How quickly do you think republicans will learn to love Snowden?

"U.S. President Donald Trump said on Saturday he is considering a pardon for Edward Snowden, the former U.S. National Security Agency contractor - now living in Russia - whose spectacular leaks shook the U.S. intelligence community in 2013."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN25B10Z

Of course there's a tweet where Trump said Snowden should be executed so...choose your own adventure!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 2757662721

Snowden should be pardoned, if Trump is the one doing it, fine by me. Even a broken clock is per day twice right;

Trump still won't get my vote over this, but pardoning Snowden is definitely the right thing to do.

zakuivcustom wrote:

Trump still won't get my vote over this, but pardoning Snowden is definitely the right thing to do.

Dutchy wrote:

Snowden should be pardoned, if Trump is the one doing it, fine by me. Even a broken clock is per day twice right;

Agreed. Wonder what is driving this sudden change of heart?

I'd consider pardoning him too if he wasn't the worst kind of hypocrite there possibly is, one who betrays his country arguing against state espionage against its own citizens but then runs to China and eventually Russia to hide from what he did. Think about that, he ran to the two countries that have perfected and codified the same activity magnified to a level of brutality unimaginable in the US and without any legal, governmental or journalistic recourse for the people to defend themselves and change the system. He shouldn't be executed but he should spend every day of the rest of his life in prison. It's a shame he still walks "free" in Russia, a country that does worse to its own and others every day and what do you hear from Snowden about it? That's right, not a word.

This is a very bizarre turn for someone who previously Tweeted all of this about Snowden:

https://twitter.com/isaacdovere/status/ ... 15009?s=21

Snowden exposed part of an illegal deep state. This is a fact. He did so at great peril to himself.

I think what he did was principled, possibly lawful, and was done to oppose illegal behavior by mid-level government officials. It also endangered some military stuff, so I am not clear it was overall the right thing to do.e

Is a partial pardon possible ? Like come back and you'll get a light sentence ? Has he been trialled already ?

I see he still faces charges, so a pardon would have to drop these.

Also, the article talks about "NDAs" that Snowden violated, so was there some kind of agreement with him signed anyway ?

If Putin orders Trump to pardon Snowden then Trump will pardon the SOB ASAP, Personally I have no time for the SOB.

Government Documents are top secret or off limits for a reason. For example Trump is relying on the IRS not to release his taxes to the public. Yet Snowden, broke the law and released top secret documents to China and Russia, both countries that have serious civil right violations. Snowden is not just a traitor to our government, but a hypocrite to release them two countries who mistreat their own citizens. So of course Trump wants to pardon Snowden, that what traitors and hypocrites do, and why Obama did not pardon Snowden.

Aesma wrote:

Is a partial pardon possible ? Like come back and you'll get a light sentence ? Has he been trialled already ?

I see he still faces charges, so a pardon would have to drop these.

Also, the article talks about "NDAs" that Snowden violated, so was there some kind of agreement with him signed anyway ?

With a full pardon usually comes with an admission of guilt. You are still treated like a felon you just don't go to jail.

DLFREEBIRD wrote:

Government Documents are top secret or off limits for a reason. For example Trump is relying on the IRS not to release his taxes to the public. Yet Snowden, broke the law and released top secret documents to China and Russia, both countries that have serious civil right violations. Snowden is not just a traitor to our government, but a hypocrite to release them two countries who mistreat their own citizens. So of course Trump wants to pardon Snowden, that what traitors and hypocrites do, and why Obama did not pardon Snowden.

I tend to agree, but so many people treat him like a hero.

CitizenJustin wrote:

DLFREEBIRD wrote:

Government Documents are top secret or off limits for a reason. For example Trump is relying on the IRS not to release his taxes to the public. Yet Snowden, broke the law and released top secret documents to China and Russia, both countries that have serious civil right violations. Snowden is not just a traitor to our government, but a hypocrite to release them two countries who mistreat their own citizens. So of course Trump wants to pardon Snowden, that what traitors and hypocrites do, and why Obama did not pardon Snowden.

I tend to agree, but so many people treat him like a hero.

I agree as well - there were other ways to do what he did. I don't think taking documents off of government servers is the worst thing if it's the only way to show the government is actively breaking its own laws. The problem is turning around and passing that information off to unregulated third parties like Wikileaks and/or foreign powers. That's absolutely ridiculous and unpardonable. It would have been more above board to give the information to an IG or watchdog organization.

zakuivcustom wrote:

Trump still won't get my vote over this, but pardoning Snowden is definitely the right thing to do.

But those who voted against Hillary instead of for Trump at last election may vote him for it.
Provided he doesn't start a war with Iran before the elections.

Noam Chomsky:
"Anyone who studies declassified documents soon becomes aware that government secrecy is largely an effort to protect policy makers from scrutiny by citizens, not to protect the country from enemies. "

Snowden was willing to leave everything behind to listen to his consciousness.
I wonder under what conditions those who criticise him would do the same?

DLFREEBIRD wrote:

Government Documents are top secret or off limits for a reason. For example Trump is relying on the IRS not to release his taxes to the public. Yet Snowden, broke the law and released top secret documents to China and Russia, both countries that have serious civil right violations. Snowden is not just a traitor to our government, but a hypocrite to release them two countries who mistreat their own citizens. So of course Trump wants to pardon Snowden, that what traitors and hypocrites do, and why Obama did not pardon Snowden.

What does Obama think of Chelsea Manning and Rosa Parks?
They broke the law!

I wonder how much cognitive dissonance people can bear.
I assume I will get reported soon?
What about free speech?

Sokes wrote:

DLFREEBIRD wrote:

Government Documents are top secret or off limits for a reason. For example Trump is relying on the IRS not to release his taxes to the public. Yet Snowden, broke the law and released top secret documents to China and Russia, both countries that have serious civil right violations. Snowden is not just a traitor to our government, but a hypocrite to release them two countries who mistreat their own citizens. So of course Trump wants to pardon Snowden, that what traitors and hypocrites do, and why Obama did not pardon Snowden.

