Edward Snowden reveals the 21th Centurys' Global Big Brother

There are huge fundamental differences in the actions of China and Russia vs the US with respect to cyper intrusion. Whether they are of critical import depends a lot on what is being discussed. In any case Feinstein is hardly a trustworthy authority on the matter.

Not really. Indeed that is specifically prohibited. If they are already on foreign soil they can be moved from one place to another however.

??? Do you understand what revoking his passport means? That's a rehtorical question as obviously you don't. He can still return to the US. It does however make it more difficult for him to travel elsewhere but even that isn't prevented.

Which hardly prevents them from returning/extraditeing him.

Do you really thing the Russians are that dumb? They are simply trying to figure out which way they can gain the most from this.

Source please.

Care to source just what laws Putin would be brakeing by handing him over? And again no blackmail is involved but of course you'll reject that as it doesn't fit your agenda.

Again you display incredible bias and ignorance. I should be used to it by now but for some reason I'm not.

 

So you and Snowden agree, I don't see that as a very strong postion but that's just my opinion. Care to state just what laws the US is disregarding in it's attempt to see him returned and arrested? By the way they know where he is so it's hardly a "global manhunt".

The best response I can think of to that is "Bullshit"

Or not, with the "or not" being the far more likely.

Not in this reality.

News flash. It happens all the time.

He does? Funny very few people here would believe that. He would be arrested and put on trial. I suspect that he would have a decent chance of not even being convicted. If convicted such a harsh sentence would be unlikely.

Wrong again or should I say still. Here's a news flash, just because some authorities may have broken the law doesn't mean that Snowden is innocent (it likely would result in a milder sentance if he's convicted though). At this point however neither Snowden or any officials have been tried for the crimes in question.

Didn't you post a "wrong is wrong" photo not too long ago? What happened to that sentiment?

???? He is accused with considerable justification of breaking the law, he has even admited it and you are saying that anyone who states that should be "persecuted for crimes against humanity"? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Do you realize just how biased you sound? Do you have any idea what rational or logical discourse is?

 

Now you have Obama, but once you had a great president, Ronald Reagan:

You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down -- up to man's age-old dream -- the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism, and regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

Ronald Reagan, Oct. 27, 1964, "A Time for Choosing" speech

 

Ahhh, so it is OK to sell arms to terrorist nations. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

That sounds strange. Please, define the term "terrorist nation".

 

http://www.state.gov/j/ct/list/c14151.htm

Well, Reagan didn't trade "our" freedom for security, he trade "our" weapons for cash for "our" security.

 

Holy cow. A quote from Ronald Reagan from nineteen sixty four...Nice...Is there a German word for enjoying people arguing on a forum? If not, I'll coin one. ..Woondurfabben: the inexorable appeal of standing from affar, observing grey matter beat downs...I'd help, but my back has been acting up.

 

Come now "bat" man, certainly you can come up with something to add to this discussion.

 

I wasn't a fan of Nancy Reagan. She didn't seem that friendly.

 

... but she was a perfect match for good old Ronnie and that's what counts. I was saddened with his years of slow decay.

 

Now the Britishe Geheime Staats Polizei attacks those who want to speak freely. Grunwalds copies of Snowden Files are destroyed, his coworker imprisoned in the British jail.

Is 2013 repetition of Ggermany 1933?

 

Grunwald? You mean the same Grunwald that Tweeted this over the weekend.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/17/michael-grunwald-julian-assange_n_3773981.html

Looks like the two Woodward & Bernstein wannabes are having a little tiff. What a shame.

 

However, I believe you meant Greenwald, not Grunwald.

 

You're quite right my dear Takao. There are two very different -walds in this mess: the one who would like very much see Assange 6 feet below and the other -wald who prefers to stay away from the mess but close to Copacabana.

I took the below photo from an article entittled:

Welcome to the Police State UK

 

Police State?

Since when does a Police State let you keep stolen property?

 

The problem is not that police prevents crime but the real problem is that the Police State wants to investigate private matters of innocent people, whatever "innocent" might mean. But the real tragedy of western "democracies" is that their innocent citizens do not oppose unfounded surveilance. Quite in contrary, they want spies to sneak into their private lives.

DDR was much better than the USA/UK. East Germans opposed spies!

 

If RIAA can drag grandmothers into court(not to mention dead grandmothers and homeless people) for downloading MP3s, in all certainty, the government will come after you if you download their secrets.

Welcome to the digital world.

 

East Germany opposed foreign spies...However, having their own was just perfectly fine.

 

East German int was a formidable opponent once the Ruskie let them off the leash.

If they had had a version of Snowden he would be six feet under now. As many are.

 

What police state are you talking about? If you are talking about the US or the UK as this thread implies then they hardly qualify as police states. Furthermore they aren't particularly interested in private matters of innocent people. What they are interested in is info on criminal acts or potential criminal acts. Note that said "acts" would preclude them being "innocent". Now in investigating said interest they may gain info on "private matters of innocent people". Just what is done to prevent or ameleriate that is a concern.

What planet do you live on? Even well founded surveilance has been opposed in western democracies (no paranthesis needed). Please provide support for your contentions in the second sentence.

It's rather obvious that you see what you want to see and are blind to what you don't.