Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: skinowski who wrote (101528)	6/24/2013 3:45:30 PM
From: Joseph Silent	5 Recommendations Recommended By diddlysquatz Fiscally Conservative ggersh KobaltBlauw pakalbk Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 218916

Snowden has little to show in a sense of accomplishments I don't pretend to be an expert on this discussion, but it seems to me that accomplishments matter little here. I'll go with simplicity. Arguing from first principles, the issue is simple. When you are faced with something you believe is wrong, you either speak out or you remain silent. How you know something is wrong has little to do with accomplishments. Sadly, clear vision often comes with the fewest badges. What stokes one's ego can cloud one's vision --- I see it where I work. ES chose to speak out. Given what he knows and has experienced, he does not seem to have the trust that others may have in our justice system and I do not blame him. I don't see ES as a hero in mythological terms (there is a more complex process there: think Prometheus, Davy Crockett, William Tell, etc) though it is almost always the case that someone who performs a great service to society breaks some law or makes some powers terribly unhappy. As I recall, even J Christ broke laws. In the myth motif, one who performs a service to society in this way is usually crucified because there is always confusion on how to accept the gift.

To: skinowski who wrote (101528)	6/24/2013 5:16:20 PM
From: Maurice Winn	3 Recommendations Recommended By Joe S Pack pakalbk RJA_ Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 218916

Are you worried about law-breaking by important people or only by those who defy the mighty and criminal? How worried are you about Clapper for example? Meanwhile, John Kerry lines up to make fun of himself: <*This morning,* Kerry said it would be "deeply troubling" if Russia or Hong Kong had advance notice of Snowden's departure from China and still allowed his travel. *Kerry:* ‘‘It would be deeply troubling, obviously, if they had adequate notice, and notwithstanding that, they make the decision willfully to ignore that and not live by the standards of the law." > Yes, imagine not living by the standards of the law. Tsk tsk.... Does anyone think Kerry is worried about the constitutional and other laws broken by him and his mates who run the show? It's laughable. It's not that privates determine national policy. To answer your broader question, <That is only important in relation to one of my "broader" questions - namely, do we really want army privates - or IT security technicians - to determine national policy? I think my other "broader" questions may also have validity. > It's important that They the People are the ones who determine national policy as best they can via their elected representatives. To achieve that, which is the aim of the constitution, which the president and other elected official are bound to uphold, They the People need to know what is being done in their name, such as Collateral Murder and Total Data Collection and Turnkey Tyranny. Privates and security people like Edward are some of the few in a position to know about any criminal activity. As adjudicated in the Nuremberg trials, it's not a valid defence to say "I knew they, and I, were doing mass murder and crimes against humanity and generally breaking the law, breaching the constitutional and being a paid co-conspirator, but I was just following orders and doing my job." As I have explained, it's not legal to enter into secrecy agreements which turn out to be secrets about illegal activity. Such illegal agreements are not valid and are unenforceable. When one swears under oath to maintain the secrets of the POTUS and NSA and defend the constitution, that doesn't mean one is then free to conspire to break the constitutional requirements, commit crimes and use the IRS to harass and harm people who are opponents. Yes, They the People need army privates and all sorts of other people who comprise They the People to disclose things which harm the interests and break the laws of They the People. Your thinking seems to be that only important people should have a say, such as military equipment manufacturers, preferred financial institutions, favourite car makers and other cronies of friends in high places, along with the political appointees they have financed into positions of power. I'd back people such as Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning and the Reddit man and others such as them including a few other NSA employees who obviously did not personally benefit other than in a moral and ethical sense from disclosing crimes and constitutional breaches. On the contrary, they incurred very high personal cost, but ethical people do that. If they were selling legitimate secrets to the Russians for loot then escaping to Argentina, they could reasonably be seen as self-dealing criminals, but as you know, that is not the case. Nor were they spies for a foreign power aiming to debilitate the USA in favour of people planning to attack, which would also be an understandable crime against They the People. Selling atomic bomb secrets to the USSR for example would be reasonably considered traitorous. Edward has not done anything slightly like that. Nor did Bradley Manning. The criticisms of Edward are laughable. "He hasn't even got a PhD or other supersonic qualification so who does he think he is?" Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and notable others also lack official credentialism. It's possible to judge people, their words and actions without needing to know their credentials. Your argument is one for banning anyone but officially approved people from voting. < Snowden has little to show in a sense of accomplishments - except for being, apparently, a very smart man - and capable of performing the tasks that were assigned to him. That is only important in relation to one of my "broader" questions - namely, do we really want army privates > Do we really want people who can barely read from having a vote to determine the POTUS and whether Turnkey Tyranny is a good idea? Information should [in your theory] be held only by approved people appointed by lobbyists and the ignorant electorate. Edward did not determine policy, he simply disclosed some aspects of policy to They the People who are in fact the entitled people of the constitution of the USA. The officials report to They the People, not the reverse. Which is the point of Edward's concerns. Mqurice