What does Obama think of Chelsea Manning and Rosa Parks?
They broke the law!

I wonder how much cognitive dissonance people can bear.
I assume I will get reported soon?
What about free speech?

You're not really approaching the issue with a lot of nuance - the 44 administration did not interfere with the DoD's prosecution of Manning. Manning's attorneys made impassioned appeals to the WH and highlighted the remorse Manning expressed at sentencing (not to mention having pled guilty to 10 of the charges). That is what swayed 44 in the end - his initial response when the issue was new was that Manning's crimes were serious and should be thoroughly prosecuted - and they were.

As for Rosa Parks, come on now....that's completely illogical. Civil disobedience is completely different from national security-level crimes.

Snowden was correct in believing he had stumbled across gross violations of the Patriot Act's spying permissions, but he took the wrong avenues in getting that information out, and is still under the protection of nations that are adversaries to the US. It doesn't take much to see the conflicting factors there in his case.

Aaron747 wrote:

...
Snowden was correct in believing he had stumbled across gross violations of the Patriot Act's spying permissions, but he took the wrong avenues in getting that information out, and is still under the protection of nations that are adversaries to the US. It doesn't take much to see the conflicting factors there in his case.

About Manning:
I believe it is the task of a soldier to fight aggressors. Now there is a 50% chance the aggressor is foreign and 50% that the aggressor is the own country. That's what I conclude from my own German history. You think I'm wrong?

Manning was pissed off by what he/ she saw and blew the whistle. Well, at least he/ she did act while everybody else just accepted that weapons of mass destruction was an excuse.
Why so late? He/ she started working in Iraq after Bush left office. Maybe he/ she got disillusioned with Obama. I don't know.

I assume those in power rather make laws that protect themselves than principles of truth and justice. My faith in law has limits.
Therefore the joke about Rosa Parks.

About Snowden and the NSA:
It doesn't matter if the NSA listens to my telephone or observes what internet pages I visit.
But suppose a politician tries to fight the establishment. Wouldn't the establishment try to find out his weak spots?

Should Snowden have gone to a friendly country?
He asked Germany once for asylum, but was denied.
Even if he got it he would have ended like Assange.
In his own words:
"You have to report wrongdoings to those most responsible for it. "

The 9/ 11 terrorists were Saudi. So why attack Afghanistan?
Why not Pakistan?
Iraq was anyway attacked without any justification. On the top of it it was an abuse of the UN. Use the UN to make sure there are no more chemical weapons and then attack.
Apparently chemical weapons are only o. k. if used against Iran.
Was Obama's Iran deal the same game again? We will know when/ if Biden takes office.
I guess no country will ever be so stupid again to cooperate with the UN in this respect.

When I was in my 20s I still believed in ethics of ultimate end. I was quite critical about the US at that time. But my father (born 1937) never wanted to hear any criticism of US policy. He says that after six million Jews six million Germans would have been next.
But with Bush my father started acting like a disappointed lover. I on the other side switched to ethics of responsibility and believe now in peace through hegemony.
But I still dislike US Middle East policies. And Bush was a worst case. Obama continued. So I really respect Manning.

Whistleblower are a risk to those who want to abuse power.
I don't understand how one can be hostile to them.

DLFREEBIRD wrote:

Government Documents are top secret or off limits for a reason. For example Trump is relying on the IRS not to release his taxes to the public. Yet Snowden, broke the law and released top secret documents to China and Russia, both countries that have serious civil right violations. Snowden is not just a traitor to our government, but a hypocrite to release them two countries who mistreat their own citizens. So of course Trump wants to pardon Snowden, that what traitors and hypocrites do, and why Obama did not pardon Snowden.

If the document is improperly classified secret to protect mid-level, non-elected government officials' crimes, then I don't really mind if the improper classification is violated.

But, I don't want us to lose a war versus a dangerous enemy as a result of the disclosures. That is my only hesitation.

He should be. He is an American hero whose methods were less than perfect.

wingman wrote:

I'd consider pardoning him too if he wasn't the worst kind of hypocrite there possibly is, one who betrays his country arguing against state espionage against its own citizens but then runs to China and eventually Russia to hide from what he did. Think about that, he ran to the two countries that have perfected and codified the same activity magnified to a level of brutality unimaginable in the US and without any legal, governmental or journalistic recourse for the people to defend themselves and change the system. He shouldn't be executed but he should spend every day of the rest of his life in prison. It's a shame he still walks "free" in Russia, a country that does worse to its own and others every day and what do you hear from Snowden about it? That's right, not a word.

Do you think the same about the Pentagon papers and should Daniel Ellsberg been executed for exposing that the entire Vietnam war was a sham. Thankfully the supreme court disagreed at the time.

I'm not saying Snowden is completely innocent in everything he did as he did release documents to the print media in 2013 but he did blow the whistle on what the NSA was and still is doing and no US troops or civilians have been targeted in the 7 years since this happened.

Furthermore Snowden has repeatedly said he would return to the US if he was given a fair trial. It was never his intention to seek asylum in Russia as his passport was cancelled while he was transiting there IIRC. I think he feels that if her were to return to the US he would either face death or life in prison.

DLFREEBIRD wrote:

Government Documents are top secret or off limits for a reason. For example Trump is relying on the IRS not to release his taxes to the public. Yet Snowden, broke the law and released top secret documents to China and Russia, both countries that have serious civil right violations. Snowden is not just a traitor to our government, but a hypocrite to release them two countries who mistreat their own citizens. So of course Trump wants to pardon Snowden, that what traitors and hypocrites do, and why Obama did not pardon Snowden.

This was a crime. However him exposing the illegal collection of data and wiretapping that was going on with the NSA should be commended.

There is no valid comparison between what Daniel Ellsberg revealed to the American public and what Snowden gave to the Russians.

Elsberg's revelations were of history, Snowden's treason released huge amount of real time privileged information, and exposed CIA sources in countries run by despots.

