if they catch him and have him hauled back here for trial.

Run, Snowden, run. And keep telling the truth!! Don't listen to the lackeys.

“And the truth shall set you free.”

Wait here it is in your linked article
"And although critics have said Snowden should have turned to someone else first — like taking his concerns to Congress, rather than the media — Tamm says he tried that before approaching the Times, and it didn’t work.

“I certainly understand why he did it,” Tamm said."


Way to misrepresent an article. Mojo

"Way to misrepresent an article. Mojo"

There was no misrepresentation of the article. Using cheap tactics to derail a conversation is bullshit.

The point of the OP is to talk about Tamm's point about returning to the U.S.

If you want to discuss another point he made, start your own thread.

You neglected to add the part where he said he understood why Snowden had acted as he had.

"You neglected to add the part where he said he understood why Snowden had acted as he had."


Understanding why he did it, has nothing to do with this point:

"But if Snowden is returned to the United States, Tamm said"

That's an after the fact statement.

You may want to pretend that statement can't be isolated and discussed, but that's purely obfuscation.

I mean, people have taken words, assigning tone to them, and discussed them ad nauseum.

Tamm made the point. It's his, not mine.

Perfectly relevant to the discussion.

got a fair trial!

We're all about liberty and justice for all, right?

going after whistleblowers.

Even though in 2008 he made the same points about transparency that Snowden makes today.


On Edit: Let me just add that it's also this president who HASN'T gone after war criminals and banksters, liberty and justice for all notwithstanding.

You think he's going to be treated fairly?
I haven't said much about this issue but at 67 yrs. old I am saddened to see such willingness of younger people to accept what their government does to them.

This administration has been quite diabolic in their treatment.

So I certainly can't blame Snowden for leaving.

Snip...

At the White House, Mr. Carney enumerated the steps that Mr. Obama has taken to encourage government workers to report abusive policies and wrongdoing. As an example, he pointed to the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, which Mr. Obama signed into law last Nov. 27. It provides for expanded judicial review and enhanced penalties when whistleblowers experience retaliation.

“The Obama administration has demonstrated a strong commitment to protecting whistleblowers,” Mr. Carney said. “There are established procedures that whistleblowers can employ that also protect, or rather, ensure protection of national security interests.”

Because the law wouldn’t cover national-security agencies, Mr. Carney said, the president in October 2012 signed a directive to extend “whistleblower protections to the intelligence and national security communities for the first time.”

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/11/obama-blamed-nsa-spying-revelations-whistleblower-/#ixzz2YsLhxK4T

The Obama administration has been cruelly and unusually punishing in its use of the 1917 Espionage Act to stomp on governmental leakers, truth-tellers, and whistleblowers whose disclosures do not support the president's political ambitions. As Thomas Drake, himself a victim of Obama's crusade against whistleblowers, told me, "This makes a mockery of the entire classification system, where political gain is now incentive for leaking and whistleblowing is incentive for prosecution."

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/06/obamas-whistleblowers-stuxnet-leaks-drones

No bias there.

"In President Obama’s 26 months in office, civilian and military prosecutors have charged five people in cases involving leaking information, more than all previous presidents combined,"

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/04/obama-has-prosecuted-more-whistleblowers-than-all-other-presidents-combined.html

Seriously, it's a done deal. He left the U.S. It matters little (to me) why he left.

Why does it matter so much to you? Is it because you feel compelled to tell us all (over and over) that Edward Snowden is a bad man? Is that it? That's the only thing I can imagine that might be useful in this exercise.

It's message control, imo. Many of us resist control. Thus the frustration on both sides.

-Laelth

Spare me. If you don't want to discuss the point, you're free to back out of the thread.

I'm not here to discuss me with you.

In the long run, you and I are allies, Pro.

But I think the United States is making a mistake in its handling of the Snowden matter, and it makes little sense to remind people that he's a bad man. In fact, it causes a great deal of friction.

But, by all means, carry on.

-Laelth

of 'handling'. Just a shitload of suppositions and he said she said from Snowden defenders. Even the plane snafu is mired in doubt about what really happened. There has not been much said or overtly done by the US beyond the standard line given by Obama and state dept. Instead every single thing that's positive to Snowden gets taken as gospel and the 'truth'.

The 'fact-based' mantra of the left has been thrown out baby and bathwater with this Snowden affair.

But what do I know, I'm just an authoritarian-lover.

It really isn't. Oh, certainly, the Administration hadn't admitted they were behind it, but the facts are pretty clear.

The French, Italians, Portuguese, and Spanish were asked to close their airspace to the Bolivian President's plane. Once on the ground in Austria it was demanded he allow his plane to be searched for Snowden before he would be allowed to leave.

Is there ANYONE besides the US that could have asked, and gotten agreement, from those countries to do that?

One could concoct a plausible story that it was the Russians that planted a false story about Snowden being the plane, but it was the US that broke international law and forced the plane of a sovereign head of state to land and be searched.

stop incessantly posting attacks on Snowden's character. Otherwise the question is entirely legitimate.

" if your motives for post after post attacking Snowden's character are "off limits" I suggest you

stop incessantly posting attacking Snowden's character. Otherwise the question is entirely legitimate."

