ajoknoblauch
Registered
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2013
- Messages
- 6,358
- Likes
- 3,907
Interview With Edward Snowden - Banned In Usa
- Thread starter Joe
- Start date
Joe
Registered
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2007
- Messages
- 2,694
- Likes
- 3,113
The government can rely on the public losing interest once he's renditioned and there is no news of him for months on end. First he will be subjected to torture, eg. waterboarding, etc. in order to gather evidence and break his spirit. He will not be allowed visitors - not even his family. Then he will be found guilty in a secret trial. That's the law - it's not negotiable and the government hasn't made any offers otherwise. If they have I'd love to see them.
The government knows that as long as the football is playing, the people will lose interest.
Jaredberryman
Registered
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 908
- Likes
- 891
Joe, maybe you're right, but I was thinking more along the lines of what knoblauch was saying. If there was a way to make a big fiasco out of a public trial and get the whole media behind him, it could really generate a change. As it stands now, nothing much will change. An act like that, if pulled off well by Snowden and the media, could get enough people riled up to elicit change. Although I'm not planning to take a plane to Washington to protest, I definitely would consider donating to a defense fund or an organization that forms to watch the NSA. Personally, I'd rather not be spied upon by my country through Angry Birds.
At any rate, Snowden is clearly not an idiot, and I'm sure he has evaluated this at all sorts of different angles. Which is why I mentioned that none of us probably have the full picture of what is going on.
My opinion on abortion was fleshed out in another thread, and you are welcome to do a search on it. Please do not post here about it in this thread because we are talking about something else.
At any rate, Snowden is clearly not an idiot, and I'm sure he has evaluated this at all sorts of different angles. Which is why I mentioned that none of us probably have the full picture of what is going on.
My opinion on abortion was fleshed out in another thread, and you are welcome to do a search on it. Please do not post here about it in this thread because we are talking about something else.
First I'd like to give my two cents on the word "hero" as it is tossed around today. For example, the firemen who died on 911. They were all called "heroes." A few might have actually been "heroes", but my guess is that most of them died in the line of duty. I'm not saying that they were not brave, but, in my opinion, that does not make them "heroes."
My definition of a hero is more in line with Brits definition of hero - at least, how they apply it to the Victorian Cross. That is, it is not enough simply be brave and rescue people.
From my limited understanding of the award, it is not enough to save the life of another person(s) if your life too would be saved in the process. You must first enter (or stay) in the situation from a position of safety and then exhibit your act of bravery.
For example, John Baskeyfield (1922 – 1944) was an English VC recipient.
---
On 20th September, 1944, during the battle of Arnhem, John Baskeyfield was in charge of a 6-pounder anti-tank gun. The enemy developed a major attack on this sector with infantry, tanks and self-propelled guns with the obvious intent to break into and overrun the Battalion position. During the early stage of the action the crew commanded by this N.C.O. was responsible for the destruction of two Tiger tanks and at least one self propelled gun, thanks to the coolness and daring of Baskeyfield, who, with complete disregard for his own safety, allowed each tank to come well within 100 yards of his gun before opening fire.
In the course of this preliminary engagement Baskeyfield was badly wounded in the leg and the remainder of his crew were either killed or badly wounded. During the brief respite after this engagement Baskeyfield refused to be carried to safter and spent his time attending to his gun and shouting encouragement to his comrades in neighbouring trenches.
After a short interval the enemy renewed the attack with even greater ferocity than before, under cover of intense mortar and shell fire. Manning his gun quite alone Baskeyfield continued to fire round after round at the enemy until his gun was put out of action. By this time his activity was the main factor in keeping the enemy tanks at bay. The fact that the surviving men in his vicinity were held together and kept in action was undoubtedly due to his magnificent example and outstanding courage. Time after time enemy attacks were launched and driven off. Finally, when his gun was knocked out, Lance Sergeant Baskeyfield crawled under intense enemy fire to another 6-pounder gun nearby, the crew of which had been killed, and proceeded to man it single-handed. With this gun he engaged an enemy self propelled gun which was approaching to attack. Another soldier crawled across the open ground to assist him but was killed almost at once. Baskeyfield succeeded in firing two rounds at the self propelled gun, scoring one direct hit which rendered it ineffective. Whilst preparing to fire a third shot, however, he was killed by a shell from a supporting enemy tank.
---
Now, as for Edward Snowden, I'm still on the fence about what he did. I'm must be honest and confess that I have not followed this very closely. However, if what he exposed was that the United States government was breaking domestic laws, I applauded what he did. Just as Richard Nixon was not above the law, nor is the United States Government. If what he leaked was not an illegal act, he divulged vital information and should be tried as a traitor.
OK, so let's assume for a moment that what he did was expose illegal actions by the government. Is the a "hero?" Under my definition, not by a long shot. A "hero" would have stayed and tried the best he could to avoid his captors while leaking even more information. His first thought was to find a safe place for himself and then he took action.