He should never be free in the US again.

unscheduled wrote:

Elsberg's revelations were of history, Snowden's treason released huge amount of real time privileged information, and exposed CIA sources in countries run by despots.

I'm not sure if the main concern of the CIA is promotion of democracy.
If you believe the CIA is great I recommend the book "Legacy of ashes".

Sokes wrote:

unscheduled wrote:

Elsberg's revelations were of history, Snowden's treason released huge amount of real time privileged information, and exposed CIA sources in countries run by despots.

I'm not sure if the main concern of the CIA is promotion of democracy.
If you believe the CIA is great I recommend the book "Legacy of ashes".

The point isn’t that the CIA is great - but they do have dedicated employees in harm’s way, and release of that information put them at greater risk.

Why does Trump want to grant a pardon?.

bennett123 wrote:

Why does Trump want to grant a pardon?.

One traitor helping another, though I suspect Snowden would be a bit embarrassed about the likes of Trump doing it, on the other hand, as has been stated, his protestations about rights and freedom of information do not sit well with who he fled to and now who shield him, the ultimate benefactors of his leaking, whatever his original motives were.

He's not like that worm Assange, who clearly meant to damage the west and help both terrorists and despots, when asked about risking the lives of intelligence agents penetrating Al- Queda, Julian said they deserved it.
Many of the left who supported him had some explaining to do when wikileaks effectively became an arm of Trump's 2016 campaign, which is why his once substantial band of supporters are down to a few nuts and Pamela Anderson for 'celeb endorsement', the well known authority on international affairs that she is.
Everyone who worked with him soon got to dislike Assange, nasty piece of work.

Snowden is more naive than destructive, also as stated, there were other means to expose what was institutional wrong doing, Trump kisses Putin's butt, if he is prepared in doing so to ignore and then deny reliable intel that Russia is providing the Taliban with bounties to kill US and UK forces, helping Snowden is nothing. (On the UK side our own PM who has Russian friends and donors has been quiet on that too).
Plus Snowden was pursued by the Obama administration, you know who the second Confederate President feels about anything and everything concerning his predecessor.

GDB wrote:

Trump kisses Putin's butt, if he is prepared in doing so to ignore and then deny reliable intel that Russia is providing the Taliban with bounties to kill US and UK forces

You got your history wrong.
It was the US that financed the Taliban to kill Russian forces.

Aaron747 wrote:

The point isn’t that the CIA is great - but they do have dedicated employees in harm’s way, and release of that information put them at greater risk.

I was thinking a long time what to answer.
Two problems:
-One can't get saints to do a hitman's job
-Faith in self determination

Most Weltanschauungen do not tolerate opposite views. And that's the dilemma of liberals.
A radical socialist or a religious nut will find war an acceptable price to spread the true faith. But a liberal will say:" If others want to live according to different values, that's fine with me. "
Liberal societies create enormous wealth. If socialists or religious fundamentalists could create that wealth the world would be converted within twenty years. But a liberal thinks if the majority in another country wants to live according to other values it's fine. Is it?

There is a Turkish snack/ sandwich seller to whom I sometimes go when I'm in Germany. He always complains about Erdogan. That's not the anger or outrage like on anet against Trump. It's desperation.

Liberalism is also a Weltanschauung. One is in competition with others and have to adapt to their methods.
Who is better of today, Chile or Venezuela?
Socialists are willing to employ revolutions and violence. How are we to react?

The liberal society refuses to accept reality as it is. And this is where the CIA comes in.
Do what you have to do, but don't tell us for we will be outraged.
To keep it more or less clandestine some funny dictators are supported, e.g. Sadam against Iran.

I like the British Empire.
They also used violence, but it was more sincere and there were limits as to what kind of dictators (or princes) they would support. There was more nation building.
But that requires Empire mentality.

If I hear that in Afghanistan 90% is spent on military and only 10% on nation building and that their domestic politics is to be decided by their tribal leaders, then I wonder if it's worth money and bloodshed.

Would the world be better without CIA? I guess not. Maybe if the political left could accept the struggle of Weltanschauungen we wouldn't need the dirty games of the CIA?

Sokes wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

The point isn’t that the CIA is great - but they do have dedicated employees in harm’s way, and release of that information put them at greater risk.

I was thinking a long time what to answer.
Two problems:
-One can't get saints to do a hitman's job
-Faith in self determination

Most Weltanschauungen do not tolerate opposite views. And that's the dilemma of liberals.
A radical socialist or a religious nut will find war an acceptable price to spread the true faith. But a liberal will say:" If others want to live according to different values, that's fine with me. "
Liberal societies create enormous wealth. If socialists or religious fundamentalists could create that wealth the world would be converted within twenty years. But a liberal thinks if the majority in another country wants to live according to other values it's fine. Is it?

There is a Turkish snack/ sandwich seller to whom I sometimes go when I'm in Germany. He always complains about Erdogan. That's not the anger or outrage like on anet against Trump. It's desperation.

Liberalism is also a Weltanschauung. One is in competition with others and have to adapt to their methods.
Who is better of today, Chile or Venezuela?
Socialists are willing to employ revolutions and violence. How are we to react?

The liberal society refuses to accept reality as it is. And this is where the CIA comes in.
Do what you have to do, but don't tell us for we will be outraged.
To keep it more or less clandestine some funny dictators are supported, e.g. Sadam against Iran.

I like the British Empire.
They also used violence, but it was more sincere and there were limits as to what kind of dictators (or princes) they would support. There was more nation building.
But that requires Empire mentality.

If I hear that in Afghanistan 90% is spent on military and only 10% on nation building and that their domestic politics is to be decided by their tribal leaders, then I wonder if it's worth money and bloodshed.

Would the world be better without CIA? I guess not. Maybe if the political left could accept the struggle of Weltanschauungen we wouldn't need the dirty games of the CIA?

Hmmm..where do I begin?

