This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Edward Snowden

13567

Comments

  • ~These are a few of my fa-vo-rite thingsss~
  • He knows the moment he slips from the public eye he's a dead man. He's just grasping onto life as long as he can before he gets drone'd.
    Man, I know you're joking because you're not stupid, but I've seen SO MANY PEOPLE very seriously thinking that he's going to get hit by a drone strike. Oh yeah, you fuckin' morons, the US government is going to deliver an air-strike directly into the heart of Hong Kong, nobody will mind that at all because 'Murrica and we is world police. Fuckwits.
  • He knows the moment he slips from the public eye he's a dead man. He's just grasping onto life as long as he can before he gets drone'd.
    Man, I know you're joking because you're not stupid, but I've seen SO MANY PEOPLE very seriously thinking that he's going to get hit by a drone strike. Oh yeah, you fuckin' morons, the US government is going to deliver an air-strike directly into the heart of Hong Kong, nobody will mind that at all because 'Murrica and we is world police. Fuckwits.
    Indeed. If the US government actually does want to rub him out, they're not going to use a drone. It'll be some sort of professional assassin, whether it's an actual operative working for the CIA or some other government agency or a mercenary on their payroll. Personally, I think it's most likely to be a mercenary as that would probably lend to better plausible deniability, but I could be wrong here. Anyway, said assassin would probably try to use some discreet method of taking him out that most resembles death by accident or natural causes as I don't think "making an example" of Snowden is really beneficial, whereas quietly shutting him up probably would be.
  • Maybe the Chinese govt will drone strike him for us.
  • edited June 2013
    If they (whoever they may be) wanted to get rid of Snowden, they would just do him like Jimmy Hoffa. If he just vanishes then they can plausibly deny doing anything to him. After all, it's not unreasonable to expect a fellow like that to go into deep hiding is it?

    Killing him now would make him a martyr. If they were going to do anything right now it would have to involve getting him back in the country to stand trial. Mush better to wait until six months from now when he is largely forgotten by the public at large then make him "disappear".


    I'm fully in support of the fellow. He did what he thought was right with the full knowledge of how much it was going to punch him in the nuts. You have to admire that kind of integrity. You can also pity it.
    Post edited by Drunken Butler on
  • I'm fully in support of the fellow. He did what he thought was right with the full knowledge of how much it was going to punch him in the nuts. You have to admire that kind of integrity. You can also pity it.
    Same here... I can't say for certain if I'd have the guts to do what he did in his circumstances, even though deep down inside I'd know it was the right thing to do.
  • Maybe the Chinese govt will drone strike him for us.
    Ooh, do you think they take requests?

  • Indeed. If the US government actually does want to rub him out, they're not going to use a drone. It'll be some sort of professional assassin, whether it's an actual operative working for the CIA or some other government agency or a mercenary on their payroll. Personally, I think it's most likely to be a mercenary as that would probably lend to better plausible deniability, but I could be wrong here. Anyway, said assassin would probably try to use some discreet method of taking him out that most resembles death by accident or natural causes as I don't think "making an example" of Snowden is really beneficial, whereas quietly shutting him up probably would be.
    Heart attack gun?
  • edited June 2013

    Indeed. If the US government actually does want to rub him out, they're not going to use a drone. It'll be some sort of professional assassin, whether it's an actual operative working for the CIA or some other government agency or a mercenary on their payroll. Personally, I think it's most likely to be a mercenary as that would probably lend to better plausible deniability, but I could be wrong here. Anyway, said assassin would probably try to use some discreet method of taking him out that most resembles death by accident or natural causes as I don't think "making an example" of Snowden is really beneficial, whereas quietly shutting him up probably would be.
    Heart attack gun?
    Yep, possibly, although given Snowden's youth a heart attack would be kinda suspicious. They are extremely rare in people under 40. I know first-hand as the pulmonary embolism I had at age 31 was first misdiagnosed as a heart attack (the symptoms are similar enough at first that you can't tell the difference without further tests) and the cardiologist on call was like, "damn, that's unfortunate, I never heard of someone so young having a heart attack."
    Post edited by Dragonmaster Lou on
  • Its far to complicated to kill him, far easier however to discredit him. If they he dies regardless of how it happens then people will asume foul play on behalf of America. Yet it is much easier, at least at home (the US), to portray him in a negative light and call his reputation into question. Its not 007 here at the most he might have some people come round and tell him to watch himself, thats about it.
  • Its far to complicated to kill him, far easier however to discredit him. If they he dies regardless of how it happens then people will asume foul play on behalf of America. Yet it is much easier, at least at home (the US), to portray him in a negative light and call his reputation into question. Its not 007 here at the most he might have some people come round and tell him to watch himself, thats about it.
    That's already what's kind of going on with the various smear campaigns against him.
  • Then that is all that will most likely happen. That or the news just stops talking about it, he fades away and then buggers off.
  • Snowden may very well be treasonous, but I would hope more people would be willing to do the things he's done, during ANY administration.
    Because freedom of speech?
  • Snowden may very well be treasonous, but I would hope more people would be willing to do the things he's done, during ANY administration.
    Because freedom of speech?
    Not so much freedom of speech, but protection against unreasonable search and seizure in this case.
  • Last I checked, American's are not being subjected to unreasonable search and seizure...
  • Last I checked, American's are not being subjected to unreasonable search and seizure...
    Wait, what? I think you and I have different definitions of unreasonable.