So, for me, regardless of whether his actions were right or wrong, he is not a "hero."
By the way, I am an American.
Michael
My definition of a hero is more in line with Brits definition of hero - at least, how they apply it to the Victorian Cross. That is, it is not enough simply be brave and rescue people.
From my limited understanding of the award, it is not enough to save the life of another person(s) if your life too would be saved in the process. You must first enter (or stay) in the situation from a position of safety and then exhibit your act of bravery.
For example, John Baskeyfield (1922 – 1944) was an English VC recipient.
---
On 20th September, 1944, during the battle of Arnhem, John Baskeyfield was in charge of a 6-pounder anti-tank gun. The enemy developed a major attack on this sector with infantry, tanks and self-propelled guns with the obvious intent to break into and overrun the Battalion position. During the early stage of the action the crew commanded by this N.C.O. was responsible for the destruction of two Tiger tanks and at least one self propelled gun, thanks to the coolness and daring of Baskeyfield, who, with complete disregard for his own safety, allowed each tank to come well within 100 yards of his gun before opening fire.
In the course of this preliminary engagement Baskeyfield was badly wounded in the leg and the remainder of his crew were either killed or badly wounded. During the brief respite after this engagement Baskeyfield refused to be carried to safter and spent his time attending to his gun and shouting encouragement to his comrades in neighbouring trenches.
After a short interval the enemy renewed the attack with even greater ferocity than before, under cover of intense mortar and shell fire. Manning his gun quite alone Baskeyfield continued to fire round after round at the enemy until his gun was put out of action. By this time his activity was the main factor in keeping the enemy tanks at bay. The fact that the surviving men in his vicinity were held together and kept in action was undoubtedly due to his magnificent example and outstanding courage. Time after time enemy attacks were launched and driven off. Finally, when his gun was knocked out, Lance Sergeant Baskeyfield crawled under intense enemy fire to another 6-pounder gun nearby, the crew of which had been killed, and proceeded to man it single-handed. With this gun he engaged an enemy self propelled gun which was approaching to attack. Another soldier crawled across the open ground to assist him but was killed almost at once. Baskeyfield succeeded in firing two rounds at the self propelled gun, scoring one direct hit which rendered it ineffective. Whilst preparing to fire a third shot, however, he was killed by a shell from a supporting enemy tank.
---
Now, as for Edward Snowden, I'm still on the fence about what he did. I'm must be honest and confess that I have not followed this very closely. However, if what he exposed was that the United States government was breaking domestic laws, I applauded what he did. Just as Richard Nixon was not above the law, nor is the United States Government. If what he leaked was not an illegal act, he divulged vital information and should be tried as a traitor.
OK, so let's assume for a moment that what he did was expose illegal actions by the government. Is the a "hero?" Under my definition, not by a long shot. A "hero" would have stayed and tried the best he could to avoid his captors while leaking even more information. His first thought was to find a safe place for himself and then he took action.
So, for me, regardless of whether his actions were right or wrong, he is not a "hero."
By the way, I am an American.
Michael
Which part of your definition does not fit for Snowden?
He had a 200k job in Hawaii and could just go with the flow and live a luxury life. Instead, he knowingly gave up his life so the public knows about the situation. He worked long enough in the environment to know what happens with whistleblowers. So I'd call this a clear sacrifice and I'm sure not a lot of people would have taken the same path in his shoes...
He had a 200k job in Hawaii and could just go with the flow and live a luxury life. Instead, he knowingly gave up his life so the public knows about the situation. He worked long enough in the environment to know what happens with whistleblowers. So I'd call this a clear sacrifice and I'm sure not a lot of people would have taken the same path in his shoes...
bigbadwolf
Registered
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2005
- Messages
- 1,210
- Likes
- 189
If he "turns himself in in a very public way," there will be some passive protesters standing with placards at street corners, who will be ignored by passing motorists. Eventually the protesters will get bored and melt away. There will be a media blackout in any case. Snowden will be tried in secret -- if indeed tried at all -- by some kangaroo court, inevitably found guilty, and locked up while the key is thrown away. End of story.
"He had a 200k job in Hawaii and could just go with the flow and live a luxury life. Instead, he knowingly gave up his life so the public knows about the situation. He worked long enough in the environment to know what happens with whistleblowers. So I'd call this a clear sacrifice and I'm sure not a lot of people would have taken the same path in his shoes... "
Thorsten,
I was not arguing that he did not make a "sacrifice." The argument was whether he was, as posted earlier, a "hero."
Are you arguing, that because someone gives up a "luxury life" they can be classified a "hero?" If so, the word has lost any Homeric quality it might once have had.
Thorsten,
I was not arguing that he did not make a "sacrifice." The argument was whether he was, as posted earlier, a "hero."
Are you arguing, that because someone gives up a "luxury life" they can be classified a "hero?" If so, the word has lost any Homeric quality it might once have had.