CIA. KGB. Stasi....none of this matters from a far seated world view of looking at socialist, fascist. communist, democratic, liberal, conservative, authoritarian and other leadership means.

They all converge at one finite point...human herd mentality.

The need to follow a leader.

Be that a leading alpha male/female, a leading party, a junta or tribe of wisemen.

And still all of those come down to single person....even if it's the king's wife or his mistress.

A tool like the CIA, KGB, et al is there for one sole purpose//to uphold and support the interest of the state employing it.

Of course, with individual humans being in the service of such an organization..at any given time, anyone of those actors will go of script for a multitude of reasons from financial incentive, moral conflict, sex, coercion or a 100 other unpredictable influenceable angles of attack.

Politics be damned, it's the fallible human factor than cannot be anticipated and thus it will all unravel at some point.

Snowden and Manning are sterling examples of that unpredictability.

As long as malleable humans are involved..anything can happen.

Where is Liberalism a potent or relevant force in that battlefield?

BN747

MaverickM11 wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

Trump still won't get my vote over this, but pardoning Snowden is definitely the right thing to do.

Dutchy wrote:

Snowden should be pardoned, if Trump is the one doing it, fine by me. Even a broken clock is per day twice right;

Agreed. Wonder what is driving this sudden change of heart?

Perhaps the realization that the Intelligence Community that Snowden blew the whistle on is a bunch of deep-seated scumbags? Surviving a 4-year coup attempt by that same IC will do that to a guy.

Pyrex wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

Trump still won't get my vote over this, but pardoning Snowden is definitely the right thing to do.

Dutchy wrote:

Snowden should be pardoned, if Trump is the one doing it, fine by me. Even a broken clock is per day twice right;

Agreed. Wonder what is driving this sudden change of heart?

Perhaps the realization that the Intelligence Community that Snowden blew the whistle on is a bunch of deep-seated scumbags? Surviving a 4-year coup attempt by that same IC will do that to a guy.

Scumbags who kept you safe for 15+ years post-9/11 even with the colossal GF in Iraq. My oh my what selective outrage you have.

Sokes wrote:

GDB wrote:

Trump kisses Putin's butt, if he is prepared in doing so to ignore and then deny reliable intel that Russia is providing the Taliban with bounties to kill US and UK forces

You got your history wrong.
It was the US that financed the Taliban to kill Russian forces.

And you got your basic understanding wrong (again).
Yes, I know, as do most people, that the US (and others) provided aid to the Afghans (which included some of who would become the Taliban but by no means all, Bin Laden had a major US benefactor but anti Taliban leader killed on 10th Sept 2001 for instance).

That was over 30 years ago, the aid to Afghans fighting the USSR. Do you get that? The USSR does not even exist anymore.

We are talking about today, this year.
A US President looking the other way when HIS financial benefactor has people under his command (you might need reminding that a US President is the commander in chief of US forces), being targeted by a foreign power.
Not that the current US President had any regard or respect for that position much less his responsibility.

To broaden things out, no terrorist group has ever on UK soil murdered by using radiation poisoning, nor used nerve agent in a UK city, the Kremlin has.
I would like to hear what Snowden has to say about that, as well as the downing of Malaysian 777 in 2014, election rigging and a multitude of other sins carried out by those shielding him.
Then compare and contrast with what he was concerned about.
Whatever his original motives, he's a deeply compromised figure morally now.
What a previous Russian despot called those in democratic nations who gave him a pass, a 'useful idiot'.

Besides, it's likely moot and a Trump headline for distraction of the day, as his nation breaking incompetence engulfs him.

Aaron747 wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Agreed. Wonder what is driving this sudden change of heart?

Perhaps the realization that the Intelligence Community that Snowden blew the whistle on is a bunch of deep-seated scumbags? Surviving a 4-year coup attempt by that same IC will do that to a guy.

Scumbags who kept you safe for 15+ years post-9/11 even with the colossal GF in Iraq. My oh my what selective outrage you have.

Would not be the first institution that let TDS blow away any sort of respect and credibility they once had, and it won't be the last - just ask Lancet.

BN747 wrote:

Where is Liberalism a potent or relevant force in that battlefield?

BN747

I don't think people fit to work in the CIA need a leader. They are leaders for and in themselves and motivated by a need for action. What happens if leaders try to put them on a short leash can be seen in Iran- Contra.

It is thanks to the US that Liberalism is a force. And that is the funny part, for I doubt it's the classical liberal that joins the Marines.
Liberalism depends on it's defence on people who rather focus on group identity than individualism. But then liberalism creates enormous wealth and it's an arrangement that satisfies both parties.

Similar I find Bush terrible, but would countries all over the world continue to accept US hegemony after 20 years Clinton?

The political left seems to think that everybody shares their values and just desires peace.
I believe Europe should pay 1 or 2% of GDP to the US for defense services provided.

Gandhi would have rotten in jail if there had been no leaders willing to use violence.
While human nature can't embrace nonviolence and violence at the same time, history suggests it may be necessary.

I believe whistleblowers are necessary even though I support US hegemony.

GDB wrote:

Bin Laden had a major US benefactor but anti Taliban leader killed on 10th Sept 2001 for instance).

That sounds interesting. Within hours of the planes flying in the world trade center German news showed an offensive of the Northern alliance. Again within hours this news was removed. I found that all fishy.
Do you have a source about the killing of the leader?
What was his name?

GDB wrote:

A US President looking the other way when HIS financial benefactor has people under his command (you might need reminding that a US President is the commander in chief of US forces), being targeted by a foreign power.

I assume you speak of Putin targeting US soldiers.
I read Russia refused to sell its anti F35 missile to Iran. Nice of Putin, isn't it?
Do you speak of war in a country where both US and Russia have interests in, e. g. Syria with its Russian used harbor Tartus?
Truth being told, I'm not sure what you refer to.