  • Last I checked, American's are not being subjected to unreasonable search and seizure...
    Wait, what? I think you and I have different definitions of unreasonable.

    The courts likely have an entirely different definition than anyone here. Don't forget that in any legal statute, the words used often have special (usually more specific) definitions that differ from colloquial use.

    And what is considered "reasonable" has been determined primarily through case law.
  • Also the NSA has compared the data they are collecting to what is on the outside of an envelope.
  • Last I checked, American's are not being subjected to unreasonable search and seizure...
    So the NSA getting the phone records of at least every Verizon user, and likely the users of every other cell provider, is not "unreasonable?"
  • Last I checked, American's are not being subjected to unreasonable search and seizure...
    So the NSA getting the phone records of at least every Verizon user, and likely the users of every other cell provider, is not "unreasonable?"
    The data they got was analogous to the outside of an envelope.
  • They did get warrants, which makes them legally reasonable -- that being said, the parameters for what warrants one of these warrants are VERY unclear. My major objection to the NSA's surveillance is that so little is clear. "Terrorism" can take so many forms, and be classified in such odd and inconsistent ways (up until the late '60s, the Black Panthers were classified by the FBI as a terrorism group, but the Klan wasn't) that I can't be certain that I haven't already been classified a terrorist just because of the subjects of e-mails.

    Also, as someone whose phone may or may not have been directly used in several drug deals, but who himself was not (I was young and dumb, okay...), it kind of directly affects me.
  • Last I checked, American's are not being subjected to unreasonable search and seizure...
    So the NSA getting the phone records of at least every Verizon user, and likely the users of every other cell provider, is not "unreasonable?"
    The data they got was analogous to the outside of an envelope.
    Does the NSA need to see the outside of all envelopes sent through the postal system?
  • Last I checked, American's are not being subjected to unreasonable search and seizure...
    So the NSA getting the phone records of at least every Verizon user, and likely the users of every other cell provider, is not "unreasonable?"
    The data they got was analogous to the outside of an envelope.
    Does the NSA need to see the outside of all envelopes sent through the postal system?
    Perhaps to make sure they're sent properly. ;)
  • edited June 2013
    He knows the moment he slips from the public eye he's a dead man. He's just grasping onto life as long as he can before he gets drone'd.
    Man, I know you're joking because you're not stupid, but I've seen SO MANY PEOPLE very seriously thinking that he's going to get hit by a drone strike. Oh yeah, you fuckin' morons, the US government is going to deliver an air-strike directly into the heart of Hong Kong, nobody will mind that at all because 'Murrica and we is world police. Fuckwits.
    Yeah, those people are pretty dumb. If the US government wants to kill this guy, they'll reach back into their Cold War playbook to do it.

    Which may mean they'll need to wait for him to grow a beard so they can put itching powder into it.

    My default assumption is that US intelligence agencies are both more malevolent than I wish they were, and more incompetent than I can imagine.
    Post edited by open_sketchbook on
  • Last I checked, American's are not being subjected to unreasonable search and seizure...
    So the NSA getting the phone records of at least every Verizon user, and likely the users of every other cell provider, is not "unreasonable?"
    The data they got was analogous to the outside of an envelope.
    Does the NSA need to see the outside of all envelopes sent through the postal system?
    Perhaps to make sure they're sent properly. ;)
    I would hope the postal workers could do that well enough on their own.
  • Yeah, those people are pretty dumb. If the US government wants to kill this guy, they'll reach back into their Cold War playbook to do it.

    Which may mean they'll need to wait for him to grow a beard so they can put itching powder into it.

    My default assumption is that US intelligence agencies are both more malevolent than I wish they were, and more incompetent than I can imagine.
    Hey man, technology marches on. We've at least got exploding cigars now.

  • edited June 2013
    Yeah, those people are pretty dumb. If the US government wants to kill this guy, they'll reach back into their Cold War playbook to do it.

    Which may mean they'll need to wait for him to grow a beard so they can put itching powder into it.

    My default assumption is that US intelligence agencies are both more malevolent than I wish they were, and more incompetent than I can imagine.
    Hey man, technology marches on. We've at least got exploding cigars now.
    Hurrah! Reality is catching up with ACME!
    Post edited by Victor Frost on
  • Yeah, those people are pretty dumb. If the US government wants to kill this guy, they'll reach back into their Cold War playbook to do it.

    Which may mean they'll need to wait for him to grow a beard so they can put itching powder into it.

    My default assumption is that US intelligence agencies are both more malevolent than I wish they were, and more incompetent than I can imagine.
    Hey man, technology marches on. We've at least got exploding cigars now.
    Hurrah! Reality is catching up with ACME!
    There was a period where myself and my friends carried at least two exploding cigarettes in our packs, for every pack.

  • edited June 2013
    So the US is seeking extradition of Snowden from Hong Kong, but it looks more and more like the Chinese aren't too keen on cooperating. Probably has to do with the info he leaked that the US hacked Chinese computer networks, including telephone companies, universities, and trans-oceanic telco companies.
    Post edited by Victor Frost on
  • So the US is seeking extradition of Snowden from Hong Kong, but it looks more and more like the Chinese aren't too keen on cooperating. Probably has to do with the info he leaked that the US hacked Chinese computer networks, including telephone companies, universities, and trans-oceanic telco companies.
    So that's why he leaked those facts, despite so many people saying "he'd gone to far beyond public interest". Instead he was looking out for his own not-getting-renditioned-and-waterboardeded interest. Genius.
Sign In or Register to comment.