreign country.
Those who look at the issue and arrive at a conclusion.
If you let someone else make that decision for you: if you're unable to make it yourself, how would you confirm they made the right decision on your behalf? And if you are able, why not cut out the middleman?
> If you let someone else make that decision for you...
Keeping this in context (being prosecuted or fleeing), that's what everyone is doing right now: allowing someone else to make that decision. Information being shared is only what interested parties want being shared (Snowden and the Governments).
If Snowden was tried by a jury of his peers, would he be found guilty or innocent? Would he be a whistleblower or a spy?
And yes, I'm ignoring things like would he get a fair trial and all that jazz. I just see what Snowden is doing as a very effective way to play the part of a spy. Sell X information secretly and share Y information publicly. Not suggesting that is what he is doing mind you. I'm just thinking out loud.
> if you're unable to make it yourself, how would you confirm they made the right decision on your behalf?
This happens all the time though. I trust my doctor with my health and my children's health. They explain things, but I still have to trust them. Sure, it's not exactly the same thing, but I feel it's close enough. Basically, I can't know everything about everything. At some point, I have to trust others. Maybe that's too much down the rabbit hole, though. =)
That's very general and maybe not very helpful here, but I still wanted to make the point, because I think it's very tragic that we are so eager to hand off our opinions to "experts". I can accept teachers, so that ideally when they're done with me, I'm an "expert", too. But I don't trust those who would just remain as experts hovering in some vague place above you. From what I learned about life so far, those are all hacks.
And if these things are too complicated for regular citizens to understand, then they need to be made less complicated, or we need better citizens. Democracy in an industrialized world is no trivial task.
Basically, I can't know everything about everything. At some point, I have to trust others.
Yes, of course. But you still use indicators for that, yes? If you visited a new doctor, and you heard loud screams, you would slip out again. If a friend recommends a dentist and you're currently looking for a good one, you'll give the recommended one a try first, that sort of thing. I've seen doctors do shit (to others) that made me not EVER trust one blindly. I am usually lucky with mine, but I do pay attention to them, I do second-guess them, I measure up their character, how peaceful and concentrated they are, versus just loud and constantly on the move, etc. At the end of the day, nobody but my own immune system, family and friends truly care about my well-being, to the point they'd loose sleep over it.
I completely agree. And I agree with this as well:
> I think it's very tragic that we are so eager to hand off our opinions to "experts".
But I think it's important to understand that whether you think Snowden is a whistleblower or a traitor, you are making that decision in part based on "experts." You are trusting people who haven't proven themselves to be untrustworthy.
We don't know everything (or maybe we do, it's difficult to say). Sure, we can say "Hey, he told us these things that were true." But I also don't have any reason to trust him outright. So, on one hand, I have valid reasons to distrust the government, but I also have valid reasons to distrust Snowden.
So on one hand, I want to believe he's told the entire story, and is being completely truthful. But on the other hand, on multiple levels he's demonstrated his untrustworthiness.
All those people, even officials who are already yelling traitor and espionage? Restrain those first, show them their place, before you ask Snowden to come into their reach.
Some guy who leaked slides is on the run, while the man with kill lists resides in the White house; there is so much wrong with that picture. Maybe Snowden should get a trial, but not one presided over by a bunch of hardened criminals who just happen to have the law on their side because they can't keep their fingers off it.
You look at the issue, and then you make the decision to either tell your government to pursue him or tell your government to back off. Everyone gets to finish the sentence "I think the government should..." as they choose.
Of course, if he's guilty of some greater crime, I'd always want to see him punished. For me, it's simple.
But it's really not. It's not as simple as saying you want the government to pursue him or not, especially now when the information is still coming in.
Regardless, this is deviating from my original question, and I think you are missing the point.
In order to really make the determination, you need to have lots of evidence presented to you, hear each side present their case as to why the facts support their position, and have each side answer tough questions about things they are leaving out of their side of the story.
You know, kinda like a trial.
Oh, and it's also very easy to make conclusions from the armchair about how others arrive at their conclusions. It's not like there is no context or continuity at all here, either. It doesn't matter even if Snowden exists; power and transparency are supposed to flow one way, anyone who refuses to play along is to be made an example of. If that's not an old hat to you by now, a repeat of a repeat of a repeat, I just don't know what to tell you.
I think it's safe to assume there will be punishment if he is extradicted to the land of the free.
Could he really be sentenced to death? I'm not familiar with US law on the subject, so I'm curious. That really sounds scary :\
Death is a possibility, depending on what he is charged with, though given the nature of the case I'd personally doubt the government would pursue it. It is, however, within the realm of possibility, especially after he revealed the anti-Chinese hacking information.