Concerning Ukraine we will not agree. I believe in buffer states and NATO is overdoing it.
Austria did o. k. by being neutral. It was economically even integrated in the West.
Moreover I believe Ukraine was a foreign engineered change of an elected government.
I'm not sure how and why the Malaysian plane was shot down, but it's a minor incident in relation to the conflict.

Snowden's contribution was in blowing the whistle about US affairs.
You think he should embrace life in prison just because countries like Germany refuse him asylum?

Sokes wrote:

Within hours of the planes flying in the world trade center German news showed an offensive of the Northern alliance.

which was happening just about every other day for the four previous years as well. ..... making it not even a surprising coincidence.... and heavy fighting around Kabul started 2-3 days prior.

What was his name?

Ahmed Shah Masood

best regards
Thomas

This guy;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Shah_Massoud

And it's NATO refusing further delivery of F-35's to Turkey, at some cost to both Turkey and it's industry since their increasingly despotic President insisted on buying Russian S-400 missiles.
He's leading Turkey down a dark place.
There were two comparable systems, one US, one European, he could have had.

If you believe Putin's BS about Ukraine, well I don't know where to start.
When the Berlin Wall came down and then the USSR imploded, those under their shackles voted with their feet.
Bitter ex KGB officer Putin has never gotten over that.
And their is no justification in giving advanced air defence systems to 'rebels' (really largely Russian forces) outside of an properly controlled air defence network.

Also, Gandhi promoted non violence, though the real lever for independence was the election of a British Prime Minister in 1945 who had believed in Indian independence for 20 years, (Attlee), given the bankrupt state of the UK after WW2, he had the motive, means and opportunity to push it through against institutional resistance.

Returning to topic, worth remembering that Snowden originally trained to be a US soldier, an injury in training prevented that and he went down another path.
Another reason why I'd love to hear his views on some of those he knew from the military, if still serving, being the target of the enemies he swore to fight being under bounty from the same people protecting him now.

Pyrex wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

Perhaps the realization that the Intelligence Community that Snowden blew the whistle on is a bunch of deep-seated scumbags? Surviving a 4-year coup attempt by that same IC will do that to a guy.

Scumbags who kept you safe for 15+ years post-9/11 even with the colossal GF in Iraq. My oh my what selective outrage you have.

Would not be the first institution that let TDS blow away any sort of respect and credibility they once had, and it won't be the last - just ask Lancet.

TDS is defending the guy - you have it the wrong way 'round. There is nothing fantastical about investigating a guy who has been PNG to US banks since the mid-1990s and needed to get in bed with Russian state banks to keep capital flowing. Guessing you have not followed SSIC Volume V at all....typical.

GDB wrote:

This guy;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Shah_Massoud

And it's NATO refusing further delivery of F-35's to Turkey, at some cost to both Turkey and it's industry since their increasingly despotic President insisted on buying Russian S-400 missiles.
He's leading Turkey down a dark place.

Interesting link.
I never understood why the US is helping Pakistan.
And why is Iran bad, but Saudi and Pakistan are not?
As I said: As much as I appreciate US presence in Europe, I dislike US policy it in the Middle East.

Turkey is a good example about what I earlier wrote of "Weltanschauung", so is Iran and other Muslim places. Liberals and Islamists will always have an uneasy living together.
That Massoud wanted school for girls to impress the West was maybe overdoing it.
Reform always comes at a snail's pace.

I fully agree about Gandhi and the liberal British.
This government announced the new borders I forgot if a day before or a day after independence, but at any rate at a time when they had already withdrawn most British soldiers.
Well, the guys who did the Munich conference were back in power and they had to prove that their humanism works. The result was predictable.

Sokes wrote:

BN747 wrote:

Where is Liberalism a potent or relevant force in that battlefield?

BN747

I don't think people fit to work in the CIA need a leader. They are leaders for and in themselves and motivated by a need for action. What happens if leaders try to put them on a short leash can be seen in Iran- Contra.

Totally disagree with that.

People working for the CIA don't need leaders??? The first thing they need any CIA recruit is the regimentation of understanding the chain of command and know your place among appointed command positions. It sounds like your knowledge of CIA ops is limited to watching too much Jason Bourne and Homeland episodes. CIA operatives (like the outed ops agent Valerie Plame) have and exist in human connected units requiring leaders, like husband, family, lovers, etc. They operate like nothing seen in film produced fare, the #1 spy in the US is the Russian Ambassador, same goes for the US in Moscow, they lay low..very low and present a semblance of normal lives. They're work is clandestine.

Sokes wrote:

It is thanks to the US that Liberalism is a force. And that is the funny part, for I doubt it's the classical liberal that joins the Marines.
Liberalism depends on it's defence on people who rather focus on group identity than individualism. But then liberalism creates enormous wealth and it's an arrangement that satisfies both parties. .

All I got out of that is both sides enjoy 'capitalism'..except one side pursues it at all cost regardless who gets hurt, the other has braking mechanisms in place based on liberal apprehension at greed.

Sokes wrote:

Similar I find Bush terrible, but would countries all over the world continue to accept US hegemony after 20 years Clinton?

No one can know that. But we do know that years before that it took liberal Jimmy Carter to crack the wall of dictatorial behavior by calling for the universal need of Human Rights and treatment of all peoples as human and with dignity.

No US president went so far as he did to signal the days of dictators were coming to an end. Young people worldwide living wherever on the planet communicating with others via TikTok, FB, whatsapp, et al...all oh that openness to that US president.

A 20 year Clinton-like gov't style would have not see a FUBAR like Iraq. Libya might have reorganized far more peacefully that it's current war torn mess (or not). I

Sokes wrote:

The political left seems to think that everybody shares their values and just desires peace.

That's unrefined...that notion is more of a conservative rightwing mantra 'everyone wants to be us'...

..Liberals have arrived at 'live and they them live and figure out their path forward. They have no wish to shove Americanism down foreign throats, that conservative 'thought' is well pronounced in armed warfare everywhere since Vietnam.
Cuba's treatment by the US is born of that conservative 'do it our way or else' mentality. Obama was headed directly towards letting them sort it out and trade with them normally.