I mean, may I suggest that "you stop incessantly" focusing on me?

I will continue to criticize Snowden whether or not you like it.

But how many threads per day are enough?

"You absolutely have the right to state your point of view But how many threads per day are enough?"

...stop pretending that this concern is genuine.

I ask with no malice. If your intent is to convince people, I think you do your cause more harm than good by bludgeoning people with 5 to 10 threads saying the same thing.

It is absolutely your right to do so, I suspect it is counter productive if your goal is to persuade.

Whistle blowers are not treated well, regardless of their truth or justification.

Of course, the OP knows this, but would rather Snowden was here and being tortured. He'd have less of an impact being in solitary.

I doubt that anything that happened here if he returned would be any less than 100% secret. There is zero to be gained by that.

Personally if it was me, I wouldn't do it without full immunity from prosecution of any kind, and a complete public hearing before Congress.

why I chose the wrong side of history.

So he made it all a big stage production, fleeing from the STASI American gub'mint, who is determined to make him pay by hanging him from his toes. Stay tuned!

Probably go down in history as the stupidest 'whistleblower' in history.

He's another guy James Comey* may want to forget.



The government of the United States destroyed his mind.

*"We now know much of what Jose Padilla knows, and what we have learned confirms that the President made the right call and that that call saved lives." -- James Comey, Deputy Attorney General; press conference, when asked about Bush torture program.

Like Don Siegelman. But, different.

"No. He's a victim of Just-Us."

...the current administration torture Padilla, or are you suggesting that Snowden's plea is based the actions of past administrations?

Again, are you comparing Padilla to a whistleblower?

You very often repeat part of what my posts say. Then, you add a conclusion I didn't make.

Padilla and Siegelman were convicted of crimes by the same State that cannot find cause to indict the likes of Dick Cheney or George W Bush.

I believe if we were to ask Edward Snowden his thoughts about your question, he'd agree that the state has criminally mistreated Padilla and has falsely tried ("criminally tried" sounds so Orwellian) Siegelman.

I wish we could ask what Padilla thinks. Unfortunately, that is no longer possible due to his mental state.

We do know what Siegelman thinks:

Not a fucking thing!

I wouldn't want to be tried by a state that tortures its citizens, would you?

Again, I wouldn't want to be tried by a state that tortures its citizens, would you?

I thought cruel and unusual punishment was not the American way!?

Apparently, he was treated that way during a period of the 43 months of isolation and solitary he endured before trial.

And this guy is an American citizen, arrested in the USA.

I'm surprised they didn't break his legs or arms too. Sad to think we still have all the standards and practices in place that Dickless Cheney left behind. We should be better than that.

At the heart of this issue is a gross violation of the 4th Amendment. The more apt question is "What kind of fool would expect any kind of a fair trial in a country that operates Gitmo, holding people for for 10 years without any due process, resulting in forced feeding tubes?"

Any more questions you don't understand about justice in the world today?

Our system has a network of laws that are written by outfits such as ALEC. "Justice" can only be as good as the laws that supposedly govern the system.

What kind of due process did Bradley Manning receive? He was essentially tortured for 6 months.

It really is absurd to ask why Snowden would have concerns about the kind of justice he would be likely to receive here.

Not just absurd. Asinine.

I have to disagree.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023022833
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10023219799
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023019280
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023194277
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023079419
http://election.democraticunderground.com/10023137705
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023042710
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023114551
http://election.democraticunderground.com/10023090261
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023171649
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023167528
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023137705
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023200710

The gift that keeps on giving (and that was 3 minutes just from the last month)

produced and directed by the OP who now has over 150 threads that are just about Snowden. I think the O word applies- no not that one- but if I use it, my post will get hidden. In fact, this post may well get hidden just for, well for whatever.

The DOJ would deny him access to an attorney. They would grill him. They would put a gag order on him. And he'd never get a fair trial....especially not in Virginia which is VERY favorable to the intelligence community.

Snowden's father said he thinks Edward would return to the US if he gets to pick the trial's venue and won't be forced to shut up by the government. The DOJ wants none of that. Their whole point in getting him back here is to shut him up.

All support him, so it's particularly disingenuous of you to use them to try and make your case, when in reality they do the opposite.

"All support him, so it's particularly disingenuous of you to use them to try and make your case, when in reality they do the opposite. "

...a "disingenuous" point:

you should really give it a break prosense. I don't know what your motive is except that it's obsessive and apologetic for creeping authoritarianism.

treatment?

You have a lot of trust in our justice system? Some folks may differ with you slightly on that issue?

He apparently doesn't feel compelled to submit himself to the tender mercies of the US legal system. That's kind of the point of seeking asylum.

This administration has chosen to take a fantastically aggressive position on whistleblowers and their leaks. And the reality is that the leakers do not have the resources to defend against an aggressive investigation/prosecution.

Some would argue that what Bradley Manning did was blow the whistle of U.S. military war crimes. How'd that work out for him?

largely ignored and why Snowden is a much bigger deal that they will do anything to shut up:

I'd be scared too.

Dark days indeed.