Sokes wrote:

I believe Europe should pay 1 or 2% of GDP to the US for defense services provided.

That's nice but US bases are abroad based on a strategic design to keep the enemy at bay on other shores...therefore by default other nations benefit from having those forces nearby.

The trump 'they need to pay us' ignorance comes from any mouth ignorant of how it was all started and why.
European host nations can make other concessions of value beyond 'payments'...this is bigger than the hired hand mentality.

Sokes wrote:

While human nature can't embrace nonviolence and violence at the same time, history suggests it may be necessary.

It does exactly that every second, every day.

Everything from personal relationships to 'Noriega's our friend..until he isn't'
Same went for Qaddafi and Saddam Hussein.

Human nature exist in between the bookends of nonviolence and violence since the beginning of time.

As Sinclair Lewis said 'Those who resist peaceful change ...make violence inevitable'


BN747

GDB wrote:

When the Berlin Wall came down and then the USSR imploded, those under their shackles voted with their feet.

That is indeed the main argument against my view of buffer states. Russia isn't exactly the place for business to prosper, so why would neighbors like to be aligned to them instead of to Europe/ the West.
That's why I brought the Austria example.

And as you said, some in Russia probably feel entitled to Empire attitude. But Putin didn't invade the Baltics before Nato went there.
In Ukraine we disagree. You think Russia acted, I think they reacted.

Sokes wrote:

Similar I find Bush terrible, but would countries all over the world continue to accept US hegemony after 20 years Clinton?

Countries all over the world don't accept US hegemony after 20 years of Bush and Trump and despite Obama.

wingman wrote:

I'd consider pardoning him too if he wasn't the worst kind of hypocrite there possibly is, one who betrays his country arguing against state espionage against its own citizens but then runs to China and eventually Russia to hide from what he did. Think about that, he ran to the two countries that have perfected and codified the same activity magnified to a level of brutality unimaginable in the US and without any legal, governmental or journalistic recourse for the people to defend themselves and change the system. He shouldn't be executed but he should spend every day of the rest of his life in prison. It's a shame he still walks "free" in Russia, a country that does worse to its own and others every day and what do you hear from Snowden about it? That's right, not a word.

He ran to the only two countries he'd be safe from US reach from who'd accept him. If he'd done something different he'd be quite the idiot. Still waiting for Americans who are so anti-Snowden to pull up their big boy pants and take some collective responsibility for the things your country did exposed by Snowden. Would do you some good not to ignore the depths your country is capable of.

Pyrex wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

Trump still won't get my vote over this, but pardoning Snowden is definitely the right thing to do.

Dutchy wrote:

Snowden should be pardoned, if Trump is the one doing it, fine by me. Even a broken clock is per day twice right;

Agreed. Wonder what is driving this sudden change of heart?

Perhaps the realization that the Intelligence Community that Snowden blew the whistle on is a bunch of deep-seated scumbags? Surviving a 4-year coup attempt by that same IC will do that to a guy.

The one that was confirmed *uh gain* yesterday by a Senate bipartisan report?

Pyrex wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

Perhaps the realization that the Intelligence Community that Snowden blew the whistle on is a bunch of deep-seated scumbags? Surviving a 4-year coup attempt by that same IC will do that to a guy.

Scumbags who kept you safe for 15+ years post-9/11 even with the colossal GF in Iraq. My oh my what selective outrage you have.

Would not be the first institution that let TDS blow away any sort of respect and credibility they once had, and it won't be the last - just ask Lancet.

TDS is real. But its primary symptom is projection:

"Hannity has reportedly been in a position where he has "counseled" the president "at all hours of the day," which has taken a "toll" on the Fox News host, to the point that early on in the Trump administration, Hannity "gained weight and vaped incessantly" possibly due to "Trump-related stress.""
Sean Hannity has reportedly privately admitted he thinks Trump is a 'bats--- crazy person'
https://theweek.com/speedreads/932556/s ... azy-person

I hear the only cure is Oleander.

BN747 wrote:

All I got out of that is both sides enjoy 'capitalism'..except one side pursues it at all cost regardless who gets hurt, the other has braking mechanisms in place based on liberal apprehension at greed.
...
A 20 year Clinton-like gov't style would have not see a FUBAR like Iraq. Libya might have reorganized far more peacefully that it's current war torn mess (or not).
...
That's nice but US bases are abroad based on a strategic design to keep the enemy at bay on other shores...therefore by default other nations benefit from having those forces nearby.

The trump 'they need to pay us' ignorance comes from any mouth ignorant of how it was all started and why.
European host nations can make other concessions of value beyond 'payments'...this is bigger than the hired hand mentality.
...
Everything from personal relationships to 'Noriega's our friend..until he isn't'
Same went for Qaddafi and Saddam Hussein.

Human nature exist in between the bookends of nonviolence and violence since the beginning of time.

As Sinclair Lewis said 'Those who resist peaceful change ...make violence inevitable'


BN747

If the CIA works with strict chain of commands, how to explain Iran-Contra?
Spies live a very dangerous life. It's psychological assumptions and the book "Legacy of ashes" I base my assumptions on.

I don't know about Carter.

I don't understand your capitalism remark.

Even I like Clinton otherwise. I like that he didn't send special forces to Somalia. I don't believe in training tribal soldiers, unless these troops would be under US officers' command as happened in the British Empire with British officers.
But to remove troops after the Battle of Mogadishu wasn't helpful for the maintenance of hegemony. Showing weakness causes itch in dictators' fingers.

Libya was among the more civilized Arab countries.
We agree.
I already wrote that I dislike the support for Sadam. We agree.

I'm no expert in South America. Fighting socialists was at times necessary. But I have a believe the Cold War could have ended under Khrushchev. Older Russian officers knew that it was British and US help that won WW2. Stalin was paranoid. But Khrushchev was comparatively easy going.
Unfortunately Kennedy's narcissist behaviour in the Cuba crisis ended Khrushchev's career. I suppose Russia felt humiliated.
That Kennedy is celebrated for it shows there can be no peace in the world.
And Kennedy was lucky. Khrushchev was a very self confident psychopath. If he had to be a narcissist the Cuba crisis may not have had a happy end.
As the Cold War continued fighting socialism was necessary.
Would Venezuela be better of with a US invasion?

My opinion on Europe paying for US defense services is based on "subsidiary alliance" between the British Indian gov and Indian princes.

I don't understand your peaceful change remark.
But the Arab Spring or the French Revolution doesn't suggest to me that change usually is peaceful.

Never had the world be anywhere as rich as today.
Things go well. I would be careful with too ambitious goals for change.
Funny I say this. I myself would be very ambiguous.

Sokes wrote:

BN747 wrote:

All I got out of that is both sides enjoy 'capitalism'..except one side pursues it at all cost regardless who gets hurt, the other has braking mechanisms in place based on liberal apprehension at greed.
...
A 20 year Clinton-like gov't style would have not see a FUBAR like Iraq. Libya might have reorganized far more peacefully that it's current war torn mess (or not).
...
That's nice but US bases are abroad based on a strategic design to keep the enemy at bay on other shores...therefore by default other nations benefit from having those forces nearby.

The trump 'they need to pay us' ignorance comes from any mouth ignorant of how it was all started and why.
European host nations can make other concessions of value beyond 'payments'...this is bigger than the hired hand mentality.
...
Everything from personal relationships to 'Noriega's our friend..until he isn't'
Same went for Qaddafi and Saddam Hussein.

Human nature exist in between the bookends of nonviolence and violence since the beginning of time.

As Sinclair Lewis said 'Those who resist peaceful change ...make violence inevitable'


BN747

If the CIA works with strict chain of commands, how to explain Iran-Contra?
Spies live a very dangerous life. It's psychological assumptions and the book "Legacy of ashes" I base my assumptions on.

I don't know about Carter.

I don't understand your capitalism remark.

Even I like Clinton otherwise. I like that he didn't send special forces to Somalia. I don't believe in training tribal soldiers, unless these troops would be under US officers' command as happened in the British Empire with British officers.
But to remove troops after the Battle of Mogadishu wasn't helpful for the maintenance of hegemony. Showing weakness causes itch in dictators' fingers.

Libya was among the more civilized Arab countries.
We agree.
I already wrote that I dislike the support for Sadam. We agree.

I'm no expert in South America. Fighting socialists was at times necessary. But I have a believe the Cold War could have ended under Khrushchev. Older Russian officers knew that it was British and US help that won WW2. Stalin was paranoid. But Khrushchev was comparatively easy going.
Unfortunately Kennedy's narcissist behaviour in the Cuba crisis ended Khrushchev's career. I suppose Russia felt humiliated.
That Kennedy is celebrated for it shows there can be no peace in the world.
And Kennedy was lucky. Khrushchev was a very self confident psychopath. If he had to be a narcissist the Cuba crisis may not have had a happy end.
As the Cold War continued fighting socialism was necessary.
Would Venezuela be better of with a US invasion?

My opinion on Europe paying for US defense services is based on "subsidiary alliance" between the British Indian gov and Indian princes.

I don't understand your peaceful change remark.
But the Arab Spring or the French Revolution doesn't suggest to me that change usually is peaceful.

Never had the world be anywhere as rich as today.
Things go well. I would be careful with too ambitious goals for change.
Funny I say this. I myself would be very ambiguous.

Jimmy Carter is the 39th US President.
Being unfamiliar with him is telling of knowledge of US history.

Secondly, I can go deeper into Iran-Contra than most on this board...so that tells me that if you consider this an up and in your face CIA SOP...then
there's nothing to discuss because you are too far from all that went on. Especially if all your information comes from reading articles and documemts. I'm an American who lived through the entire order;, watched every hearing and read most news reports (which means some focused on one area and ignored others) which in of itself 'confuses people.

BN747

Sokes wrote:

I don't know about Carter.

Then you really should not be discussing Iran-Contra, that scam/scandal begun under the Carter regime but was a shadow operation run by no other than CIA Chief George Bush sr.

Iran Contra played a role in keeping the American Hostages longer than necessary to hurt Carter politically and help Reagan for the exact same reason.

I just can't believe you come up empty on all that.

BN747

BN747 wrote:

Jimmy Carter is the 39th US President.
Being unfamiliar with him is telling of knowledge of US history.

Secondly, I can go deeper into Iran-Contra than most on this board...so that tells me that if you consider this an up and in your face CIA SOP...then
there's nothing to discuss because you are too far from all that went on. Especially if all your information comes from reading articles and documemts. I'm an American who lived through the entire order;, watched every hearing and read most news reports (which means some focused on one area and ignored others) which in of itself 'confuses people.

BN747

"Legacy of ashes" isn't an article or document.
It's a book from Pulitzer price winner Tim Weiner and he won the National Book Award for nonfiction for it.
The early stories sound like "CIA is evil". Having built trust with the reader the mood later slowly changes to incompetence. I guess it was the price Weiner had to pay to get the cooperation of some former CIA people. I anyway wonder CIA people were willing to coperate for that book. Unless he already wrote the book based on documents and gave the CIA people a chance to react. But that is speculation.
Wiki says the book is based on more than 50.000 documents and interviews with ten former CIA directors plus a lot more operatives.

Why do news reports confuse people, but not you?
What do you think about books?

Thanks for sharing about Carter.
I don't mind not winning an argument as long as I learn something. I wish all your posts would be like your follow up post.
Can you see the difference?
However your post confirms that spies are leaders for themselves.
Do you have a link for your hypothesis. It makes sense to me, but I would like to know more about it.
I was under the impression it started under Reagan.

It's some time back I read Weiner's book. There are too many details and I can't remember them. But I remember the conclusions I had about spies.
That is not the same as coming empty handed.

I don't understand the expression "up and in your face CIA SOP... ".

Sokes wrote:

BN747 wrote:

Jimmy Carter is the 39th US President.
Being unfamiliar with him is telling of knowledge of US history.

Secondly, I can go deeper into Iran-Contra than most on this board...so that tells me that if you consider this an up and in your face CIA SOP...then
there's nothing to discuss because you are too far from all that went on. Especially if all your information comes from reading articles and documemts. I'm an American who lived through the entire order;, watched every hearing and read most news reports (which means some focused on one area and ignored others) which in of itself 'confuses people.

BN747

"Legacy of ashes" isn't an article or document.
It's a book from Pulitzer price winner Tim Weiner and he won the National Book Award for nonfiction for it.
The early stories sound like "CIA is evil". Having built trust with the reader the mood later slowly changes to incompetence. I guess it was the price Weiner had to pay to get the cooperation of some former CIA people. I anyway wonder CIA people were willing to coperate for that book. Unless he already wrote the book based on documents and gave the CIA people a chance to react. But that is speculation.
Wiki says the book is based on more than 50.000 documents and interviews with ten former CIA directors plus a lot more operatives.

Why do news reports confuse people, but not you?
What do you think about books?

Thanks for sharing about Carter.
I don't mind not winning an argument as long as I learn something. I wish all your posts would be like your follow up post.
Can you see the difference?
However your post confirms that spies are leaders for themselves.
Do you have a link for your hypothesis. It makes sense to me, but I would like to know more about it.
I was under the impression it started under Reagan.

It's some time back I read Weiner's book. There are too many details and I can't remember them. But I remember the conclusions I had about spies.
That is not the same as coming empty handed.

I don't understand the expression "up and in your face CIA SOP... ".

Thank you for that.

News reports confuse almost everyone watching when it's complex issue, myself included.


Guns, oil, money and death are the biggest points of contention when trying to reach any kernel of truth.

When either of those four or any combination converge, the truth is first casualty. Because humans are more apt to succumb to the seduction of beyond normal daily or life time controls.

What helped me wade through the confusion of media reports?
1. Military Service - US Air Force
2. Private business ventures that made money, lost money, exposed me to the influence of money.
3. Worked for a major Hollywood Movie Studio - seeing BS no one dares to write about and other unmentionables.
3a. One lesson learned there was when I was asked to assist in Publicity campaign for an soon to be released film.
I asked the head of Marketing, why are we flying 600 journalists to LA, limos, Four Seasons stay, open bar tabs, etc?
She replied: You see those huge 'MUST See this film' ads?
Me: yeah...
She: That shit ain't free..it's a press junket, we fly them out, wine and dine them and they ass kiss our film no matter how much a bomb it is..
BS Media confirmed
More private business ventures

And then I took on screenwriting because after tons of the crap we produced, my own life had already showed me some amazing things, the studios showed me far more. You learn about people who make the world go around.
You learn about authors of books too. You learn to seek out their politics of they day, the social interactions to gain insight into their perception of the reality he writes about and his personal reality. If he was an Incel and if they wrote harshly of the sexually promiscuous, then that perception must accompany your interpretation of what you read.

Were he a sex hound, like Benjamin Franklin, you're more likely be a more honest, fair and just soul. A sex hound-in-hiding, better known as a 'pervert is more likely to be dishonest, about everything. Most people fall in between the two extremes. Most people will LIE about sex. No only participating, but thinking about it, violent thoughts, morbid thoughts, inappropriate thoughts, etc. Everyone will lie about one or more of those things if forced to answer publicly. That means only one thing - Fear. And your fear can be used against you quite easily if betrayed. Public scorn and judgement can be harsh and unmanageable.

..anyhow one first task (now don't get offended) I took on the Bible.
Instead of reading as instructed by pastors and priest...but read it as I'm a competing author.
Then I obtained several bibles from different decades , centuries....and discovered 'updating and additions'
I then went further and started listen to the atheists Dawkins, Harris, Feynman.
The came Quantum Mechanics, explaining everything no religious writings never will.

Once outside the conformed world in thought..you can see the intentions of 'pronounced people'.

The path to this for me began will in the Air Force where I encountered a US Congressional delegation overseas.
After 10 minutes of people I had only read about in newspapers (no online back then)..my faith in politicians faded.

So while Iran-Contra was going down, I was in the military I knew how some things worked..I could smell the bullshit in 'official' stories.

In the 1960s, what I read about Ronald Reagan made him my 1st new favorite politician (after JFK, RFK of my time).
By the time he was elected..I had learned he was chicken shit coward. He became a super coward by kowtowing to Sen. Joseph McCarthy's
1950s Red Scare, Reagan was the SAG president (Screen Actors Guild) and he crumbled faster than a wet bag at giving names of Hollywood Actors he felt were Communists. Hollywood later made him pay, he never acted (not that he could) again..but he became Gov. of California (I'm sure Nixon had hand in that) and few years later, he was my choice for prez.

But as I said Iran-Contra was playing out in real time just the Steve Bannon bust is playing out right now.

And at that time, I had seen enough political malfeasance to really know how the power plays out and the fears of people are manipulated.

FF to now, I understand our need to politics to work our way through our problems.
It is a necessary evil.
Without it ...we are doomed.

Same argument on 'Police'.
Humans MUST have Police to 'Police' themselves...they are far too undisciplined to do the job themselves.
American policing is rooted in Racism. It has undergone too much forced change to not be where it should be by now.
Among them are thieves, killers, rapists, frauds, etc...
Without 'Policing ourselves with Police' anarchy reigns supreme.

..so yeah, I think I can see who the media is speaking to and whether or not they are reporting or propagating.

I don't understand the expression "up and in your face CIA SOP... ".

SOP - Standard Operating Procedure. Meaning the CIA images seen in movies and television is very in your face braggadocio..in really, your best friend could be a CIA agent and you'd never know it..aka, not in your face.

BN747